Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to take note of the importance of this debate and, as well, the respect that we as Members of Congress owe each other and this institution. I have long said that our longevity comes not only because of the democratic principles of our Constitution, but because there is the groundwork of the Founding Fathers and those who took to the floor to debate such raging issues as the question of slavery in the 1800s. Each time we are given the microphone, I think that we should adhere to that respect, and each time we put our pen to paper to create legislation, it should equally be based on the grounds of respect and understanding of the constitutional divisions of the three branches of government. Today I think we have failed. This is, as I said, a personal attack against the President. If we would read the resolution, we would see five items that completely dictate the failure of the Obama administration. Let me say that all of us concede the point that section 1035 that was added under the Obama administration in 2012--or, more recently-- does ask the President to give a 30-day notice to Congress. No other President has been asked to do that. The President has been very clear on his intent to close Guantanamo. Many of us have been to Guantanamo. But the issue before us was not an effort to close Guantanamo. And so to suggest that there was malicious intent of this President is, from my perspective, showing disrespect and dishonor to us, the institution, and the three branches of government. Let me be very clear. There is a debate on the powers that the President has under the war powers. Some say there is a statute that says he had to notify us. But there was an explanation. This very strong committee, the Armed Services Committee, with the chairman, whom I respect, and the ranking member, had a very thorough hearing that many of us were able to read some of the transcript where the Secretary of Defense came and explained. I think one of the key elements for me as a member of Homeland Security is that the Secretary made it very clear that this was a military operation with very high risk, as spoken by Secretary Hagel on June 11, 2014, and a very short window of opportunity that we didn't want to jeopardize, both for the sake of Sergeant Bergdahl--there is a sentence that congratulates us for not leaving our precious treasure behind--and our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure this return. There are those of us who remember that brief glimpse that we had of the rescue. Our men and women swooped down and picked up Sergeant Bergdahl. It was a military action. This is an unnecessary resolution, Mr. Speaker. It is wrongly condemning. The President had authority and he explained what the action was. Vote against this resolution. It is untimely and wrong. Vote against it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing debate of H. Res. 644, and the underlying resolution. I oppose the resolution because at bottom it is nothing more than another partisan attack on the President and will make it difficult for this body and the Administration to find the common ground and goodwill needed to devise and support policies needed to address the real threats and challenges facing our country, particularly the threat posed by ISIS. H. Res. 644, a resolution disapproving of the Obama administration's failure to provide Congress with 30 days advance notice before making the transfer of certain Guantanamo detainees that secured the release of an American soldier, U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Sgt. Bergdahl's health was poor and rapidly deteriorating at the time his release from captivity was secured by his Commander-in-Chief, President Obama, who speaking for the nation, said on June 3, 2014 in response to critics of his decision: The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule, and that is: we don't leave our men or women in uniform behind. Regardless of the circumstances, we still get an American soldier back if he's held in captivity. Period. Full stop. Mr. Speaker, the resolution condemns the Obama Administration for failing to comply with the 30-day advance notice requirement imposed by Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) and section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76). I disagree for several reasons. First, as Defense Secretary Hagel testified before the House Armed Services Committee on June 11, 2014, ``this was not simply a detainee transfer, but a military operation with very high risk and a very short window of opportunity that we didn't want to jeopardize--both for the sake of Sergeant Bergdahl, and our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure his return.'' As a military operation, rather than a routine transfer of detainees, the President had the constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to authorize this sensitive military operation for which time was of the essence. The resolution put forward by the House majority assumes that the provisions of Section 1034 of National Defense Authorization Act trump the President's constitutional authority under Article II if the two are in conflict. This clearly is an erroneous assumption since Article VI of the Constitution makes clear that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and prevails in the event of a conflict with federal or state law. See, e.g., INS v. CHADHA, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (federal law conferring ''legislative veto'' power to be exercised by only House of Congress held unconstitutional). But even if it were less clear whether a conflict existed between a federal law and the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, as Justice Robert Jackson pointed out 62 years ago in the famous ``Steel Seizure Case,'' Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 640 (1952), it does not automatically follow that the president has ``broken the law'' if he relies upon his claimed constitutional authority: [B]ecause the President does not enjoy unmentioned powers does not mean that the mentioned ones should be narrowed by a niggardly construction. Some clauses could be made almost unworkable, as well as immutable, by refusal to indulge some latitude of interpretation for changing times. I have heretofore, and do now, give to the enumerated powers the scope and elasticity afforded by what seem to be reasonable, practical implications, instead of the rigidity dictated by a doctrinaire textualism. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that the constitutionality of Section 1035, the statutory provision which the resolution asserts the President has violated, has never upheld by any court, and certainly not upheld against a challenge that it impermissibly infringes upon the President's duty as Commander in Chief to protect the lives of Americans abroad and to protect U.S. service members. The Administration strongly objected to the inclusion of Section 1035 in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014, on the ground that it unwisely and inappropriately interferes with the Executive Branch's ability to manage detainees in a time of armed conflict. Indeed, the President has informed Congress of his objection to the inclusion of these and similar provisions in prior versions of the Defense Authorization and Defense Appropriations Act is law, and it is interesting to note that they only began to be inserted after President Obama assumed the office. Mr. Speaker, not only is the resolution before us ill-conceived and unwise, its timing could not be worse. There are only a few days left before the Congress adjourns. We need to devote all our time on addressing the real problems facing the American people, like raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable, passing immigration reform, and responding to the threat to the security of the nation and the homeland by ISIS. 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. And tomorrow evening, the President will address the nation on the nature of the ISIS threat and the actions the United States will take to protect the security of the nation and the homeland. In the midst of this international crisis, it does not help or strengthen our country for the House to be debating a partisan resolution condemning the President and Commander-in-Chief. In concluding, let me quote again Defense Secretary Hagel: The options available to us to recover Sergeant Bergdahl were few, and far from perfect. But they often are in wartime, and especially in a complicated war like we have been fighting in Afghanistan for 13 years. Wars are messy and full of imperfect choices. In the decision to rescue Sergeant Bergdahl, we complied with the law, and we did what we believed was in the best interests of our country, our military, and Sergeant Bergdahl. The President has constitutional responsibilities and authorities to protect American citizens and members of our armed forces. That's what he did. America does not leave its soldiers behind. We made the right decision, and we did it for the right reasons--to bring home one of our people. Mr. Speaker, we should not waste this precious remaining on matters intended to score political points or to hold the current president to standards we never applied to his predecessors. I urge all Members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying resolution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy, for his time, and for his very eloquent words. Very quickly, Madam Speaker, as I indicated in the Rules Committee, what poor timing for a resolution, in the midst of a crisis with ISIS, to be able to criticize the President for using his constitutional powers, and now, in a debate on ISIS, why he isn't doing something. The American people are confused. This is the wrong time for the wrong resolution. It has no purpose. I am grateful that Sergeant Bergdahl is home. We don't leave our soldiers behind. We looked at the heinous killing of our two precious journalists. Now, we are asking for the great leadership of this administration, which it has been doing, but this resolution is wrong. It is misdirected in law, and it is conflicting with law, and we have already addressed the question. I am not condemning the administration. I believe that this resolution should be pulled off the floor. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing debate of H. Res. 644, and the underlying resolution. I oppose the resolution because at bottom it is nothing more than another partisan attack on the President and will make it difficult for this body and the Administration to find the common ground and goodwill needed to devise and support policies needed to address the real threats and challenges facing our country, particularly the threat posed by ISIS. H. Res. 644, a resolution disapproving of the Obama administration's failure to provide Congress with 30 days advance notice before making the transfer of certain Guantanamo detainees that secured the release of an American soldier, U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Sgt. Bergdahl's health was poor and rapidly deteriorating at the time his release from captivity was secured by his Commander-in-Chief, President Obama, who speaking for the nation, said on June 3, 2014 in response to critics of his decision: The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule, and that is: we don't leave our men or women in uniform behind. Regardless of the circumstances, we still get an American soldier back if he's held in captivity. Period. Full stop. Madam Speaker, the resolution condemns the Obama Administration for failing to comply with the 30-day advance notice requirement imposed by Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) and section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76). I disagree for several reasons. First, as Defense Secretary Hagel testified before the House Armed Services Committee on June 11, 2014, ``this was not simply a detainee transfer, but a military operation with very high risk and a very short window of opportunity that we didn't want to jeopardize--both for the sake of Sergeant Bergdahl, and our operators in the field who put themselves at great risk to secure his return.'' As a military operation, rather than a routine transfer of detainees, the President had the constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to authorize this sensitive military operation for which time was of the essence. The resolution put forward by the House majority assumes that the provisions of Section 1034 of National Defense Authorization Act trump the President's constitutional authority under Article II if the two are in conflict. This clearly is an erroneous assumption since Article VI of the Constitution makes clear that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and prevails in the event of a conflict with federal or state law. See, e.g., INS v. CHADHA, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (federal law conferring ``legislative veto'' power to be exercised by only House of Congress held unconstitutional). But even if it were less clear whether a conflict existed between a federal law and the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, as Justice Robert Jackson pointed out 62 years ago in the famous ``Steel Seizure Case,'' Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 640 (1952), it does not automatically follow that the President has ``broken the law'' if he relies upon his claimed constitutional authority: [B]ecause the President does not enjoy unmentioned powers does not mean that the mentioned ones should be narrowed by a niggardly construction. Some clauses could be made almost unworkable, as well as immutable, by refusal to indulge some latitude of interpretation for changing times. I have heretofore, and do now, give to the enumerated powers the scope and elasticity afforded by what seem to be reasonable, practical implications instead of the rigidity dictated by a doctrinaire textualism. Additionally, Madam Speaker, it should be pointed out that the constitutionality of Section 1035, the statutory provision which the resolution asserts the President has violated, has never been upheld by any court, and certainly not upheld against a challenge that it impermissibly infringes upon the President's duty as Commander in Chief to protect the lives of Americans abroad and to protect U.S. servicemembers. The Administration strongly objected to the inclusion of Section 1035 in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014, on the ground that it unwisely and inappropriately interferes with the Executive Branch's ability to manage detainees in a time of armed conflict. Indeed, the President has informed Congress of his objection to the inclusion of these and similar provisions in prior versions of the Defense Authorization and Defense Appropriations Act in law, and it is interesting to note that they only began to be inserted after President Obama assumed the office. Madam Speaker, not only is the resolution before us ill-conceived and unwise, its timing could not be worse. There are only a few days left before the Congress adjourns. We need to devote all our time on addressing the real problems facing the American people, like raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable, passing immigration reform, and responding to the threat to the security of the nation and the homeland by ISIS. Madam 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. And tomorrow evening, the President will address the nation on the nature of the ISIS threat and the actions the United States will take to protect the security of the nation and the homeland. In the midst of this international crisis, it does not help or strengthen our country for the House to be debating a partisan resolution condemning the President and Commander-in-Chief. In concluding, let me quote again Defense Secretary Hagel: The options available to us to recover Sergeant Bergdahl were few, and far from perfect. But they often are in wartime, and especially in a complicated war like we have been fighting in Afghanistan for 13 years. Wars are messy and full of imperfect choices. In the decision to rescue Sergeant Bergdahl, we complied with the law, and we did what we believed was in the best interests of our country, our military, and Sergeant Bergdahl. The President has constitutional responsibilities and authorities to protect American citizens and members of our armed forces. That's what he did. America does not leave its soldiers behind. We made the right decision, and we did it for the right reasons--to bring home one of our people. I hold to the beliefs of the role of Congress in any declaration of war and the value and purpose of the Administration adhering to the rules of consultation with Congress. In this instance the administration explained its reasoning and Congress already through committee hearings expressed its disagreement. This resolution is nothing but political and wholly without purpose and just simply wrong. Madam Speaker, we should not waste this precious time remaining on matters intended to score political points or to hold the current President to standards we never applied to his predecessors. I urge all Members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying resolution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it was really good to hear the initial description of Congressman Mickey Leland. He loved being called Mickey Leland. Although his full name is George Thomas, Mickey was what he went by. He was a person of the people. Today, I stand here in support of H.R. 78, designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4110 Almeda Road in Houston, Texas, as the George Thomas ``Mickey'' Leland Post Office Building. I thank the ranking member and the chair of the full committee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for their kindness and their diligence in helping to bring this to the floor of the House. It is appropriate to have it in this year, the 25th commemoration of Mickey's death, along with 15 other brave individuals who were flying to provide lifesaving commodities for those who were starving and dying. This bill will acknowledge this 25th year that we have lost Mickey Leland. It will acknowledge the charitableness of his heart. It will acknowledge he was a person who was willing to sacrifice his own life. It will also acknowledge that he was our fellow colleague in the United States Congress. I am glad that we are doing this, and I again thank the committee because it is important to note that, over the years of this very historic, hallowed institution, Members have come and they have served. That should be our continuing challenge: to serve America and to serve the world. Mickey was born in November 1944. He was born to George Thomas and Alice Raines in Lubbock, Texas. Soon, Mom brought the family to Houston, Texas--to our advantage and benefit. He thrived in this city, where as a youth he enjoyed a successful career as a high school sports star at historic Phillis Wheatley High School in Houston, Texas, which is still standing. In fact, as I speak on the floor today, there are advocates trying to preserve the historic old Wheatley High School where Mickey went to school. Mickey entered Texas Southern University in 1965 and received a bachelor of science degree in pharmacy in 1970. In fact, we called Mickey ``the pharmacist,'' as a nickname. It introduced him to caring about people and health care. Mickey was so good, he served after graduation as an instructor of clinical pharmacy at TSU for 1 year. While working there, he established a door-to-door outreach campaign in low-income neighborhoods to educate people about medical care options and to perform preliminary health screenings. Can you imagine, Mickey Leland, a graduate of the Texas Southern University pharmacy school, helping those poor people who really had no access to health care? His first effort in public service was to work with the City of Houston health officials to set up community health clinics. We could call him the father of that endeavor. Then, of course, he also was an activist trying to improve the civil rights of African Americans in the fifth ward community, and also involved himself in the Jensen Medical Referral Service. In 1972, he was elected to the 88th session of the Texas House of Representatives. He was one of the first groups of African Americans to be elected to that body. Heretofore, prior to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, there were no African Americans of number in the Texas State Legislature, including the Honorable Barbara Jordan, who was able to be elected as well during that time after the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He was reelected for 2 years, two terms, serving until 1978, and then, during that tenure, he served on the senate-house conference committee as a member of the house appropriations committee, and then came to the United States Congress. He will be remembered in the United States Congress as someone who helped create and support health maintenance organizations, HMOs. He did that through the State of Texas. He then came to Congress in January of 1978, was elected in 1978 to the 18th Congressional District, and he served 10 years here. He was chosen as a freshman majority whip and an at-large majority whip, chaired the Congressional Black Caucus, advocated for ethnic diversity through affirmative action and broadcast, served as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and he and Bill Emerson established the Select Committee on Hunger. Now, my colleagues, this is where his heart showed even larger than it did in his local community. He was an effective spokesperson for ending the suffering of hunger in the United States, and he joined with his good friend, Republican William ``Bill'' Emerson, who represented Missouri's Eighth Congressional District. His wife later represented him. Through the power of bipartisanship, Mickey Leland and Bill began a mission that still resonates today--that food is a basic right and should never be used as a weapon. Today we still have the Mickey Leland hunger center, of which I serve on the board, and many are still advocating around the world, Mickey Leland Fellows who are around the world and who are fighting against hunger. Bill died in office and, as I indicated, his wife took his place. But Mickey married, in 1983, his wonderful wife, Alison. His beautiful sons, Jarrett David and twins Austin Mickey and Cameron George Leland, and his mother, Alice Raines, of course, are still living. In 1983, in the midst of the civil war, the nation of Ethiopia experienced the worst famine in nearly 100 years, which led to more than 400,000 deaths. Mickey heard that cry, and so the Speaker of the House asked him to go there to Sudan in 1985. The hunger was so overwhelming he came back and passed the African Famine and Relief and Recovery Act of 1985. He then continued to serve on the Select Committee on Hunger, led by himself and Bill Emerson, and provided $8 million for a vitamin A program. Mickey loved people. He loved solving their problems, and so it was maybe fate that he would die on August 7, 1989, on the side of an Ethiopian mountain with other brave individuals, such as Hugh Anderson Johnson, Jr., and Patrice Yvonne Johnson, two of his aides; Joyce Francine Williams, an aide to Ron Dellums; Robert Woods, a political aide at the American Embassy; Gladys Gilbert, a staff person with USAID; and Thomas Warrick, the USAID representative, and many others who were on that flight with him. I can only say that, in closing, it is an honor to introduce this legislation, and I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation, not in the honor of a colleague so much as in honor of an American who cared enough about people to be willing to sacrifice his life. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation in the 25th year of the commemoration of the death of the Honorable Mickey Leland, George Thomas Mickey Leland, the late Congressperson of the 18th Congressional District.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 78, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4110 Almeda Road in Houston Texas as the ``George Thomas `Mickey' Leland Post Office Building.'' I thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform for taking up consideration of H.R. 78, which I introduced to honor our beloved former colleague George Thomas `Mickey' Leland, by having a post office in the 18th Congressional District designated in his name. My thanks to Congressman Doug Collins and Congressman Danny Davis for management of the floor debate on this bill. In 1983, Mickey Leland married Alison Clark Walton, and fathered three wonderful children, Jarrett David; and twins, Austin Mickey and Cameron George Leland, who were born on January 14, 1990, following his tragic death. On November 27, 1944, George Thomas Leland, III was born to George Thomas Leland, II and Alice Raines, in Lubbock, Texas. Mickey Leland's mother moved the family, which included his brother William Gaston Leland, to Houston where she worked in a drugstore and later became a teacher. Mickey Leland thrived in the city of Houston where as a youth he enjoyed a successful career as a high school sports star at the Phyllis Wheatley High School in Houston. In 1965, Mickey graduated in the top 10% of his class from Wheatley High School and enrolled in Texas Southern University (TSU), where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Pharmacy in 1970. Mickey Leland had heart, passion and brains and he used all three to the benefit of the poor and working poor living in the city of Houston. Following his graduation from TSU he was hired as an Instructor of Clinical Pharmacy at TSU from 1970-1971. This was not enough for Mickey who saw so much work that needed to be done for those in need. While working as a TSU instructor he established a ``door-to-door'' outreach campaign in low-income neighborhoods to educate people about their medical care options and to perform preliminary health screenings. Benjamin Mayes once said, ``The tragedy of life is often not in our failure, but rather in our complacency; not in our doing too much, but rather in our doing too little; not in our living above our ability, but rather in our living below our capacities.'' Mickey Leland was not complacent--one of his first efforts in public service was to work with city of Houston health officials to set up community health clinics. Mickey Leland, as an active member of the Black Community Action Team, (``Black Cats'') worked towards other reform measures, which led to the establishment of the health system for Casa del Amigos. In Fifth Ward, Houston, Mickey Leland helped initiate a free community health clinic called the Jensen Medical Referral Service. Long before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, he was creating an opportunity for universal health care for poorest of the poor living in the 18th Congressional District. In 1972, he made the full transition to public servant when he ran for and won election to the Texas House of Representatives to represent the 88th District of Houston Texas. He was reelected to successive two- year terms, serving in the Texas House until 1978. Mickey Leland was the first African-American legislator in the Texas State legislature to serve on the Senate-House conference Committee as a member of the House Appropriations Committee. During his time as a member of the Texas House of Representatives Mickey Leland is remembered for promoting legislation that provided Texas residents access to generic prescription medication; and for his support of employment opportunities for minorities. He also supported the creation of universal access to health care for Texas residents through establishment of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO's). In 1978, Mickey Leland expanded his public service to include the entire 18th Congressional District when he was elected to Congress, succeeding the legendary Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Congressman Leland served in the United States House of Representatives for nearly 10 years. He was chosen Freshman Majority Whip in his first term, and later served twice as At-Large Majority Whip. Martin Luther King, said, ``Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable . . . Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.'' During his time in Congress Mickey Leland engaged in tireless and passionate concern for others. As a member of Congress, he Chaired the Congressional Black Caucus; Advocated for ethnic diversity through affirmative action in broadcast employment both on and off camera to promote responsible and realistic television and cable programming; served as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee; chaired the Subcommittee on Postal Operations and Services; served on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and the Subcommittee on Compensation and Employment; established the Select Committee on Hunger. Mickey Leland was an effective spokesman for those suffering from hunger in the United States and he joined with Republican Congressman William ``Bill'' Emerson, who represented Missouri's 8th Congressional District, to create the House Select Committee on Hunger. Through the power of bipartisanship Mickey Leland and Bill Emerson began a mission that still resonates today--that food is a basic human right--and should never be used as a weapon. The Select Committee on Hunger led by Mickey Leland and Bill Emerson is credited gaining Congressional approval of an $8 million annually appropriation for a developing the nation's Vitamin A program that is believed to have reduced child mortality. The anti-hunger committee also worked to improve hunger conditions for impoverished neighborhoods in the United States. Bill Emerson died while in office and was succeed by his wife Jo Ann, who served the people of Missouri's 8th District for many years. In 1983, in the midst of civil war, the nation of Ethiopia experienced the worse famine in nearly 100 years, which led to more than 400,000 deaths. A significant drought contributed to the famine, but it had more to do with the war that impeded aid and the violence that was visited upon people who were displaced as they searched for food. He led the effort for the Africa Famine Relief and Recovery Act of 1985. The legislation provided $800 million in food and humanitarian relief supplies. He was asked by then Speaker Tip O'Neill to lead a bipartisan Congressional delegation to assess conditions and relief requirements in Ethiopia. Mickey Leland's trip to the Sudan in the spring of 1989, made a tremendous impression on him, which made his mission against hunger a personal commitment to help the Sudanese refugees in Ethiopia. Throughout his time in the House of Representatives his commitment to end hunger and homelessness became his mission and now it is his legacy. Nelson Mandela observed that, ``If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.'' Mickey Leland knew how to speak to the hearts of people to move them to action with the goal of relieving suffering where he found it. The international attention Congressman Leland brought to the plight of famine victims in Ethiopia by his personal commitment to bring non- governmental assistance to support government efforts saved thousands of lives. Mickey Leland met personally with Pope John Paul II about food aid in Africa. Pope John Paul II once said, ``Have no fear of moving into the unknown. Simply step out fearlessly knowing that I am with you, therefore no harm can befall you; all is very, very well. Do this in complete faith and confidence.'' While Chairing the Congressional Black Caucus he proudly presented the first awards the Caucus had ever given to non-black recipients: Rock musician Bob Geldorf and news person Ted Koppel. Bob Geldorf was honored for his Band Aid concert and fundraising efforts for Africa Famine victims; and Ted Koppel was honored for his news stories on the African famine. On Leland's sixth visit to Africa on August 7, 1989, his plane crashed near Gambela, Ethiopia on a mountainside on his way to visit the Fugnido refugee camp on the Sudan-Ethiopian border. The camp held more than 300,000 Sundanese escaping famine and war in their adjacent country. The plane, carrying sixteen people, was found after a six day search in southwestern Ethiopia. Congressman Leland was joined on that fateful flight by: Hugh Anderson Johnson Jr.; Patrice Yvonne Johnson, both his Congressional aides; Joyce Francine Williams, an aide to fellow Congressman Ronald V. Dellums, who served as an expert on child nutrition; Y. Ivan Tillen, a New York businessman and friend of Congressman Leland's; Robert Woods, a political and economic officer at the American Embassy in Addis Ababa; Gladys Gilbert, a special projects officer for the mission of the U.S. Agency for International Development attached to the embassy; Thomas Worrick, the acting AID representative in Ethiopia, and Worrick's wife, Roberta. Also seven Ethiopians were killed including Debebe Agonofer, an Ethiopian agricultural economist with the AID mission, and six other Ethiopians, including the plane's crew of three. Mickey Leland's dedication and service were honored at services throughout the State of Texas and in Washington, DC. The U.S. Congress named the Mickey Leland Harris County Courthouse Annex located in the city of Houston in his name. TSU honored Mickey Leland and Barbara Jordon by dedicating the School of Public Affairs as the ``Barbara Jordan and Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs.'' Mickey Leland was laid to rest in accordance to his wishes in a plain pine coffin, under an oak tree in Houston's Golden Gate Cemetery located in his former neighborhood. Mickey Leland we stand on this floor among the shadows of yesterday and the dreams of tomorrow to honor you for what you have done in far too short a lifetime There is much more to the life of Mickey Leland that I want to share with my colleagues who will be voting on this bill to name a Post Office in his name. His life's work to end famine, hunger, and provide access to health care to the poor are tremendous in and of themselves, but he contributed much more to the lives of people he touched. Mickey Leland was a person who loved people and found great joy in gatherings where he could meet new people or share moments with family and friends. He had a great sense of humor and would soon have others laughing at one of his stories or an account of a personal experience. He accomplished a great deal and still had time to encourage young people to pursue careers in public service. In 1980, Mickey Leland and his close friends J. Kent Friedman and Vic Samuels founded the Mickey Leland Kibbutzim Internship. Mickey Leland was so deeply moved by his visit to Israel in 1979 that he wanted other young people to share that experience. His admiration for the Kibbutzim Movement, and his own childhood experiences of growing up in poverty inspired him to create a program to fund urban youths' travel to the Holy Land. The Mickey Leland Kibbutzim Internship has benefited outstanding high school students from the fifth Congressional District who demonstrated leadership skills allowing them to have travel to Israel. To honor his legacy and commitment to youth, the Leland Fellowship Program at the University of Houston was initiated and launched. The Leland Fellowship Program supports historically, economically disadvantaged students who may want to pursue employment opportunities as congressional staff members. Leland Fellows are provided with a monthly stipend and round-trip airfare, as well as paid housing. Upon successful completion of the program, interns earn 3-12 upper level hours in political science. Mickey Leland as Chair of the House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee on Postal Operations and Services championed the United States Postal Service--which remains one of the world's most efficient low cost national postal systems. In 1987, when the Postal service considered closing a 52-year-old post office in Philadelphia he raised questions about the buildings future after the announcement to abolish 87 jobs. Mickey Leland championed the cause of our men and women of the Postal Service by acknowledging that they were then and remain the most productive and efficient in the entire world. He chaired the committee at a time when the Postal Service was undergoing change and renovations that spoke to its age and the demand for its services by the American public. It is the one agency that touches every home and business in the United States 6 days a week. The Post Office for roughly a hundred million Americans is the face of the Federal government. Mickey Leland reminded us that life is made by those who take the hard road and tough challenges. Your mission to change how America viewed famine and hunger was monumental because it saved the lives of millions through domestic and international food programs that you created or inspired. First Corinthians Chapter 12 verse 11 through 13 reads ``When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.'' George Thomas ``Mickey'' Leland once was a child, but he grew into a man and knew in part the wages of hunger and famine and it was enough to set his course in life to relieve the suffering of people no matter where they were or who they were. He demonstrated charity in the truest sense of the word. I was proud to call you a friend and mentor--and I am honored to stand before our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to affirm your impact on the city of Houston, this nation and the world. I thank my colleagues who join me in honoring former Congressman Mickey Leland by naming the Post Office located at 4110 Almeda Road in Houston, Texas, as the ``George Thomas `Mickey' Leland Post Office Building.'' This post office will be a living memorial to a dedicated public servant. It has been over 25 years since we lost the Honorable George Thomas ``Mickey'' Leland. I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives honor the life and legacy of Honorable George Thomas ``Mickey'' Leland by passing H.R. 78.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me indicate that as our Members come back from the work recess--and I think it is important to establish that although 1 or 2 vacation days may have been taken and Members got a chance to see their families, they were working--and I am going to take the optimistic approach and say that the American people want to see us working over the next couple of days. I believe we can collectively, with the President, address the terrorist threat of ISIS. Those of us who had a chance to be in the Middle East know how serious an impact that it has on the homeland, but I also believe that we can put on the floor of the House a comprehensive immigration bill, raise the minimum wage, provide for pay equity, and provide for the education of our children by bringing down the high interest rates for higher education. Madam Speaker, it should be the rule of this House and the rule of the other body to work on behalf of the American people. Yes, we were working in our districts. Now, we need to come and work on behalf of them and to ensure that the national security of our homeland is protected, to be reminded of those lives that were lost as we approach 9/11, and to raise the minimum wage, and to save lives by passing comprehensive immigration reform. As a Member from the border State of Texas, I know we can do this.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I hope the Speaker says that word from Texas very loud because I listened earlier today of all of the relief in the appropriations bill given to Texans down at the border, $594 million. Let me tell you that there are people in Texas who are ready to serve and help the unaccompanied children. There are people in Texas who recognize that we are the good Samaritans. Don't label us with wanting $594 million, and don't label us with standing against the DACA children, the DREAMers, who have come to this country and been here for 5 years. Mr. Speaker, these children ran into the arms of the Border Patrol. There is no criminal or legal crisis at the border, but the DACA bill that is here on the floor of the House is a disgrace to the words of the Star-Spangled Banner. We are the home of the free and the brave. We are free enough to be able to welcome those in need. This body knows that DACA has nothing to do with the unaccompanied children, and it is a disgrace that we would undermine the hardworking students like Juan Jesus in my office this summer, that we would undermine it with a disgraceful bill--a disgraceful bill. It is disgraceful. Pass comprehensive immigration reform. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5272, a bill brought to the floor at the eleventh hour by the House Republican leadership to placate its extreme right-wing Tea Party faction and one of the most hypocritical, irresponsible, and mean-spirited legislative proposals brought to the House floor this year. H.R. 5272 seeks to prohibit the Administration from exercising its administrative discretion to focus resources on identifying and apprehending those aliens who are present in country illegally who pose the most serious danger to our national security and the safety of our citizens. This cynical bill is hypocritical because the vast majority of its proponents have been claiming for years now that the reason they refuse to compromise on budget issues, support for sequestration, and voted to shut down the government is because of their belief in the importance of setting spending priorities. Yet, H.R. 5272 would deny ICE the ability to use its limited resources in the most efficient manner to achieve its highest priorities which is to apprehend, detain, and remove aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety. This bill is irresponsible because it seeks to prevent trained, experienced, and professional agents and prosecutors from exercising their discretion and acting on the basis of what everyone knows to be true: that there is a vast difference between a terrorist bent on harming America and a DREAM Act kid studying hard in school so he or she can graduate, join the Armed Services and willingly risk his or her life to defend the country, or go to work to support his or her family. This inefficient use of resources wastes taxpayer dollars and does nothing to keep America safe. This bill is mean-spirited because it would have ICE target its limited resources on innocent, law abiding, young people who were brought to this country as children and would have them deported to a foreign land even though America is the country they may know as home and the only one to which they may have ever pledged allegiance. Mr. Speaker, I traveled many times to Iraq and Afghanistan and always the highlight of my visit was meeting the young men and women who were willingly risking their lives to defend the country they love more than life. More than 5,000 of the soldiers who fought for us in Afghanistan and Iraq were not yet American citizens but DREAMers who dreamed that one day they might become citizens of the nation they gladly risked their lives to defend. Instead of honoring their service, this heartless bill before us crushes their dream by forcing ICE agents and prosecutors to pretend that there is no difference between one of these veterans who came to this country as an undocumented immigrant and an alien engaged in or suspected of espionage or terrorism. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5272 also wastes the money of hard-working taxpayers and does nothing to make America safer, and eliminates a fair and just policy legal under the President's executive authority which allows for relief for young children who have been in America for a certain number of years, follow certain requirements and may be deferred from deportation to serve in the U.S. military, go to school and contribute to America. And, just as bad, it is inconsistent with American values of justice and fair play. We must address our broken immigration system through comprehensive reform rather than extinguish Ms. Liberty's lamp of freedom or close her Golden Door. We are better than that and I urge all Members to join me in rejecting this terrible legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry as to the bill that is on the floor, is this not the bill dealing with deferred action for juveniles or young people who have been in this country for 5 years, graduated from high school, going to college or working, and in actuality is not dealing with the unaccompanied children? But more importantly, is it not true that this bill is destined for a veto, will not be passed in the Senate, and in essence, we are here passing a bill that has no future?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 5230, a bill to make supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014 to address the humanitarian crisis on our nation's southern border. As a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I have visited the border and seen the children that this bill intends to help. This bill offers too little in funding to address the need that over 50 states are attempting to address by providing shelter and assistance to the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors who are now living in our country. Over two-thirds of the language in H.R. 5230 will make significant changes in existing law or creates new law regarding immigration policy without going through the committees of jurisdiction such as the House Committees on Homeland Security, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs. H.R. 5230 contains too much language that is legislative such as: The bill makes significant changes to 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This change will subject all children to the initial screening process that now applies only to children from Mexico and Canada; erects a new expedited immigration court screening for any children who pass the initial screening; prohibits administrative appeals from children ordered removed through the new expedited process; requires detention of certain children who demonstrate a credible fear of persecution throughout the pendency of their asylum proceedings; establishes new, high burdens of proof; and sets up a principle of ``Last In, First Out'' in the adjudication process. The bill prohibits the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from impeding, denying, or restricting the activities of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Federal land located within 100 Miles of the U.S./Mexico border--This issue has already been addressed. Both Interior and Agriculture have existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and all these agencies, as well as the GAO, have testified that these agreements are working and that federal land management laws and activities do not impair border security. The bill provides too few emergency immigration judges--the bill only requires the Department of Justice to designate up to 40 temporary immigration judges within 14 days of enactment of this legislation. Then the bill permits hiring of retired judges or magistrate judges, or the reassignment of current immigration judges, to conduct expedited hearings for unaccompanied alien children to try to meet the new requirement that their cases be heard within 7 days of being screened by DHS officials. This is a rushed process for an emergency situation involving children. They require our best efforts to ensure their safety and wellbeing not a rushed job. The bill undermines a long standing policy regarding asylum--H.R. 5230 Prohibits anyone believed to have been convicted outside the U.S. of any drug-related offense punishable by a prison term of more than a year from being granted asylum. This provision has nothing to do with unaccompanied children entering the United States and clearly is an immigration reform that would impact several committees such as the House Committees on Judiciary and Foreign Affairs. This provision is problematic because what is considered unlawful in one country is a constitutionally protected right in the United States. Often people are fleeing religious, ethnic or political persecution. Persecution means that they are experiencing or have experienced actions taken by their countries governments, which often includes imprisonment or torture while in custody. This one change would hand repressive regimes like North Korea with an easy way to block the United States from helping those seeking to escape that country--charge and convict them of a felon. A Sudanese woman was sentenced to death for being a Christian--would this Congress bar her entry into the United States? The bill makes the wrong decision on border security by sending the National Guard support for border operations--H.R. 5230 would deploy National Guard under Title 32 Status. National Guard troops with this change may be assigned duties as deemed necessary to provide assistance in operations, with priority given to high traffic areas experiencing the highest number of crossing by unaccompanied children. Sending armed soldiers to greet children escaping violence--Mr. Speaker what is the leadership thinking? These children need our help not frightening images of more adults with guns. The bill denies safe shelter to children through its sense of Congress--the states that the Secretary of Defense should not be allowed to shelter unaccompanied children or other migrants unless certain conditions are met. The military and the administration are well aware of the conditions that are acceptable for children and this Congress should provide what is needed so that their needs can be met. This bill does too little to actually help the thousands of children who are awaiting immigration hearings. They are victims of human trafficking, sexual violence, and witnesses to murders as well as acts of violence against other children who took that dangerous trek to the United States. We should be focused on learning what they know and what they experienced to be sure the guilty are found and punished. I offered, along with several other members of the House amendments in attempts to improve the bill, but all were rejected by the Rules Committee, which chose to place H.R. 5230 before the House in the form of a closed rule. The Jackson Lee Amendment would have authorized designated federal agencies to reimburse State and local governments and private nonprofit organizations for the costs incurred in providing psychological counseling, housing, education, medicine and medical care, food and water, clothes, personal hygiene and other indispensable consumables, other human services in response to the humanitarian crisis on the Southwest Border. This Congress has had the Senate's version of a Comprehensive Immigration reform bill for nearly a year, without accomplishing the task of taking up the issue and passing a House version. Our nation's immigration system is broken and needs reform, but the only attempt at addressing immigration into the United States is this bill that is being presented as an appropriations bill. H.R. 5230 is not an appropriations bill it is an immigration reform bill, which covers the jurisdictions of the two committees I serve on-- the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees. Neither of these committees were given the opportunity to hold hearings or make the needed changes to the bill to make sure it conforms with long standing policies relating to unaccompanied minor or issues related to refugees. The Jackson Lee amendment would have helped nonprofits, local and state governments in all of the 50 states who are now providing assistance to the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors within the United States. The message has gotten to families in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Parents are no longer sending their children to the United States once they learned of the dangers and the prospects for their children surviving the journey without becoming victims of human trafficking. These children have found the compassion and love of thousands of Americans found in the states of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Dakota, New York, Utah, Virginia and-- yes even the U.S. Virgin Islands. The nature of America is that of the Good Samaritan. On July 3, 2014, I went to McAllen, Texas and observed a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facility where unaccompanied children were being processed by the Border Patrol. As I walked through the facility, I saw frightened and needy children, some as young as five years old. Madam Speaker, some members of this body who have not taken the time to visit the border or visit the children who are now in their own states will stand before this body and accuse them of being dangerous-- but they are not. They are traumatized and frightened children driven from their homes by violence and inducements of these same gangs to get payments from desperate parents seeking to save the lives of their children to bring them to the United States. These children had risked their lives to make their way to the U.S. by riding atop freight trains through dangerous territories in Mexico. One can only imagine the desperation and hopelessness that would prompt a parent to send their young child on such a treacherous journey. It takes courage and desperation to escape senseless violence and I know that is what Cuban Americans faced, and Christians, Jews and all other groups facing violence have endured. These are refugees and their status requires that the United States act appropriately. Some may mention that the United States has a quota on refugees that we can take each year and that number has been reached. The program that refer to is for refugees that other nations around the world are providing shelter--but if the refugees are crossing our own border there is not limit. This international law that the United States has backed for decades and pressured other nations to enforce. If the refugees are Christians escaping ISIS or Boko Haram or they are children escaping violent gangs in Central America they are not and should not be turned back. Children do not leave their homes and families by the tens of thousands unless fear is driving them from their homes. Upon my visit to South Texas borders, I witnessed hundreds of children whose young faces were pressed against glass jails with tears running down their faces. We are dealing with helpless children who have traveled a treacherous journey, and it should be within our American values to care for these children who fled their homes to escape violence. These children are not perpetrators or criminals--they are in many cases victims fleeing deadly violence in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and are seeking temporary safe haven in the United States, as so many people before them have done for centuries. The surge of unaccompanied children on our southern border does not pose a threat to our national security. Contrary to the shrill rhetoric used by some commentators, the nation is not being invaded by an army of children dispatched to do us harm. We are confronted instead with a humanitarian crisis resulting from the alarming scale of violence and economic desperation in three Central American countries that now lead the world in murder rates: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Politicizing the issue will not solve the problem. Taking actions that address the root causes in the short and long term will. We should be taking up Immigration Reform to deal with the wide range of immigration problems. The current status on the border is the number of children coming across the border has abated. Those children remaining in detention shelters along the border number only a few hundred. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, these three Central American countries have among the highest per capita homicide rates in the world, with Honduras topping the list and the other two nations in the top five. To address this issue of the humanitarian crisis, I introduced H.R. 4990, the ``Justice for Children Now Act of 2014,'' which authorizes the immediate hiring of an additional 70 immigration judges in the Executive Office of Immigration Review. This bill will help but it is not sufficient to address the backlogs to help advance the flow of the children's immigration court hearings. The amount allowed under this bill will leave states and aid agencies footing a significant portion of the cost for assisting these helpless children--when it is the role of the federal government to be present and actively engaged in leading the effort. I support the President's request for $3.7 billion to respond to the humanitarian crisis on the border and urge my colleagues in leadership to reconsider the level of funding for this great need. Congress should allocate the resources needed to deal with the increase in unaccompanied children seeking refuge in the United States. Some of these persons are attempting to enter the country unlawfully and without justification. Our laws do not permit this and they should not be allowed entry. The Administration is following immigration law as it relates to these unaccompanied minors. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, signed by President George W. Bush establishes the legal status of the children who have entered the nation unaccompanied. That law provides persons fleeing lethal violence or escape from human trafficking the opportunity to have their case heard by an immigration judge. Over the time Congress has delayed acting and an additional 366,000 pending cases were added to the immigration courts that must have hearings before any action can be taken. Because this situation is untenable for everyone--law enforcement, taxpayers, and individuals petitioning for relief, the first thing that we can and should do to reduce the backlog is provide the funding needed to appoint 70 new immigration judges, as provided under legislation. Ensuring that there are available sufficient facilities to house detained children in a humane manner while they await their immigration hearing is another challenge. I ask that the Rules Committee approve the Jackson Lee Amendment for inclusion in H.R. 5230.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder what my grandmother coming from Jamaica, West Indies, with two babies thought about this great country called America. I wondered as I went to the border and I looked into the eyes of a little 7-year-old who had just gotten off a bus by himself from someplace in Central America, or the toddler in a diaper who came here because there was true and actual violence, the beheading of their neighbors, the cutting of the throats of their young boys, the fear of the cartels, and to think of the words ``no room at the inn.'' Our Republicans are confused. They are prosecuting the children, not prosecuting the drug dealers, the criminals, and others. Why? Because they are taking away basic due process rights for humble children who have come just for opportunity. Not only that, they don't even want to give resources to all the cities in America who are helping, the Good Samaritans. And then they want legislation that literally undermines due process for these children. I will tell you this is a bad bill. Do not pass it. Pass comprehensive immigration reform. Pass it now. Mr. Speaker, I rise in fervid opposition to this Martial Law Resolution and ask that you consider doing comprehensive immigration reform--a vote you would not even need to whip. Yet we insist on wasting valuable House Floor time while we could be doing comprehensive immigration reform, comprehensive tax reform, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization, or the Voting Rights Act. As the GOP Majority reaches further to the anti-immigrant right to scrounge up the votes for what was already an inadequate and heartless proposal, we Democrats have a better idea: comprehensive immigration reform. The bipartisan immigration legislation that passed the Senate over a year ago offers comprehensive answers to the problems with our immigration system--but for more than a year House Republicans have refused to give the American people a vote. The humanitarian crisis at the border is a powerful reminder of the importance of an immigration system that honors our values as a nation. The time is now. While House Republicans search for the compassion to help desperate children, Democrats are demanding a vote on the comprehensive immigration reform our nation needs. The United States is a country made up of immigrants, and it is part of what makes us so strong and vibrant. And while immigration reform remains an unsolved challenge for our nation, House Democrats are leading the way towards comprehensive reform. Indeed, the decision made by President Obama two years ago to defer deportation action against young people who were brought here by undocumented parents but have been raised here in our country was an important step in the right direction. This decision has helped ensure that over half-a-million hard- working, eager, and talented individuals who came here not of their own choice, and who are contributing to our economy and our defense, can remain here and continue to be part of building a strong future for America. Now we are faced, Mr. Speaker, with the surge of unaccompanied children on our southern border. They do not pose a threat to our national security; nevertheless the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act must be passed before Congress leaves town for its district work-recess. Contrary to the shrill rhetoric used by some commentators, the nation is not being invaded by an army of children dispatched to do us harm. In fact the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and I witnessed one month ago the deplorable conditions with your own eyes--babies as young as three years old. We are confronted with a humanitarian crisis resulting from the alarming scale of violence and economic desperation in three Central American countries: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Politicizing the issue will not solve the problem. In the short term, we need to allocate the resources needed to deal with the increase in unaccompanied children seeking refuge in the United States. Yet this Congress has failed to provide any resources needed to fund the courts and judges needed to send these children through the legal system; therefore, we should fund the number of immigration judges needed. Without them, the result is a current average delay of 578 days to hear over 366,000 pending cases. Because this situation is untenable for everyone--law enforcement, taxpayers, and individuals petitioning for relief, the first thing that we can and should do to reduce the backlog is pass the emergency supplemental and provide the funding needed to appoint 70 new immigration judges, as provided under legislation I recently introduced, H.R. 4990, the Justice For All Children Act. I remain committed to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, on this very important issue, and would hope for a spill-over effect into the realm of comprehensive immigration reform. I remain committed to advocating for common sense enforcement measures as part of a broader immigration reform package that will further secure our borders, ensure agricultural interests have an ample labor supply, universities and businesses are not short workers, and proper workplace compliance is achieved, but also uphold our values as a Nation of immigrants. Mr. Speaker, No Room at the inn! The Republicans are confused. Let us as Americans give relief to these innocent children. I ask my colleagues to reject this resolution and call for a vote on comprehensive immigration reform and the full funding of the emergency supplemental by hiring 70 new immigration judges, provide more resources for the border, to protect vulnerable children, and help communities that are helping these children.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the course of the debate is about to end. There is representation that there is an underlying bill to this martial law. The Democrats have already made a commitment to stay and finish the job. My inquiry is, the underlying bill's principles are based upon protecting children and fully funding the President's mark on the emergency supplemental to deal with this crisis and emergency. Those are simple parliamentary inquiries as the underlying premise of the bill--two points: protecting the children and providing the full resources for helping the children. That is not giving us the contents of the bill. It is the premise of the bill for Members to be able to intelligently come to floor to assess the need to vote for the martial law. I, again, state the parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 107, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in support of the State of Israel as it defends itself against rocket attacks launched by Hamas. These deadly rocket attacks launched from Gaza into Israel by Hamas against unarmed civilian populations are deserving of the condemnation of this House and the international community. Mr. Speaker, since the most recent airstrikes began, hundreds of persons--Israelis and Palestinians--have been killed and many hundreds more injured. No sovereign nation can be expected to stand idly by while unprovoked acts of violence are perpetrated against its citizens by terrorists or foreign entities. Israel has, as do all countries under the law of nations, the right to exist and the right to self-defense. This means Israel is allowed to take all necessary, appropriate, and measured actions required to keep its people safe. Hamas should cease using their fellow citizens as human shields. But at the end of the day, the peace and justice we all seek will come from the parties acting in good faith to find a just and lasting peace that recognizes Israel's right to exist, renounces violence and terrorism, and achieves the two-state solution. Among the most important things that can be done to bring peace and the two-state solution into being and to halt the suffering is for the Administration to redouble its efforts to mediate a peaceful resolution of the conflict and for the President Mahmoud Abbas to exercise stronger leadership in rallying and uniting the Palestinian people under the banner of peace with justice. Mr. Speaker, I condemn launching rockets into civilian populations. In addition to death and destruction, such attacks instill fear and cause suffering to innocent men, women, and children. Finally, I offer sympathies for the loss of life among the Israelis and the Palestinians. As the great theologian St. Augustine reminds us, ``peace is the necessary condition in which people can be free to work out their eternal destiny.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker I rise to speak in strong opposition to the Rule for H.R. 5230, a bill to make supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014 to address the humanitarian crisis on our nation's southern border. As a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I have visited the border and seen the children that this bill intends to help. This bill offers to little in funding to address the need that over 50 states are attempting to address by providing shelter and assistance to the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors who are now living in our country. This bill does too little to actually help the thousands of children who are awaiting immigration hearings. They are victims of human trafficking, sexual violence, and witnesses to murders as well as acts of violence against other children who took that dangerous trek to the United States. We should be focused on learning what they know and what they experienced to be sure the guilty are found and punished. I offered, along with several other members of the House amendments in attempts to improve the bill, but all were rejected by the Rules Committee, which chose to place H.R. 5230 before the House in the form of a closed rule. The Jackson Lee Amendment would have authorized designated federal agencies to reimburse State and local governments and private nonprofit organizations for the costs incurred in providing psychological counseling, housing, education, medicine and medical care, food and water, clothes, personal hygiene and other in dispensable consumables, other human services in response to the humanitarian crisis on the Southwest Border. This Congress has had the Senate's version of a Comprehensive Immigration reform bill for nearly a year, without accomplishing the task of taking up the issue and passing a House version. Our nation's immigration system is broken and needs reform, but the only attempt at addressing immigration into the United States is this bill that is being presented as an appropriations bill. H.R. 5230 is not an appropriations bill it is an immigration reform bill, which covers the jurisdictions of the two committees I serve on-- the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees. Neither of these committees were given the opportunity to hold hearings or make the needed changes to the bill to make sure it conforms with long standing policies relating to unaccompanied minor or issues related to refugees. The Jackson Lee amendment would have helped nonprofits, local and state governments in all of the 50 states who are now providing assistance to the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors within the United States. The message has gotten to families in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Parents are no longer sending their children to the United States once they learned of the dangers and the prospects for their children surviving the journey without becoming victims of human trafficking. Over two-thirds of the language in H.R. 5230 will make significant changes in existing law or creates new law regarding immigration policy without going through the committees of jurisdiction such as the House Committees on Homeland Security, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs. H.R. 5230 contains too much language that is legislative such as: The bill makes significant changes to 2008 trafficking victims protection act. This change will subject all children to the initial screening process that now applies only to children from Mexico and Canada; erects a new expedited immigration court screening for any children who pass the initial screening; prohibits administrative appeals from children ordered removed through the new expedited process; requires detention of certain children who demonstrate a credible fear of persecution throughout the pendency of their asylum proceedings; establishes new, high burdens of proof; and sets up a principle of ``Last In, First Out'' in the adjudication process. The bill prohibits the secretaries of the interior and agriculture from impeding, denying, or restricting the activities of U.S. customs and border protection on federal land located within 100 miles of the U.S./Mexico border--This issue has already been addressed. Both Interior and Agriculture have existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and all these agencies, as well as the GAO, have testified that these agreements are working and that federal land management laws and activities do not impair border security. The bill provides too few emergency immigration judges--the bill only requires the Department of Justice to designate up to 40 temporary immigration judges within 14 days of enactment of this legislation. Then the bill permits hiring of retired judges or magistrate judges, or the reassignment of current immigration judges, to conduct expedited hearings for unaccompanied alien children to try to meet the new requirement that their cases be heard within 7 days of being screened by DHS officials. The bill undermines a long standing policy reparging asylum--H.R. 5230 Prohibits anyone believed to have been convicted outside the U.S. of any drug-related offense punishable by a prison term of more than a year from being granted asylum. The bill makes the wrong decision on border security by sending the national guard support for border operations--H.R. 5230 would deploy National Guard under Title 32 Status. National Guard troops with this change may be assigned duties as deemed necessary to provide assistance in operations, with priority given to high traffic areas experiencing the highest number of crossing by unaccompanied children. The bill denies safe shelter to children through its sense of congress--the states that the Secretary of Defense should not be allowed to shelter unaccompanied children or other migrants unless certain conditions are met. These children have found the compassion and love of thousands of Americans founds in the states of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, California, Illinois, North Carolina, South Dakota, New York, Utah, Virginia and-- yes--even the U.S. Virgin Islands. The nature of America is that of the Good Samaritan. On July 3, 2014, I went to McAllen, Texas and observed a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facility where unaccompanied children were being processed by the Border Patrol. As I walked through the facility, I saw frightened and needy children, some as young as five years old. Mr. Speaker, some members of this body who have not taken the time to visit the border or visit the children who are now in their own states will stand before this body and accuse them of being dangerous--but they are not. They are traumatized and frightened children driven from their homes by violence and inducements of these same gangs to get payments from desperate parents seeking to save the lives of their children to bring them to the United States. These children had risked their lives to make their way to the U.S. by riding atop freight trains through dangerous territories in Mexico. One can only imagine the desperation and hopelessness that would prompt a parent to send their young child on such a treacherous journey. It takes courage and desperation to escape senseless violence and I know that is what Cuban Americans faced, and Christians, Jews and all other groups facing violence have endured. These are refugees and their status requires that the United States act appropriately. Some may mention that the United States has a quota on refugees that we can take each year and that number has been reached. The program they refer to is for refugees that other nations around the world are providing shelter--but if the refugees are crossing our own border there is not limit. This international law that the United State has backed for decades and pressured other nations to enforce. If the refugees are Christians escaping ISIS or Boko Haram or they are children escaping violent gangs in Central America they are not and should not be turned back. Children do not leave their homes and families by the tens of thousands unless fear is driving them from their homes. Upon my visit to South Texas borders, I witnessed hundreds of children whose young faces were pressed against glass jails with tears running down their faces. We are dealing with helpless children who have traveled a treacherous journey, and it should be within our American values to care for these children who fled their homes to escape violence. These children are not perpetrators or criminals--they are in many cases victims fleeing deadly violence in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and are seeking temporary safe haven in the United States, as so many people before them have done for centuries. The surge of unaccompanied children on our southern border does not pose a threat to our national security. Contrary to the shrill rhetoric used by some commentators, the nation is not being invaded by army an of children dispatched to do us harm. We are confronted instead with a humanitarian crisis resulting from the alarming scale of violence and economic desperation in three Central American countries that now lead the world in murder rates: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Politicizing the issue will not solve the problem. Taking actions that address the root causes in the short and long term will. We should be taking up Immigration Reform to deal with the wide range of immigration problems. The current status on the border is the number of children coming across the border has abated. Those children remaining in detention shelters along the border number only a few hundred. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, these three Central American countries have among the highest per capita homicide rates in the world, with Honduras topping the list and the other two nations in the top five. To address this issue of the humanitarian crisis, I introduced H.R. 4990, the ``Justice for Children Now Act of 2014,'' which authorizes the immediate hiring of an additional 7o immigration judges in the Executive Office of Immigration Review. This bill will help but it is not sufficient to address the backlogs to help advance the flow of the children's immigration court hearings. The amount allowed under this bill will leave states and aid agencies footing a significant portion of the cost for assisting these helpless children--when it is the role of the federal government to be present and actively engaged in leading the effort. I support the President's request for $3.7 billion to respond to the humanitarian crisis on the border and urge my colleagues in leadership to reconsider the level of funding for this great need. Congress should allocate the resources needed to deal with the increase in unaccompanied children seeking refuge in the United States. Some of these persons are attempting to enter the country unlawfully and without justification. Our laws do not permit this and they should not be allowed entry. The Administration is following immigration law as it relates to these unaccompanied minors. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, signed by President George W. Bush establishes the legal status of the children who have entered the nation unaccompanied. That law provides persons fleeing lethal violence or escape from human trafficking the opportunity to have their case heard by an immigration judge. Over the time Congress has delayed acting and an additional 366,000 pending cases were added to the immigration courts that must have hearings before any action can be taken. Because this situation is untenable for everyone--law enforcement, taxpayers, and individuals petitioning for relief, the first thing that we can and should do to reduce the backlog is provide the funding needed to appoint 70 new immigration judges, as provided under legislation. Ensuring that there are available sufficient facilities to house detained children in a humane manner while they await their immigration hearing is another challenge. I ask that the Rules Committee approve the Jackson Lee Amendment for inclusion in H.R. 5230.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 49th anniversary of Medicare, one of the most popular and successful social insurance programs in the history of the United States. When President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law on July 30, 1965, less than 50 percent of seniors had health insurance and 35 percent lived in poverty. Now, over 52.4 million Americans are given health care benefits regardless of their condition or income. This includes over 40 million Americans age 65 or above and 9 million disabled Americans receiving Social Security benefits. Medicare saves lives and money, and here is why. Since its creation Medicare has provided comprehensive health care coverage for the senior citizens who cannot afford it. Without Medicare, most seniors would not have insurance and be unable to afford health care due to high costs or pre-existing conditions. It provides 37 million seniors prescription drug coverage and offers free preventive health screenings, including mammograms, diabetes, or cancer screenings now thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Medicare is not welfare. It is an cost-effective social program that works. In combination with the Affordable Care Act, I believe that Medicare's future is even brighter. These improved benefits include incentives for doctors and health care providers to coordinate more smoothly, reduce waste and fraud, and lower out of pocket costs for beneficiaries. Forty-nine years after its inception, the program continues to do its job and I hope that we can continue to support it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up--and I am pleading to bring up--H.R. 377, the Paycheck Fairness Act, to jump-start the middle class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President of the United States of America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, thank you President Johnson, and happy birthday to Medicaid and Medicare. I am excited about the lives that have been saved, and I am looking forward to the full expansion in all 50 States of Medicaid in 2015, its 50th birthday. I will tell you, when President Johnson signed Medicare into law, less than 50 percent of our seniors had health insurance and 35 percent lived in poverty. Now, over 52.4 million Americans are given health care benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, regardless of their condition, and then for some also when their income is very low. Mr. Speaker, 43.6 million Americans age 65 and above have Medicare and Medicaid, including 8.8 million disabled. Our seniors are able to be in long-term living because of Medicaid. By the time the baby boomers reach 65, it is expected that 80 million people will be covered by Medicare. What is the common sense and lack thereof of the States that have not accepted expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act? Mr. Speaker, Medicare and Medicaid together save lives. I am interested in saving lives. Let's stand up for the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid to save the lives of Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen very much on behalf of the State that has one of the largest populations of veterans, including those in my congressional district. I would like to say thank you. To Ranking Member Michaud and Chairman Miller, thank you for allowing me to sit in on a hearing. Thank you to the conferees. Thank you for understanding that, when our soldiers put on the uniform, have any of us ever had them question why? And therefore, we should never question why are we giving the best service that we can give to our veterans. I am grateful for the $5 billion that allows this temporary flexibility, that if you cannot get service, you are, in fact, able to go to civilian doctors. The professionals that are going to be added with primary and specialty doctors are the TMI, housing, PTSD, sexual assault. All of these are making a difference. In the name of the World War II veteran that I saw in Normandy, by the name of Curtis, a veteran in my district who had an appointment in 2013 and never heard back from the veterans hospital, in his name, I believe that this is the most important opportunity. We should vote for this and be able to provide our veterans with the promise we have made to them: You serve, and we will serve you. God bless America. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, I rise in strong support of the Conference Report to H.R. 3230, ``Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014.'' We must remember that freedom is not free and pause to recognize the valor and self-sacrifice of our nation's veterans. We also need to keep our promises to the nation's more than 2 million troops and reservists and 23 million veterans. I support the Conference Report for 6 principle reasons. The legislation before us: 1. Expands access to health care for veterans; 2. Addresses the shortage of health professionals in the VA; 3. Ensures access to care for rural veterans; 4. Provides funding to establish 27 new VA clinics; 5. Expands access to education for veterans and their families; and 6. Extends a community-based housing program for veterans. Specifically, the conference report provides that the bulk of the funding in this agreement--$10 billion in emergency funding--be used to expand access to non-VA health care options for veterans who have been left waiting for more than 30 days for an appointment or live more than 40 miles from the nearest VA facility. Additionally, the bill provides $5 billion to VA to hire more primary and specialty care physicians and other medical staff and includes incentives to attract more doctors, nurses and other medical personnel to the VA, and to increase medical education opportunities to attract doctors in the future. Third, the bill extends the ARCH (Access Received Closer to Home) pilot program for two years. The ARCH program expands VA's ability to serve veterans who live far from VA facilities in Northern Maine; Farmville, Virginia; Pratt, Kansas; Flagstaff, Arizona; and Billings, Montana. Fourth, the bill expands VA authority to provide counseling, care and other services to veterans and certain other non-veteran service members who have experienced military sexual trauma during active or inactive duty training (including members of the National Guard and Reserves). The legislation also requires the VA and DOD to conduct an annual assessment focused on the transition and continuum of care from DOD to VA for those who have experiences military sexual trauma. Fifth, the conference report includes $1.5 billion to lease 27 new VA clinics, including a new research facility in my home city of Houston, Texas, bringing care closer to where veterans live and increasing access to specialty care services. Sixth, the Conference Report permits veterans who are eligible for education benefits under the Post 9-11 New GI Bill to qualify for in- state tuition and it expands the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to include spouses of members of the Air Force who die in the line duty while serving in active duty. Finally, the Conference Report gives the VA Secretary the authority to immediately fire or demote senior executives based on poor job performance or misconduct but includes an expedited appeals process for terminated employees to prevent political firings and protect whistleblowers from retaliation. Mr. Speaker, my state of Texas and Houston appreciates the service and sacrifices of veterans and takes care of them. The Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, for example, located in Houston, Texas serves the 32,477 veterans and is the primary healthcare provider for almost 130,000 veterans in southeast Texas. Veterans from around the country are referred to the DeBakey VA Medical Center for specialized diagnostic care, radiation therapy, surgery, and medical treatment including cardiovascular surgery, gastrointestinal endoscopy, nuclear medicine, ophthalmology, and treatment of spinal cord injury and diseases. DeBakey VA Medical Center provides vital healthcare services to Veterans in the Houston area and through the nation. I am proud to support the Conference Report since veterans from Houston and surrounding regions will benefit with the establishment of a new facility that will extend access to specialty care services. Mr. Speaker, in addition to long wait times at VA facilities, many veterans face a number of other challenges, including homelessness, coping with PTSD, and finding suitable employment in the civilian job market. To address these problems, earlier this year I was successful in passing amendments to this year's Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act and the Defense Appropriations Act providing additional funding and resources targeted to helping homeless veterans secure housing and treating veterans suffering from PTSD in underserved urban and rural areas. I also introduced H.R. 4110, the ``Transitioning Heroes Act of 2014,'' which provides strong tax incentives for employers to hire, retain, and employ veterans in positions that take maximum advantage of their skills and experience. Mr. Speaker, our men and women in the military have fulfilled a commitment to this nation and to each other that we should imitate in our actions to work to provide for veterans now that their military service has ended. That is why as Members of Congress we need to make sure our veterans receive the best medical care that modern medicine has to offer to them and their families. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Conference Report to H.R. 3230, ``Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman very much, and I rise to oppose H. Res. 676, which is seeking an unconstitutional right to sue the President for doing his duty and following the law. The underbelly of this resolution would, in essence, put fire in the hearts and minds of Americans when we find out that this legislation is to undermine the President and any of his officers and employees from doing their jobs. This is a failed attempt to impeach the President. I am willing to say that word because the President has been following the law. The law passed, and it gives him discretion to interpret the Affordable Care Act to make it best work for the American people. As has been stated, if you want to change the law, go to the floor of the House. But in actuality, this resolution smacks against the Constitution which says there are three equal branches of government. Therefore, the Executive has the right to perform his duties. I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is, in fact, a veiled attempt for impeachment, and it undermines the law that allows the President to do his job. It is a historical fact that President Bush pushed this Nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush because as an Executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to, in essence, provide the opportunity for us to do valid things for the American people--improve the minimum wage, paycheck fairness--and stop undermining the authority as indicated in the Constitution that gives equal authority to the three branches of government. We can pass laws. We have the ability to pass laws, and citizens have the right to go into court on their independent standing. The courts have often said that the Congress has no standing. The House of Representatives has no independent standing, as evidenced by many cases that we have already taken to court and determined that Congress has no standing. The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements, derived from the case or controversy provision in article III, and prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be modified by Congress. That dictates on how you gain standing, and I would say the constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have suffered a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete, and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely be redressed by the relief requested from the court. Let me be very clear. We in Congress can make no argument that the President has injured us. We can make no independent argument of that, and so I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution and do not accept a veiled attempt at impeachment when our President is doing his duty and following the law under the Constitution of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H. Res. 676, providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other Executive Branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the constitution of the United States. We could be doing some very important legislation to help the American people from Texas to the tip of Maine, like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the Appropriations Border Supplemental, comprehensive tax reform, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization, or the Voting Rights Act, yet my Republican colleagues insist on wasting valuable time. The Congressional Black Caucus did a Special Order earlier this week entitled: the GOP's March Towards Impeachment, and that is where we appear to be headed. But first let me make a distinction between impeachment and a lawsuit initiated by the House, qua House of Representatives, via H. Res. 676. Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. In any impeachment inquiry, the Members of this branch of government must confront some preliminary questions to determine whether an impeachment is appropriate in a given situation. The first of these questions is whether the individual whose conduct is under scrutiny falls within the category of President, Vice President, or ``civil Officers of the United States'' such that he is vulnerable to impeachment. A preliminary question is whether the conduct involved constitutes ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.'' Now Mr. Speaker, whether we get to this point where we are actually considering impeachment of the President is a question that only the GOP majority can answer. It appears that we are heading in that direction--even in the face of doubt from numerous experts as to whether the effort will succeed or not. Indeed, it is a matter of historical fact that President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending the terrorists of September 11, 2001; and weapons of mass destruction, ``WMD's'' have yet to be found. House Democrats refused to impeach President Bush. Let me state that again: House Democrats refused to impeach President George W. Bush. Now I wish to turn to the resolution which the GOP Majority intends to put before this body in a last-ditch effort to stir their base before November. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger testified before the Rules Committee two weeks ago and had this to say about the potential lawsuit: The House of Representatives lacks authority to bring such a suit. Because neither the Speaker nor even the House of Representatives has a legal concrete, particular and personal stake in the outcome of the proposed lawsuits, federal courts would have no authority to entertain such actions. Passage of the proposed resolution does nothing to change that. If federal judges were to undertake to entertain suits brought by the legislature against the President or other federal officers for failing to administer statutes as the House desires, the result would be an unprecedented aggrandizement of the political power of the judiciary. Such a radical liberalization of the role of unelected judges in matters previously entrusted to the elected branches of government should be rejected. My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the President from exceeding his constitutional authority, But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the President's powers under the Constitution. The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements, derived from the case or controversy provision in Article III, and prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be modified by Congress. The constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have suffered a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by the relief requested from the court. Constitutional Requirements To satisfy the constitutional standing requirements in Article III, the Supreme Court imposes three requirements. The plaintiff must first allege a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual or imminent, concrete, and particularized. Second, the injury must be ``fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct, and'' third, the injury must be ``likely to be redressed by the requested relief.'' Prudential Requirements In addition to the constitutional questions posed by the doctrine of standing, federal courts also follow a well-developed set of prudential principles that are relevant to a standing inquiry. Similar to the constitutional requirements, these limits are ``founded in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society,'' but are judicially created. Unlike their constitutional counterparts, prudential standing requirements ``can be modified or abrogated by Congress.'' If separation-of-powers principles require anything, it is that each branch must respect its constitutional role. When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a federal law, the other branches must abide by the decision. The executive branch's ability to fulfill its obligation to comply with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by Congress pursuant to this bill as my amendment to H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE ACT made clear. And Mr. Speaker, a basic respect for separation of powers should inform any discussion of a lawsuit from both a constitutional standpoint and a purely pragmatic one. In our constitutional democracy, taking care that the laws are executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion. And it is a well-settled principle that our Constitution imposes restrictions on Congress' legislative authority, so that the faithful execution of the laws may present occasions where the President declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law, or delays such enforcement, because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land. This resolution, like the bill we considered in the Judiciary Committee on which I serve and before this body, the H.R. 4138, The ENFORCE Act, has problems with standing, separation of powers, and allows broad powers of discretion incompatible with notions of due process. The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to faithfully execute the law. These are critical problems. First, Congress is unlikely to be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, which the Supreme Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally injured by the challenged conduct. In the wide array of circumstances incident and related to the Affordable Care Act in which the resolution would authorize a House of Congress to sue the president, that House would not have suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of any legislator's votes. Second, the resolution violates separation of powers principles by inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left to the other branches to be decided. And Mr. Speaker, I thought the Supreme Court had put this notion to rest as far back as Baker v. Carr, a case that hails from 1962. Baker stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate political questions--and that it is impossible to decide such questions without intruding on the ability of agencies to do their job. Third, the resolution makes one House of Congress a general enforcement body able to direct the entire field of administrative action by bringing cases whenever such House deems a President's action to constitute a policy, of non-enforcement. This bill attempts to use the notion of separation of powers to justify an unprecedented effort to ensure that the laws are enforced by the President--and I say one of the least creative ideas I have seen in some time. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to deliberate before we are at a bridge too far.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weeks, many of us have visited my home State and have gone to places where I have gone over the decades of service and living in Texas, and that is to our great neighbors who live on the border. Many great citizens of the State of Texas and of the great country in which we live, they have lived and worked and played, and they have created an economic engine, cities like Brownsville, Laredo, Harlingen, McAllen, and many others. And they have, in fact, experienced over the years an influx of individuals coming to do harm. As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and a member who has served as chairwoman and ranking member on a number of subcommittees, we have made great strides. I am reminded of the low number of Border Patrol agents some many years ago, and now we are upwards to 25,000 hardworking Americans who serve on both the northern and southern borders. They have met the challenge of a serious influx. First, the drug cartels. The violence on the Mexican side of the border. We have come together with Mexican Presidents and have worked with the Mexican national defense forces, and we have quashed, to a certain extent, the extensive violence. But yet, our Federal agents of the ATF, the DEA, FBI, and certainly other collaborative efforts have worked to bring this violence down. We take note of the fact that El Paso is noted as the safest city in the United States, and it is on the border. We note that a great deal of commerce comes through the southern border, as it does the northern border. Over the last couple of weeks, beginning maybe in 2013, we saw a new phenomenon, an unplanned phenomenon, a phenomenon driven by the devastating and destructive elements found in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Central America, none of which were driven by a pointed pronouncement from the United States or the President of the United States, President Barack Obama. But elements who wanted to misuse and abuse the need for comprehensive immigration reform decided to misrepresent the laws of the United States of America. Every Member of Congress has adhered to a particular theme. I started using it in the 1990s. We are a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants. And the laws are intended to be used to instruct how we guide our hearts and our laws. We still have the Statue of Liberty in the harbor of New York that says, we welcome the forlorn and those who are in need. Unfortunately, bad information was given to desperate people. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: desperate people. Desperate mothers and fathers who saw the beheading of young people, or people in their neighborhood threatened by MS-13 and other horrific gangs who say, if your child does not join, your child will be killed, or your little girl will be raped. Or maybe the 3-year-old that I saw down in Brownsville with a diaper on was given to someone just to save her life. That is the misnomer and the abuse that has been going on in the debate here. These are the real lives of children who fled with a more than credible fear of the loss of life. I am so disappointed sometimes in how we can reinvent truth, and that is that these children are fleeing because of what President Obama represented. That is not true. And it is important to tell the American people the truth. They were fleeing because of the sheer unbelievable violence, insane violence, mixed in with the mistruths and misrepresentations of those who just wanted to make money and abuse the system. So now we have the surge, maybe 50,000 plus here in the United States. And we have to do something about it. I listened to three young people yesterday. Most of us have not heard from the children because we were protecting the children's privacy. But these youngsters explained the arduous journey that they took and how they came here for nothing more than a better life, and that violence was all around them. Yes, we need to work with Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador. But we started out trying to do what was right. The President offered a supplemental. He knew it was right to have funding for the wilderness funding. He knew it was right to give the Border Patrol agents their appropriate moneys, and he knew it was right for enforcement to add more judges. But what I would say is, what we have on the floor now, Mr. Speaker, is a pitiful example in H.R. 5230. This is a bad emergency supplemental. It is not even that. It is not worth voting for. America is better than this, and we need to do better than this with the supplemental to help these children and help America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, often, the American people hear the term ``Congress,'' but I think it is important to let all of my colleagues know and remind them what the Republicans will be doing over the next 48 hours. It is important to know that there will be a resolution--a bill--on the floor of the House, H. Res. 676, and it says that they are looking for the power to intervene in one or more civil actions to file suit against the President, to seek any appropriate relief against the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee. Let me be very clear. The Republicans are looking to sue the secretary who didn't order enough paper clips and indicate that we need to sue the President for not doing his job, while veterans are suffering and need a whole reformation and a new bill, while people are still not getting their unemployment insurance, while we are not able to expand Medicaid to help those who need health care, and while we are not raising the minimum wage. Democrats want to work for the American people, but Republicans want to sue the secretary, meaning the secretary who orders paper clips, because the President is not doing his job. Let's work for the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2952, a bill that will create a research and development strategy for critical infrastructure security technologies to protect critical American infrastructure from physical and cyber-attacks. As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I believe that the technology and protection of our critical infrastructure falls short in addressing the cyber-attacks we face on a daily basis. We are in dire need of new security technologies to keep pace with rapidly evolving threats and the rapid advancement of the infrastructure itself. This bill requires the Homeland Security Department to facilitate the development of a research and development (R&D) strategy for critical infrastructure security technologies. The measure requires the Homeland Security Department, within 180 days of enactment and every two years thereafter, to submit to Congress a strategic plan for research and development efforts addressing the protection of critical infrastructure. The plan must identify critical infrastructure security risks and any associated security technology gaps The department also must submit a report to Congress, within 180 days of enactment and every two years thereafter, on departmental use of public-private consortiums to develop technology to protect such infrastructure. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill would cost less than $500,000 annually in 2014 and 2015, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local or tribal governments. Mr. Speaker, the cost of this bill is a small price to pay for the increased security and safety it will provide once it has been successfully implemented. In closing, I would like to state that I have always advocated for strengthening our Department of Homeland Security and giving the department the proper tools to protect our country. It is important that we continue to help support the agencies that protect us.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, the Ranking Member of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, and the author of the legislation, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 3202, the ``Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act.'' The Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit to Congress and the Comptroller General (GAO) a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the transportation security card program at enhancing security or reducing security risks for maritime facilities and vessels. I introduced, H.R. 3202, in response to this GAO TWIC Report on the Weaknesses in the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Reader Pilot program that impacted the accuracy, and reliability of the system. The GAO report stated that data collection and retention was done in an incomplete and inconsistent manner during the pilot, further undermining the completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the data collected at pilot sites. Problems identified included by the GAO report included: Installed TWIC readers and access control systems could not collect required data on TWIC reader use, and TSA and the independent test agent did not employ effective compensating data collection measures. Reported transaction data did not match underlying documentation. Pilot documentation did not contain complete TWIC reader and access control system characteristics. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the independent test agent did not record clear baseline data for comparing operational performance at access points with TWIC readers. TSA and the independent test agent did not collect complete data on malfunctioning TWIC cards. Pilot participants did not document instances of denied access. TSA and the independent test agent did not collect consistent data on the operational impact of using TWIC cards with readers. Pilot site reports did not contain complete information about installed TWIC readers' and access control systems' design. The seeks to address the problems outlined in the GAO report by directing the Secretary to issue a corrective action plan based on the assessment that responds to the findings of a cost-benefit analysis of the program and enhances security or reduces security risk for such facilities and vessels. Following the assessment the Comptroller General, within 120 days must: review the extent to which the submissions implement certain recommendations issued by the Comptroller General, and inform Congress as to the responsiveness of the submission. Prohibits the Secretary from issuing a final rule requiring the use of transportation security card readers until: the Comptroller General informs Congress that the submission is substantially responsive to the GAO recommendations, and the Secretary issues an updated list of transportation security card readers that are compatible with active transportation security cards. My Congressional District is located in Houston Texas, which is home to one of the world's busiest ports. The Port of Houston is critical infrastructure: According to the Department of Commerce in 2012, Texas exports totaled $265 billion. The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. In 2012 ship channel-related businesses contribute 1,026,820 jobs and generate more than $178.5 billion in statewide economic impact. For the past 11 consecutive years, Texas has outpaced the rest of the country in exports. 1st ranked US port in foreign tonnage 2nd ranked US port in total tonnage 7th ranked US container port by total TEUs in 2012 Largest Texas port with 46% of market share by tonnage Largest Texas container port with 96% market share in containers by total TEUs in 2012 Largest Gulf Coast container port, handling 67% of US Gulf Coast container traffic in 2012 2nd ranked US port in terms of cargo value (based on CBP Customs port definitions) The Government Accountability Office (GAO), reports that this port, and its waterways, and vessels are part of an economic engine handling more than $700 billion in merchandise annually. The Port of Houston houses approximately 100 steamship lines offering services that link Houston with 1,053 ports in 203 countries. The Port of Houston has $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest worldwide. The bill will address the underlying concerns regarding Transportation Worker Identification Credentials documented by the Government Accountability Office report published in May 2013. When Congress enacted the SAFE Ports Act in 2006, we directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a biometric credential program to ensure that individuals with unescorted access to sensitive areas in ports and vessels were vetted and known. However, under the Homeland Security Committee's oversight responsibilities we learned that, as implemented by TSA and the Coast Guard, there are weaknesses in the program. One of the greatest engines our economy has is the Port of Houston, which hosts a $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest worldwide? The Port of Houston petrochemical complex supplies over 40 percent of the nation's base petrochemical manufacturing capacity. What happens at the Port of Houston affects the entire nation. For this reason, I introduced H.R. 3202, with the support of Subcommittee Chairman Miller as an original cosponsor, to ensure that Congress receives an independent scientific assessment of the program and to require the Secretary to issue a corrective action plan in response to the assessment. Indeed, the Government Accountability Office has identified serious shortcomings with the TWIC program, as implemented, that may undermine the program's intended purpose and make it difficult to justify program costs, particularly the costs to workers. Other considerations for security are in the infrastructure necessary to make sure that there is an ability to electronically check the credential of workers as they enter ports. The required assessment should give Congress the information it needs to determine how best to proceed with the program. I want to point out that in Committee, language was integrated to ensure that clarified that pending rulemaking would not be impacted by the bill and refined the scope of the assessment we are seeking. The Department has said that the final rule for biometric readers will be published in January 2015. There is great interest in that final rule, particularly there is interest in how many ports and vessels will be required to install readers for biometric cards. If the final rule requires only a limited number of vessels and ports to have biometric readers, as has been previously proposed by the Department, we will certainly need to have a discussion about what this means for the approximately 2 million truckers, longshoremen and port workers who today are required to carry biometric cards to do their jobs. Bill Background The nationwide recognition of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) promotes security and standardization. A common credential enables facility and vessel operators as well as federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement entities to verify the identity of individuals--a step that was not feasible prior to TWIC implementation with potentially thousands of different facility-specific credentials. TWIC also allows transportation workers to move among facilities, vessels, and geographic regions as needed for routine market demands and during emergencies, while still maintaining security. ``In the interest of security and in order to provide proper stewardship of appropriated funds and collected TWIC fees, I introduced legislation to insist that DHS demonstrate how the TWIC Program will improve maritime security. The Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act will require the Secretary of Homeland Security to complete and submit to Congress and GAO a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the TWIC Program at enhancing or reducing security risks for maritime facilities and vessels. The comprehensive assessment will be completed by an independent, not-for-profit laboratory. Many problems and vulnerabilities persist and will have to be resolved if the TWIC Program is to ever realize the security benefits envisioned by Congress. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Miller for the bipartisan nature of the work on this and all the bills that originate in our Subcommittee and thank you and your staff for their cooperation. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly support this bipartisan bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3202, the Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in strong support of my bill, H.R. 3202, the Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act and, again, want to offer my appreciation to Chairwoman Miller of the committee, that I am the ranking member of, for her collaboration, cooperation, and commitment to America's security and working together in a bipartisan manner not only at the subcommittee level, but at the full committee level. Again, thanking Mr. McCaul, the chairman of the full committee, and Mr. Thompson, the ranking member of the full committee, I would offer to say that Homeland Security has put national security first beyond any of our partisan desires, so I am grateful for that as we move this legislation forward. I would like to think that both Chairwoman Miller and myself believe that there is a value to the TWIC card. Even this weekend, as I was in my district canvassing an area about crime issues, a gentleman came out and said: I have a house here, I am training individuals how to apply for the TWIC card. I couldn't believe it. In a neighborhood, there was someone who was trying to get resources to train people to get a TWIC card because they knew how valuable it was if you want to work in the Nation's ports. It is valuable, but I want to acknowledge the card reader pilot results are unreliable, and security benefits need to be reassessed. This was done by the GAO in May 2013. I would just like to read these words from what the GAO recommended: Congress should halt DHS' efforts to promulgate a final regulation until the successful completion of a security assessment of the effectiveness of using TWIC. Here is an issue where Congress rose to the occasion, and this is this legislation, to be able to respond to make something better. When Congress enacted the SAFE Port Act in 2006, we directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a biometric credential program to ensure that individuals with unescorted access to sensitive areas of ports and vessels were vetted and known. I think there is enough evidence for us to know that terror can come in many forms, and we know that by some of the terrible incidents that have occurred--the incident in Yemen where one of our ships was attacked--so we know how difficult securing these large areas and vessels are. However, we learned that, as implemented by TSA and the Coast Guard, there are weaknesses in the program. Indeed, the Government Accountability Office has identified serious shortcomings with the TWIC program, as implemented, that may undermine the program's intended purpose and make it difficult to justify costs, particularly the costs to workers. I want to emphasize workers because when we first began this program, there were a number of us on the committee who wanted to do several things, wanted to provide more centers where TWIC cards could be accessible because many of the longshoremen and other workers were finding it difficult in their schedule to be able to secure one. I secured a TWIC card to be able to determine how the process works. The biometrics issue came out from the 9/11 reports. It was suggested that biometrics would be the way to go, and so the TWIC card was designed that way, to deal with biometrics. Unfortunately, all those efforts of trying to make it accessible didn't answer the question of whether or not it was going to be effective. Again, I remember trying to get around-the-clock sites where longshoremen and others who worked in these areas could get it, according to their shifts. Some of them are out for many days and months at a time. Specifically, GAO's review of the pilot tests aimed at assessing the technology and operational impact of using the TWIC with card readers show that the test results were incomplete, inaccurate, and unreliable for informing Congress and for developing a regulation about the readers. GAO found that challenges related to pilot planning, data collection, and reporting effected the completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the pilot results. GAO determined that these issues call into question the program's premise and effectiveness in enhancing security. In response, I introduced H.R. 3202, with the support of subcommittee Chairwoman Miller as an original cosponsor, to ensure that Congress received an independent--I want to make it very clear that this is very important--an independent scientific assessment of the program and to require the Secretary to ensure a corrective action plan in response to the assessment. The required assessment should give Congress the information it needs to determine how best to proceed with the program. I want to point out that in committee, language was integrated that clarified that any pending rulemaking would not be impacted by this bill and refine the scope of the assessment we are seeking, made it more pointed, and made it very clear that any rulemaking would not be interfered with. I think that is the right way for Congress to work. The department has said that the final rule for biometric readers will be published in January 2015. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that we can continue to be on that schedule. We were hoping that it was going to be earlier, but we hope that this report will be more helpful to Congress in determining how, ultimately, this program will work. There is great interest in the final rule; particularly, there is interest in how many ports and vessels will be required to install readers for biometric cards. If the final rule requires only a limited number of vessels in ports to have biometrics readers, as has been previously proposed by the department, we will certainly need to have a discussion about what this means for the approximately 2 million truckers, longshoremen, and port workers who today are required to carry biometric cards to do their jobs. We want an effective system. I believe it could be effective. I believe it is valuable. I believe people should be carded going into security areas or sensitive areas, and I think we have gotten our workers to be able to understand it as well, if it works right for them. So we will look forward to this process where we continue to collaborate, and this legislation will be helpful as such. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just have some closing remarks to emphasize that the idea of the Transportation Worker Identification card, the TWIC card, was to promote security and standardization. It was a common credential that enables facility and vessel operators, as well as Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement entities to verify the identity of individuals, a step that was not feasible prior to TWIC implementation, with potentially thousands of different facility-specific credentials, which is why many of us supported--and I strongly support--the TWIC card. I want it to work. TWIC also allows transportation workers to move among facilities, vessels, and geographic regions as needed for routine demands during emergencies while still maintaining security. In the interest of security and in order to provide proper stewardship of appropriated funds and collected TWIC funds or fees, this legislation was introduced, the Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act, to really get a better investment for our money. I am looking forward to a comprehensive assessment that will, in essence, be done by a not-for-profit laboratory and so that the many problems and vulnerabilities that persist in this program can be either eliminated or corrected. We want to work with our, if you will, our partners, the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Agency, and many others. As we all know, national security has to be for all of us our highest priority, particularly Members of Congress, and it certainly is for those of us in the Homeland Security Committee. So I would ask my colleagues, again, to support H.R. 3202, the Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act, and move us closer to completing our commitment after 9/11, which is to make this country the most secure country in the world. Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, my chairwoman and collaborator, Mrs. Miller, for her assistance. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bill, H.R. 3202, the Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act. When Congress enacted the SAFE Ports Act in 2006, we directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a biometric credential program to ensure that individuals with unescorted access to sensitive areas in ports and vessels were vetted and known. However, we have learned that, as implemented by TSA and the Coast Guard, there are weaknesses in the program. Indeed, the Government Accountability Office has identified serious shortcomings with the TWIC program, as implemented, that may undermine the program's intended purpose and make it difficult to justify program costs, particularly the costs to workers. Specifically, GAO's review of the pilot test aimed at assessing the technology and operational impact of using the TWIC with card readers showed that the test's results were incomplete, inaccurate, and unreliable for informing Congress and for developing a regulation about the readers. GAO found that challenges related to pilot planning, data collection, and reporting affected the completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the pilot results. GAO determined that these issues call into question the program's premise and effectiveness in enhancing security. In response, I introduced H.R. 3202, with the support of Subcommittee Chairman Miller as an original cosponsor, to ensure that Congress receives an independent scientific assessment of the program and to require the Secretary to issue a corrective action plan in response to the assessment. The required assessment should give Congress the information it needs to determine how best to proceed with the program. I want to point out that in Committee, language was integrated to ensure that clarified that pending rulemaking would not be impacted by the bill and refined the scope of the assessment we are seeking. The Department has said that the final rule for biometric readers will be published in January 2015. There is great interest in that final rule, particularly there is interest in how many ports and vessels will be required to install readers for biometric cards. If the final rule requires only a limited number of vessels and ports to have biometric readers, as has been previously proposed by the Department, we will certainly need to have a discussion about what this means for the approximately 2 million truckers, longshoremen and port workers who today are required to carry biometric cards to do their jobs. In closing, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Miller for the bipartisan nature of the work on this and all the bills that originate in our Subcommittee and thank you and your staff for their cooperation. As a Houstonian, I have a special appreciation for what is at stake. We owe it to the men and women that rely on our Nation's ports for their livelihoods to get this right. With that Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to thank the gentleman from New York. I just want to take a moment to compliment both Mr. Horsford and Mr. Jeffries for this Special Order, among others. I could not imagine, as we end this session, to have a more important statement to the American people. We want to work, and in a few days, we will be voting on an action to sue the President of the United States. Let me refer you to Justice Antonin Scalia, who has said in United States v. Windsor: Our Constitution rejects a system in which Congress and the executive can pop immediately into court whenever the President implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress' liking. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that while some European countries allow one branch of government to sue another, that is obviously not the regime that our Constitution establishes. Our Constitution contemplates a more restricted role for article III courts. In fact, our Constitution clearly states the separation of the three branches of the government: the judiciary, the legislature, and, of course, the executive branch of government. That is the way it is supposed to be structured. Now, we come and find ourselves with the legislature trying to step into leading the executive. The President has made it very clear. What has he done wrong? We just heard the Speaker of the House tell the President with respect to the unaccompanied children: you can handle it. Well, frankly, I would make the argument that you are right. There are executive powers, and so the basis upon which this lawsuit is about to be projected, to me, evidences that we have lost our way. As my colleagues have said as I was walking onto the floor, we still have the extension of unemployment insurance, the raising of minimum wage, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and the fixing of the veterans health system, which I hope that we will be able to do this week. If not, we should stay here and fix it for our veterans. The Constitution is clear, and I want to say those branches of government again: the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches are separate. Scholars and conservative jurists have indicated that there is no reason for us to jump into court on the responsibilities of each particular branch. Mr. Speaker, I would make the argument that this week is going to be 3 days of wasted time, and I know that there are people who disagree with the Affordable Care Act, immigration reform, the unaccompanied children--not one of those issues is attributable to the malfeasance of the President of the United States. I don't know whether this is a substitute for impeachment, but I would make the argument that the President has committed nothing equal to impeachment, and this second class citizenship of a lawsuit certainly is inappropriate. I believe the American people are much more interested in making sure that we follow what is good for them: creating jobs, protecting children, providing for education, and, Mr. Speaker, ending wars and fighting for what is right. This is not the way the people of the United States value their principles to be misused. The executive, judiciary, and legislature are three separate branches. We are expected to do our separate duties. I would, again, ask that we adhere to the Constitution by respecting these three separate branches of government. Let's do our job and provide for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk briefly about the GOP's march towards impeachment. But first let me make a distinction between impeachment and a lawsuit initiated by the House, qua House of Representatives. Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. In any impeachment inquiry, the Members of this branch of government must confront some preliminary questions to determine whether an impeachment is appropriate in a given situation. The first of these questions is whether the individual whose conduct is under scrutiny falls within the category of President, Vice President, or ``civil Officers of the United States'' such that he is vulnerable to impeachment. One facet of this question in some cases is whether the resignation of the individual under scrutiny forecloses further impeachment proceedings against him. A second preliminary question is whether the conduct involved constitutes ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.'' Now Mr. Speaker, whether we get to this point where we are actually considering impeachment of the President is a question that only the GOP Majority can answer. It appears that we are heading in that direction--even in the face of doubt from numerous experts as to whether the effort will succeed or not. Indeed, it is a matter of historical fact that President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending the terrorists of September 11, 2001; and weapons of mass destruction, ``WMD's'' have yet to be found. House Democrats refused to impeach President Bush. Let me state that again: ``House Democrats refused to impeach President George W. Bush.'' Now I wish to turn to the resolution which the GOP Majority intends to put before this body in a last-ditch effort to stir their base before November. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger testified before the Rules Committee two weeks ago and had this to say about the potential lawsuit: The House of Representatives lacks authority to bring such a suit. Because neither the Speaker nor even the House of Representatives has a legal concrete, particular and personal stake in the outcome of the proposed lawsuits, federal courts would have no authority to entertain such actions. Passage of the proposed resolution does nothing to change that. If federal judges were to undertake to entertain suits brought by the legislature against the President or other federal officers for failing to administer statutes as the House desires, the result would be an unprecedented aggrandizement of the political power of the judiciary. Such a radical liberalization of the role of unelected judges in matters previously entrusted to the elected branches of government should be rejected. My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the president from exceeding his constitutional authority, But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the president's powers under the Constitution. The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements, derived from the case or controversy provision in Article III, and prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be modified by Congress. The constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have suffered a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by the relief requested from the court. Constitutional Requirements To satisfy the constitutional standing requirements in Article III, the Supreme Court imposes three requirements. The plaintiff must first allege a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual or imminent, concrete, and particularized. Second, the injury must be ``fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct, and'' third, the injury must be ``likely to be redressed by the requested relief.'' Prudential Requirements In addition to the constitutional questions posed by the doctrine of standing, federal courts also follow a well-developed set of prudential principles that are relevant to a standing inquiry. Similar to the constitutional requirements, these limits are ``founded in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society,'' but are judicially created. Unlike their constitutional counterparts, prudential standing requirements ``can be modified or abrogated by Congress.'' If separation-of-powers principles require anything, it is that each branch must respect its constitutional role. When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a federal law, the other branches must abide by the decision. The Executive Branch's ability to fulfill its obligation to comply with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by Congress pursuant to this bill as my amendment to H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE ACT made clear. And Mr. Speaker, a basic respect for separation of powers should inform any discussion of a lawsuit from both a Constitutional standpoint and a purely pragmatic one. In our Constitutional Democracy, taking care that the laws are executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion. And it is a well-settled principle that our Constitution imposes restrictions on Congress' legislative authority, so that the faithful execution of the Laws may present occasions where the President declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law, or delays such enforcement, because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land. This resolution, like the bill we considered in the Judiciary Committee on which I serve and before this body, the H.R. 4138, The ENFORCE Act, has problems with standing, separation of powers, and allows broad powers of discretion incompatible with notions of due process. The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to faithfully execute the law. These are critical problems. First, Congress is unlikely to be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, which the Supreme Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally injured by the challenged conduct. In the wide array of circumstances incident and related to the Affordable Care Act in which the resolution would authorize a House of Congress to sue the president, that House would not have suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of any legislator's votes. Second, the resolution violates separation of powers principles by inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left to the other branches to decided. And Mr. Speaker, I thought the Supreme Court had put this notion to rest as far back as Baker v. Carr, a case that hails from 1962. Baker stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate political questions--and that it is impossible to decide such questions without intruding on the ability of agencies to do their job. Third, the resolution makes one House of Congress a general enforcement body able to direct the entire field of administrative action by bringing cases whenever such House deems a President's action to constitute a policy of non-enforcement. This bill attempts to use the notion of separation of powers to justify an unprecedented effort to ensure that the laws are enforced by the president--and I say one of the least creative ideas I have seen in some time. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to deliberate before we are at a bridge too far.