Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. The Jackson Lee amendment that was not allowed would have ensured that, notwithstanding any provision of this act, no delay in the application of any provision of the Affordable Care Act would have occurred. It would have called for some studies about Medicare providers. It would have given us real information. Jackson Lee amendment No. 2 would have required the Secretary to submit a report on cost savings. The real point is, between skewing the water rights of people and the SGR, this rule should be opposed. We should get back to the drawing board. Can't we all get along and work together on the right kind of legislation for water rights? More importantly, Mr. Speaker, our doctors deserve better, and I will say to them, you will get better from us. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong opposition to the Rule for H.R. 4015, the SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act of 2014. Let me say first that I am a strong supporter of providing adequate compensation to our physicians who serve Medicare patients. It is important for our seniors to know that Medicare will be there when they need it. But it is equally important that there are physicians who are willing to attend to them without going broke. That is why we have a Sustainable Growth Rate or ``SGR.'' Medicare reimbursement enables rural physicians and hospitals to remain open for business. As with any business, medical clinics and physician offices have payrolls to meet, bills to pay, and expenses to meet as they become due. If revenues are not sufficient to cover costs, the business will not long survive. Thus, it is critical that we not disrupt timely and adequate payment to Medicare providers. The problem with H.R. 4015 is what happened in the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee, on a party line vote, added language to the Rule for H.R. 4015 that would delay the Affordable Care Act's implementation of the individual mandate. I oppose the Rule for two reasons: It corrupts what would otherwise be a strongly supported bipartisan bill to sustain physician reimbursement rates for medical services approved under Medicare, and It is another attempt by the Republicans to mislead the public regarding the Affordable Care Act. The Jackson Lee Amendments offered to the Rules Committee for H.R. 4015 would have improved the bill by removing the uncertainty that physicians would not keep the reimbursement rates they now have for treating patients under Medicare. Jackson Lee Amendment #1 would have ensured that notwithstanding any provision of this Act, no delay in the application of any provisions of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate can take effect before January 21, 2017. Jackson Lee Amendment #2 would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress on the impact of the Medicare provider payments on the diversity and availability of physicians and hospitals to underserved rural and urban communities. Jackson Lee Amendment #3 would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress on the cost savings associated with people no longer using emergency rooms or acute care facilities as their primary means of obtaining health care. Jackson Lee Amendment #4 would ensure that the bill cannot be construed or interpreted to permit or require a delay in the application of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. I know that many predicted that the Affordable Care Act would cause havoc on the nation's health care system. But it is not the ACA that is causing havoc--it is the 50 desperate but futile attempts by the Tea Party to scuttle a law that has been passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court. The most threatening actions to our nation's healthcare system by Tea Party Republicans are their attacks on Medicare. In 2014, according to the Kaiser Foundation 16% of the nation's people have medical insurance under Medicare: Texas has 12% of its residents insured under Medicare; Arkansas, Florida and Vermont have 19% of their residents insured under Medicare; and West Virginia and Main have 21% of their residents insured under Medicare. Kentucky; Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon have 18% of their residents insured under Medicare. Every state has more than 10% of their residents insured by Medicare. The uncertainly created by the majority regarding Medicare reimbursement over the last several years has forced physicians to reevaluate continuing their medical practice and frustrated hospitals working to make budget projections over several years into the future-- this is critical to business decision making. Because of uncertainty created by Medicare physician reimbursement-- physicians and hospitals have been forced to close their offices, reduce services, or merge. When patients find they cannot keep their physician or that their options for health care are being affected--it is not because of the Affordable Care Act. Our nation has taken a momentous step in creating a mindset that good health is a personal responsibility with the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. The health care law did not automatically enroll all citizens into the program; it was specifically designed to be an opt-in process. There are tens of thousands of visitors each day to the website and despite problems with the initial rollout of the online health insurance registration process, millions have enrolled and experience the peace of mind that comes from having affordable, high quality health insurance that is there when you need it. I have held many events in my District to inform and connect people with Navigators and Community Health Centers and send a strong message to my constituents encouraging them that now is the time for them to obtain affordable, accessible, and high quality health insurance for themselves and their families. So it is puzzling that with less than 70 legislative days remaining in the Second Session of the 113th Congress, we are still seeing attempts to end the Affordable Care Act. The fact that a bill that is critical to the provision of payments to physicians that treat Medicare patients is not safe from the politics of the moment is troubling. I ask my colleagues to support Medicare patients and their physicians by rejecting this Rule.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman very much. Might I make a March plea in this March madness? Can't we all get along and work together on important items such as water rights and the SGR? I rise, first of all, to make it very clear that I am a strong supporter of providing adequate compensation to our physicians who serve Medicare patients. It is important for our seniors to know that Medicare will be there when they need it. But it is equally important that there are physicians who are willing to attend to them without going broke. Let it be very clear that I believe my record has been extremely strong on the idea of making sure the benefits for seniors are not cut. The misrepresentation that the Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare benefits is not true. Now we have the sustainable growth rate, which we had bipartisan support for, and all of a sudden we have a poison pill of a self-executing rule, which was challenged in the Rules Committee, to take money from the Affordable Care Act to allegedly help the doctors. Every doctor I speak to wants a permanent fix for the SGR. There are a number of suggestions made in the other body, somewhat unpleasant, but we were willing to look at those particular suggestions. As with any business, medical clinics and physician offices have payrolls to meet, bills to pay, and expenses to meet as they become due. Why are we playing with them when, in essence, we know that this is not going anywhere? Why are we not taking care of these physicians who spend 8 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to work to gain a degree because they are healers, they believe in it, they want to serve the public. Now, rather than have a bipartisan bill--in the spirit of St. Patrick's Day--and be able to come together and work together, no, we have a bill that poses a serious problem. I oppose the rule because it corrupts what would otherwise be a strongly supported bipartisan bill to sustain physician reimbursement rates, and it is another attempt, again by our friends on the other side, to disregard and mislead the public about the Affordable Care Act. Let me clearly say that 11 groups representing the Nation's seniors-- doctors and advocates--sent a letter to congressional leaders urging the House to reject the Republicans' toxic doc fix, the GOP's 51st vote to repeal. From the letter: The undersigned organizations representing Medicare beneficiaries and providers appreciate the bipartisan, bicameral work done to repeal the Sustainable Growth Rate, SGR, and reform the Medicare reimbursement system. The current effort to link, however, SGR reform with changes to the Affordable Care Act injects partisan politics in bipartisan legislation. Access to health care for more than 50 million Americans with Medicare is a serious matter. We should not schedule a vote that does not take seriously the idea of making sure our doctors get sufficient compensation. The other wrongheaded approach to this is there are no amendments being allowed. No amendments, Mr. Speaker. A closed rule. I just saw some documentation of how many closed rules we have had in this House.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this morning we are now in the midst of Women's History Month. I want to associate myself with the women's history Special Order that was on the floor last evening. I look forward through the rest of the month of March to continue or to acknowledge women from my own congressional district. This morning, however, I wish to comment on a woman who has loomed large in our political eyes, and I thought out of fairness to give the record of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a fair shot. The reason I chose to do that, Mr. Speaker, is over the weekend, as many occurrences occur, political meetings abound in this Nation, and the Conservative Political Action Conference met. Interestingly enough in the reporting, the newspaper noted that Hillary Rodham Clinton had a presence at the Nation's largest gathering of conservative activists. Interestingly enough, former Secretary Clinton was not there, obviously not invited. I think it is important to take note of some of the comments that were made that really require some kind of addressing. One comment was that women should not be used. Another came from the former Speaker and charged that if Secretary Clinton decided to run for President, it would be like a prison guard for the past. Words I think that may be political rhetoric but really do a great disservice to a woman with a very strong historical record. Early in her life, former Secretary Clinton met Dr. Martin Luther King, born in Chicago to parents whose political beliefs, or part of their political beliefs, were different from Secretary Clinton's today. She was an active young woman and through her church had the opportunity to meet Dr. Martin Luther King. You can imagine her thoughts a few years later when Dr. King was assassinated. It may have had a major impact on her belief in serving her country and helping America. Hillary Clinton is a graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School. She worked on migrant worker issues for Walter Mondale's staff. Also, she was on the law editorial board--I would suggest, at that time, certainly one of the pioneering women at Yale Law School. Of course many of us know that she worked for the Children's Legal Defense Fund and really honed her skills of concern about making children our number one priority. I would offer to say that when I came to the United States Congress, former Secretary Clinton was First Lady. At that time I organized and founded the Congressional Children's Caucus. During the 1990s it was very clear that the First Lady at that time was very concerned still with children's issues and held one of the first conferences on 0 to 3 months, and how a baby could learn and how we should be nurturing that infant. It was a very major conference to focus our legislative agenda on that issue. It was during that time that Marian Wright Edelman continued to work with the former Secretary of State on the issues of dealing with the whole comprehensive child, what a child needs from 0 on to adulthood. Even today I would argue that we do not have a children's agenda. I will soon be offering a briefing promoting a children's budget that came out of the efforts and collaboration with the former Secretary of State during her tenure in the White House as First Lady. As First Lady she traveled to emphasize the importance of freedom for women around the world. She was not yet Secretary. One of the first acts that we remember, among the acts that we remember, is her going to China and declaring that women's rights are human rights. I would venture to say that the words at the CPAC convention do not in any way characterize the leadership of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Certainly she has gone on to many other successes, which include her leadership as Secretary of State, the constant work of freeing women, women's rights. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that she is a fine example of a mother, a wife, a leading national figure, a historic figure who represents Women's History Month.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the ranking member for his kindness, the managers of this legislation, and all of my colleagues that have come to the floor to try to seek truth. We have often said, Truth to power. The Constitution is the powerful document that all of us abide by. We take an oath of office to do so. Going through the markup, as we do in regular order, we as the loyal opposition over and over again try to query what was the truth of this legislation, what was the purpose of it, and how was it going to be valid in light of the Constitution and the powers that are inured to the Presidency. The Presidency has executive powers, and those powers were on the basis of his or her ability to work with the three branches of government. Now we have legislation that wants to do a number of things, like abolish the powers of the Presidency--abolish them because you disagree with policy. Believe me, all of us would like standing to challenge anything. We understand that when we made that attempt on several occasions, the courts have said, You don't have standing; it is to the people. So now we want to orchestrate that so that rather than the legislative process, which is given to the Congress, we desire to go and put ourselves in place on immigration reform; on protecting the environment; on questions of justice, whether it has to be ensuring that the election is unimpeded, whether it has to do with correcting policies that need to be corrected. We now want to get in front of that rather than doing it through the legislative process. I am glad my colleagues have spoken about immigration, because one of the bills that did not come forward was to abolish a position that the administration has every right to utilize dealing with advocacy for undocumenteds who are in a detention center who are not charged particularly with criminal acts. We already know that there is a veto threat, and it is a veto threat not for the present President of the United States but to uphold the Constitution. So the charge is that there is no trust in this President and there is a violation of the Constitution--I can assure you that people beyond this body would raise the issue of constitutionality if it was real. It is not. There are some professors who want to write a variety of law review papers and want to talk about how far we are exceeding our powers. These are purely addressing the question of the law and making sure that the law is applied fairly.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman very much. I will conclude by saying that what this bill is doing is seeking to usurp the powers of the President, particularly President Obama, and my friends on the other side, although I never attribute any malfeasance or bad intentions to Members that come on this floor, we never did this with President Bush. There was some question about signing statements, and some of us wanted to address the question of signing statements, but we never decided to be able to put on the floor of the House the complete abolishment of the powers of the Presidency. I ask my colleagues to vote down this legislation because it is unconstitutional. The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism for one House of Congress to enforce the ``take care'' clause in article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution, which requires the President to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' The bill authorizes either chamber of Congress to bring a civil action against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute existing laws. 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. But we must uphold the Constitution and that is why my amendment which I will hopefully bring before the House shortly, addresses situations. It is hard to believe that I would even need an amendment which instructs the Executive Branch that it is okay to--ENFORCE THE LAW. 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. Basic respect for separation of powers requires adoption of this amendment. But that is exactly what this bill is doing--in seeking to usurp the powers of the president--particularly President Obama--my colleague whom I realize was a former prosecutor--has put forth a piece of legislation which baffles me. 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 because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land. In fact Mr. Chair, if the legislation raises no question of constitutionality, the laws that we pass in this pose complicated questions, and executing them can raise a number of issues of interpretation, application or enforcement that need to be resolved before a law can be executed. This bill, 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. Any such decision would be reviewable only by the Supreme Court. 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 in which the bill 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 bill violates separation of powers principles by inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left to the other branches to be decided. And Mr. Chair 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 bill 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. I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, frankly, maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this Nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not. The ENFORCEMENT Act is not constitutional, but it gives us an opportunity to raise these issues. That is what freedom is. That is what the opportunity of democracy is all about. So the Jackson Lee amendment engages in this discussion to reinforce that there are constitutional problems with the ENFORCE Act. My amendment excludes from the scope of the bill any executive action taken to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the constitutional Federal laws. The amendment would ensure that one House of Congress cannot initiate dilatory legal challenges when executive actions were taken to comply with the judicial decisions. A couple of weeks ago, I believe in the month of February, the Speaker of the House came forward regarding a serious issue when they announced that they were prepared to move forward with discussions on immigration reform. Then, less than 5 days later, the Speaker took to the airwaves and indicated that that offer of bipartisanship has been pulled down because of the trust question of the President of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell you what happened in those 5 days. The President led the country; the President provided for the country; the President listened to the American people; the President has been the Commander in Chief; and the President has provided that kind of fiscal responsibility working on the omnibus, the budget, and I don't know what happened. But what I will say to you is I can see no reason for this kind of legislation to come to the floor of the House and to be able to clearly poke a spear, if you will, in the eye of article 2 that says, ``The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'' This President has that power. My amendment will ensure that whatever passes here allows the President to be able to handle the business of the American people through judicial and Federal statutes without interference. I would ask my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I thank you for allowing a chance to explain my amendment. The purpose of H.R. 4138 is to provide a mechanism for one House of Congress to enforce the ``take care'' clause in article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution, which requires the President to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed--but in fact has the opposite effect.'' That is why my amendment protects the ability of the Executive Branch to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws. The Jackson Lee Amendment excludes from the scope of the bill any executive action taken to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws. The amendment would ensure that one house of Congress could not initiate dilatory legal challenges when executive actions were taken to comply with judicial decisions. The bill authorizes either chamber of Congress to bring a civil action against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute existing laws. 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. It is hard to believe that I would even need an amendment which instructs the Executive Branch that it is okay to--ENFORCE THE LAW. 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. Basic respect for separation of powers requires adoption of this amendment. But that is exactly what this bill is doing--in seeking to usurp the powers of the president--particularly President Obama--my colleague whom I realize was a former prosecutor--has put forth a piece of legislation which baffles me. 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 because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land. In fact Mr. Chair, if the legislation raises no question of constitutionality, the laws that we pass in this pose complicated questions, and executing them can raise a number of issues of interpretation, application or enforcement that need to be resolved before a law can be executed. This bill, 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. Any such decision would be reviewable only by the Supreme Court. 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 in which the bill 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 bill violates separation of powers principles by inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left to the other branches to decided. And Mr. Chair, 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 bill 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. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment, which again, protects the ability of the Executive Branch to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws. Mr. Chair, the United States Constitution is sacrosanct--let's support it!

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, this is a political fight. I thought we had settled that fight with 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. Now our friends want to give Congress the right to expedite their lawsuit over the average citizen on a political question, first in a three-judge court, and then right to the Supreme Court of the United States, while the American people suffer because they want that particular position. It is a political question because it is the Republicans who want to be able to move beyond the authority given in the Constitution. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for that very astute analysis, and I want to conclude, if I might, by saying that I respect the separation of powers, and I understand what my colleague said, and Mr. Conyers is very right. This amendment does not gut the legislation, but I understand what my colleagues are saying. What I would argue is that we all want the same thing--that the authority of the President remains that, the Congress, and the judiciary, and there is no exceeding. I believe we can do it in a better way. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me make this point, and I will yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentlelady from California. But I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his eloquence. Obviously, he is from the great State of Thomas Jefferson, and I certainly am from the great law school of Thomas Jefferson, the University of Virginia School of Law. But let me just say that what this bill intends to do, the power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, exceeds--he knows it exceeds any constitutional boundaries. He is challenging the President on decisions that they don't agree with that are political. They don't agree with deferred adjudication. They don't agree with the DREAM Act youngsters. They don't agree that we should move forward on immigration reform. They are challenging him on his right to exert his power. I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3973, The Faithful Execution of the Law Act of 2014. One of the areas in which the Executive Branch should be least hamstrung is in its ability to respond to imminent threats to national security or public safety and the Jackson Lee Amendment prevents the President from being shackled by Congressional litigation from protecting America. A fundamental role of government is to ensure citizens' physical security. While government should not be given unfettered power in the name of security, neither should we allow a lawsuit by Congress to hamper the President in responding to imminent threats. H.R 3973 expands upon preexisting reporting requirements. Already, Madam Speaker, under 28 U.S.C. Section 53013(a)(1)(A), the Attorney General is required to report to Congress whenever any officer of the Department of Justice (including the Attorney General himself) ``establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain'' from (i) enforcing any federal statute, rule, or regulation on the grounds that the provision is unconstitutional, or (ii) enforcing or complying with a final decision of any court that interprets or applies the Constitution or a statute, rule, or regulation. H.R. 3973 would expand 530D(a)(1)(A) in three respects. First, it would require the Attorney General to report on nonenforcement policies adopted by federal officers outside of the Department of Justice. Second, it would extend reporting requirements to all nonenforcement policies, regardless of their rationale. Third, it would require the Attorney General to specify the grounds for declining to enforce any federal statute, rule, or regulation in his report to Congress. To summarize Madam Speaker, the U.S. Code would look like the following: (a) Report.-- (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report of any instance in which the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice or any other Federal officer-- (A) establishes or implements a formal or informal policy to refrain-- (i) from enforcing, applying, or administering any provision of any Federal statute, rule, regulation, program, policy, or other law whose enforcement, application, or administration is within the responsibility of the Attorney General or such officer and state the grounds for such policy on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional;. . . Again, Madam Speaker, an area in which the Executive Branch should be least hamstrung is in its ability to respond to imminent threats to national security or public safety, which is the amendment I would have offered in the Rules Committee last night. A fundamental role of government is to ensure citizens' physical security. While government should not be given unfettered power in the name of security, neither should we allow a lawsuit by Congress to hamper the President in responding to important matters of state. I urge my colleagues to reject this Bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R 4138, The ENFORCE The Law Act of 2014 and the underlying bill. H.R. 4138 purports to provide a mechanism for one House of Congress to enforce the ``take care'' clause in article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution, which requires the President to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' The bill authorizes either chamber of Congress to bring a civil action against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute existing laws. 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. That is why I offered an amendment to the bill that simply protects the ability of the Executive Branch to comply with judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution or Federal laws. It is hard to believe that I would even need an amendment which instructs the Executive Branch that it is okay to--ENFORCE THE LAW. 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. Basic respect for separation of powers requires adoption of this amendment. 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 because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land. Additionally, 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. Any such decision would be reviewable only by the Supreme Court. 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 in which the bill would authorize a House of Congress to sue the president, that House would not has suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of ay legislator's votes. I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, last August, at the direction of the Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department launched the ``Smart on Crime'' initiative, a set of internal policies and reforms to ensure federal laws are enforced more fairly and efficiently. These reforms are consistent with the President's constitutional obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. One of the smart reforms is a modification in the department's charging policies so that certain low-level, nonviolent drug defendants, with no significant ties to large-scale organizations, gangs, or cartels, will no longer be charged with offenses triggering mandatory minimum sentences. Instead, they will be charged with offenses that allow judges to impose sentences appropriate to their conduct. The ``Smart on Crime'' initiative is an exciting development that should be welcomed and supported by everyone because the status quo simply was not making the criminal justice system better, it was creating more problems than it solved. And we are spending more than $6.5 billion annually to incarcerate inmates, money that could be better used to fund job training, and educational opportunities, invest in infrastructure, support veterans, and promote reentry programs to reduce recidivism. Thirty years ago, there were less than 30,000 inmates in the federal system; today, there are nearly 216,000, an increase of 800 percent. The United States incarcerates nearly 25 percent of the world's inmates, even though it only has 5 percent of the world's population. No other country imprisons a larger percentage of its population than the United States or spends anywhere near the amount we do to incarcerate our citizens. The cost of imprisoning so many non-violent offenders is fiscally unsustainable and morally unjustifiable and it will take the combined efforts of policy makers, reform advocates, legal professionals, and private citizens to solve the problem. There is no shortage of stories chronicling the damage done to the lives of thousands of individuals and their families by the draconian sentencing laws passed by Congress and state legislatures beginning in the late 1980s in the so-called ``War on Drugs.'' Few are as tragic as the story of Clarence Aaron, who grew up in a public housing project in Mobile, Alabama. In 1992, shortly after his grandfather's death, Clarence made a mistake that would change his life. He agreed to introduce an old high school football teammate to a college classmate whose brother was a drug dealer. Clarence was present during one of the brother's drug transactions and during another attempted transaction for which he received $1,500. Clarence was later arrested by federal law enforcement officers and charged with conspiring to process 20 kilograms of powder cocaine and distribute it as crack cocaine. Even though this was his first offense, Clarence was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Shocking as this sounds, the judge was powerless to adjust the punishment to fit the crime because he was required by law to impose the sentence called for by the then-mandatory federal sentencing guidelines. It would be comforting to think that the case of Clarence Aaron is an aberration, a rare miscarriage of justice in a system that otherwise works well for all Americans. It would be comforting but it would also be wrong. The sad fact is that for thousands of inmates in the federal penal system, especially African Americans and Hispanics, the case of Clarence Aaron is not the exception but the rule. As recently as 2010, more than half of all inmates in the federal system (52%) were incarcerated for drug offenses, a rate more than three times as great (17%) as found in the state penal system. And the racial and ethnic composition of federal inmates incarcerated for drug offenses is equally troubling story because while whites and African Americas use drugs at similar rates, African Americans are much more likely to be arrested and sentenced for drug offenses. Indeed, African Americans and Hispanics comprise more than 6 in 10 federal inmates incarcerated for drug offenses. Moreover, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission African American offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes and, according to a report by the Sentencing Project, African Americans are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants. Many persons concerned about the fair administration of justice were alerted to and alarmed by the danger posed by the imposition of mandatory-minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses and worked to restore balance and justice to sentencing policy. In 2005, I introduced the ``No More Tulias Act of 2005'' (H.R. 2620) in response to the infamous drug task force scandal in Tulia, Texas that occurred six years earlier, during which 15 percent of the town's African American population was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison based on the uncorroborated testimony of a federally funded undercover officer with a record of racial impropriety. This legislation, which was endorsed by more than 50 of the leading civil rights, religious, and criminal justice reform organization was designed to help put an end to these abuses by enhancing the evidentiary standard required to convict a person for a drug offense, improving the criteria under which states hire drug task force officers, and denying federal money to states that do not have laws preventing convictions for drug offenses based solely on uncorroborated testimony. Later, in 2007, I introduced the ``Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007'' (H.R. 4545), bipartisan legislation eliminating the unjust and discriminatory 100 to 1 disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences in federal law. Companion legislation in the Senate was introduced by then Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware (S. 1711). This legislation attracted widespread support because scientific research had by this time clearly refuted the myth upon which the 100 to 1 ratio was based that use of crack cocaine was far more addictive and dangerous than powder cocaine. Instead, the pharmacological effects of crack cocaine were repeatedly shown by scientific and medical experts to be no more harmful than powder cocaine and that the effect on users is the same. Since there was no pharmacological difference between the two drugs, the ``Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act'' removed the distinction in federal law between them for sentencing purposes. Similar bills to remedy the inherent unfairness in federal drug sentencing were introduced by Senators Edward M. Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, and Jeff Sessions. In 2010, after years of working to reform our drug sentencing laws, our efforts finally bore fruit when the Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the ``Fair Sentencing Act of 2010'' (P.L. 111- 220), which finally ended the 100:1 ratio that had resulted in unconscionable racial disparities in the average length of sentences for comparable offenses. Indeed, the 100:1 regime was so draconian that it typically resulted in African Americans serving as much time in prison for non-violent drug offenses as whites did for violent offenses. The ``Fair Sentencing Act'' incorporated all of the key components of my ``Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act'' and is a watershed moment in the fight for fair and equitable drug sentencing policy. But since the provisions of the ``Fair Sentencing Act'' are not retroactive there is still much work left to be done. The federal prison system still houses thousands of inmates sentenced under the old, unfair 100-1 ratio regime. We need to keep working for reform until all federal inmates sentenced under the old regime are afforded the opportunity to have their sentences reconsidered under the provisions of current law. Happily, Clarence Aaron will not be one of those who still must wait. For after serving more than 20 years in federal prison, Clarence Aaron will be freed on April 17 because he was one of eight persons granted executive clemency, or a reduction in sentence, by President Obama on December 19, 2013. The power to grant a reduction in sentence is among the powers vested exclusively to, and committed to the sound discretion of, the President by the Pardon Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2, Clause 1) of the U.S. Constitution. President Obama's grant of executive clemency to Clarence Aaron and seven others was an act of simple justice and a welcome development. So too is the recent announcement by the Department of Justice that it intends to be more aggressive in identifying and recommending to the President additional candidates for executive clemency consideration. This is not amnesty. These inmates have been incarcerated for many years. Applications for executive clemency that are most likely to receive favorable consideration are those submitted by non-violent, low-level drug offenders who were not leaders of, or had any significant ties to, large-scale organizations, gangs, or cartels. Petitions from first-time offenders and offenders without an extensive criminal history also may be good candidates for favorable consideration. In light of these recent positive developments, I am optimistic that Congress can build upon the progress made to date by passing the ``Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act,'' (H.R. 62) that I have introduced. This legislation directs the Bureau of Prisons to release prisoners who have served one half or more of their terms of imprisonment if they have (1) attained age 45; (2) never been convicted of a crime of violence; and (3) not engaged in any violation involving violent conduct of institutional disciplinary regulations. The benefits of such a law are two-fold. First, it will give non- violent offenders who have paid their debt a second chance to redeem their lives while they are still young enough to contribute to society. Second, it will go a long way toward reducing the $6.5 billion that the Nation spends annually on prisoner incarceration. Another area in which reform advocates and legal professionals can make an immediate difference is in identifying and assisting potential candidates for executive clemency and in assembling commutation petitions which effectively present the information needed by the Department of Justice and the President. It is past time for us to get not only our fiscal house in order but the penal one as well. Increased exercise of the executive clemency power by the President is a step in the right direction.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the 49th anniversary of ``Bloody Sunday.'' On Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote. ``Bloody Sunday'' was a watershed moment in the history of Civil Rights Movement and of our country. It crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law protecting the right to vote of every American. Nearly a half century later, I rise today to address the House on the continuing need for an effective Voting Rights Act. As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I strongly supported and worked for the successful reauthorization in 2006 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which proudly bears the name: Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, Barbara C. Jordan, William C. Velasquez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. Mr. Speaker, in signing the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson said: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men. In answering the call of history and justice, great legislator- statesmen strongly supported the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and worked across the aisle and with President Johnson to ensure its passage. Men like Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Montana), Senate Minority Leader Everett McKinley Dirksen (R-Illinois), Speaker John McCormack (D-Massachusetts), House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-Louisiana), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Emanuel Celler (D-New York), and House Minority Leader and former President Gerald Ford (R-Michigan). Mr. Speaker, since its passage in 1965, and through four reauthorizations signed by Republican presidents (1970, 1975, 1982, 2006), more Americans, especially those in the communities we represent, have been empowered by the Voting Rights Act than any other single piece of legislation. Section 5 of the Act requires covered jurisdictions to submit proposed changes to any voting law or procedure to the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC for pre-approval, hence the term ``pre-clearance.'' Under Section 5, the submitting jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the proposed change(s) are not retrogressive, i.e. that they do not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. In announcing his support for the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights Act, President Reagan said, ``the right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties.'' And Section 5 is the ``crown jewel'' of the Voting Rights Act. But a terrible blow was dealt to the Voting Rights Act on June 25, 2013, when the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b), the provision of the law determining which jurisdictions would be subject to Section 5 ``pre-clearance.'' In 2006, the City of Calera, Alabama, which lies within Shelby County, enacted a discriminatory redistricting plan without complying with Section 5, leading to the loss of the city's sole African-American councilman, Ernest Montgomery. In compliance with Section 5, however, Calera was required to draw a nondiscriminatory redistricting plan and conduct another election in which Mr. Montgomery regained his seat. According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down Section 4(b) was that ``times have changed.'' Now, the Court was right; times have changed. But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed. Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in stymying the practices that resulted in the wholesale disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities. But it did not eliminate them entirely. The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still needed to prevent another polio epidemic. Many of us remember what it was like before the Voting Rights Act but for those too young to have lived through it, let us take a stroll down memory lane. Before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, the right to vote did not exist in practice for most African Americans. And until 1975, most American citizens who were not proficient in English faced significant obstacles to voting, because they could not understand the ballot. Even though the Indian Citizenship Act gave Native Americans the right to vote in 1924, state law determined who could actually vote, which effectively excluded many Native Americans from political participation for decades. Asian Americans and Asian immigrants also suffered systematic exclusion from the political process. In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were elected anywhere in the South. Because of the Voting Rights Act, there are now more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of Congress, the largest number ever. The Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the state or federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly. Aided by Section 5, the Voting Rights Act was successful in preventing the states with the worst and most egregious records of voter suppression and intimidation from disenfranchising minority voters. So successful was the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court apparently saw no harm in invalidating the provision that subjected those states to the federal supervision responsible for the success it celebrated. Now to be sure, the Supreme Court did not invalidate the preclearance provisions of Section 5; it only invalidated Section 4(b). But that is like leaving the car undamaged but destroying the key that unlocks the doors and starts the engine. According to the Court, the coverage formula in Section 4(b) had to be struck down because the data upon which it was based--registration rates and turn-out gaps--was too old and outdated. Like many others, I disagreed. I thought the Court got it wrong and said so in an op-ed published in the Forward Times of Houston, in which I wrote: The Court majority confuses the symptom with the cause. Congress' focus was not on voter registration or turnout rates. Congress instead was focused on eliminating the causes or at least eradicating the effects of racial discrimination in voting in states that had a ``unique history of problems with racial discrimination in voting.'' Shelby, 570 U.S. 193, (Ginsburg, J., dissenting), slip op. at 19 (June 25, 2013). I believe Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was exactly right when she wrote in her dissent that the question in 2006 was not which states were to be covered by Section 4(b) and thus subject to pre-clearance as was the case in 1965. Rather the question before Congress in 2006: Was there still a sufficient basis to support continued application of the preclearance remedy in each of those already-identified places? There were many commentators, pundits, and opponents of the Voting Rights Act who viewed the Court's Shelby decision as the death knell of the Act. But they underestimated the resolve of men and women of good will across the country who revere the Voting Rights Act. They underestimated the determination of my colleagues in the House and Senate, on both sides of the aisle. They discounted the commitment of persons like: Republican James Sensenbrenner and Democrat John Conyers, each a former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Congressman John Lewis, who shed his blood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on ``Bloody Sunday''; Northern members of Congress like Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Republicans Steve Chabot of Ohio and Sean Duffy of Wisconsin; and Southern members like Spencer Bachus of Alabama, Robert ``Bobby'' Scott of Virginia and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas. These members, joined by several of their colleagues, refused to let the Voting Rights Act die. They recognized and understood that for all the progress this nation has made in becoming a more inclusive, equitable, and pluralistic society, it is the Voting Rights Act ``that has brought us thus far along the way.'' And so we went to work. You know the saying: ``Don't cry about it, be about it.'' And so we were. Led by Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, I was honored to be a member of the working group tasked with sharing ideas, making recommendations, and crafting and drafting the legislation that would repair the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court decision and capable of winning majorities in the House and Senate and the signature of the President. After months of hard work, consultation, negotiation, and collaboration, we were able to produce a bill, H.R. 3899, ``Voting Rights Amendments Act of 2014,'' that can achieve these goals. To be sure, this legislation is not perfect, no bill ever is. But-- and this is important--the bill represents an important step forward because it is responsive to the concern expressed by the Supreme Court and establishes a new coverage formula that is carefully tailored but sufficiently potent to protect the voting rights of all Americans. First, H.R. 3899 specifies a new coverage formula that is based on current problems in voting and therefore directly responds to the Court's concern that the previous formula was outdated. The importance of this feature is hard to overestimate. Legislators and litigators understand that the likelihood of the Court upholding an amended statute that fails to correct the provision previously found to be defective is very low indeed. H.R. 3899 replaces the old ``static'' coverage formula with a new dynamic coverage formula, or ``rolling trigger,'' which works as follows: 1. for states, it requires at least one finding of discrimination at the state level and at least four adverse findings by its sub- jurisdictions within the previous 15 years; 2. for political subdivisions, it requires at least three adverse findings within the previous 15 years; but 3. political subdivisions with ``persistent and extremely low minority voter turnout'' can also be covered if they have a single adverse finding of discrimination. The ``rolling trigger'' mechanism effectively gives the legislation nationwide reach because any state and any jurisdiction in any state potentially is subject to being covered if the requisite number of violations are found to have been committed. Prior to Shelby County v. Holder, the Voting Rights Act covered 16 states in whole or in part, including most of the states in the Deep South. Those states originally covered in whole were: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original States Covered Applicable Date Fed. Register Date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama........................... Nov. 1, 1964......... 30 FR 9897........... Aug. 7, 1965 Georgia........................... Nov. 1, 1964......... 30 FR 9897........... Aug. 7, 1965 Louisiana......................... Nov. 1, 1964......... 30 FR 9897........... Aug. 7, 1965 Mississippi....................... Nov. 1, 1964......... 30 FR 9897........... Aug. 7, 1965 South Carolina.................... Nov. 1, 1964......... 30 FR 9897........... Aug. 7, 1965 Virginia.......................... Nov. 1, 1964......... 30 FR 9897........... Aug. 7, 1965 Arizona........................... Nov. 1, 1972......... 40 FR 43746.......... Sept. 23, 1975 Texas............................. Nov. 1, 1972......... 40 FR 43746.......... Sept. 23, 1975 Alaska............................ Nov. 1, 1972......... 40 FR 49422.......... Oct. 22, 1975 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The rolling trigger contained in H.R. 3899, however, does not cover all of these states. To compensate for the fact that fewer jurisdictions are covered, the bill also includes several key provisions that are consistent with the needs created by a narrower Section 5 trigger. For example, H.R. 3899: 1. Expands judicial ``bail-in'' authority under Section 3 so that it applies to voting changes that result in discrimination (not just intentional discrimination); 2. Requires nationwide transparency of ``late breaking'' voting changes; allocation of poll place resources; and changes within the boundaries of voting districts; 3. Clarifies and expands the ability of plaintiffs to seek a preliminary injunction against voting discrimination; and 4. Clarifies and expands the Attorney General's authority to send election observers to protect against voting discrimination. The right to vote, free from discrimination, is the capstone of full citizenship conferred by the Civil War Amendments. And it is a source of eternal pride to me that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to all Americans that in 1975, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also represented the historic 18th Congressional District of Texas, introduced, and the Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of Section 4 (a) and Section 5 to language minorities. Language minorities in emerging communities have distinct and particular interests that ought to be considered. ``Emerging communities'' are those located in states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, and South Carolina that historically were not home to large numbers of Hispanics or Asian-Pacific Americans but have in recent years experienced tremendous population growth which is expected to accelerate. The concern is that as these Hispanic and Asian-Pacific voters in these areas become more numerous in these states and capable of having a tangible influence on electoral outcomes, some communities may respond by adopting measures that violate principles of fair and equal treatment. Such measures may include: 1. Changes from single-member to at-large election districts; 2. Changes to jurisdictional boundaries through annexation; or 3. Changes to multilingual voting materials requirements. I think we can all agree that language minorities and those residing in emerging communities deserve protection from any such retaliatory election changes. The question is how this can best be achieved consistent with the overriding goal of bringing to the floor a bill that can pass both houses of Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no ordinary piece of legislation. For millions of Americans, and many of us in Congress, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things. In 2006, during the floor debate on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, I said: With our vote today on H.R. 9, each of us will earn a place in history. Therefore, the question before the House is whether our vote on the Voting Rights Act will mark this moment in history as a ``day of infamy,'' in FDR's immortal words, or will commend us to and through future generations as the great defenders of the right to vote, the most precious of rights because it is preservative of all other rights. For my part, I stand with Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King, great Americans who gave all and risked all to help America live up to the promise of its creed. I will vote to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for the next 25 years. I am as committed to the preservation of the Voting Rights Act today as I was then and will not rest until the job is done. As I stated during the historic 2006 debate: I stand today an heir of the Civil Rights Movement, a beneficiary of the Voting Rights Act. I would be breaking faith with those who risked all and gave all to secure for my generation the right to vote if I did not do all I can to strengthen the Voting Rights Act so that it will forever keep open doors that shut out so many for so long. This is why I intend to work with my colleagues and others as H.R. 3899 works its way forward and to do all I can to protect the voting rights of all Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the provision deeming approved any project in which the agency does not meet deadlines contained in the bill. As we have listened to the discussion, as I indicated in my earlier time on the floor, there is much that we can agree to on the issue of making more effective our Federal Government, making it work for the people. We all agree to that. In fact, I had suggested that we provide full funding for infrastructure rebuild. But this bill ignores the value of oversight. The bill also ignores the fact that NEPA has, for more than 40 years, provided an effective framework for all types of projects--not just construction projects-- that require Federal approval pursuant to a Federal law such as the Clean Air Act. I want to read into the Record a comment that I made earlier, why this is a misdirected legislation. The CEQ, general counsel for 25 years during the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations, who was intimately involved in the implementation of NEPA through the executive branch, observed most delays in the environmental review processes are caused by factors other than NEPA or justified by the nature of the project. But yet this bill would indicate that if by the time that this bill designates the oversight has not been finished--that could be an oversight for a nuclear-fired plant; it could be an oversight dealing with some of the energy resources that we have that require that kind of oversight; it could be the oversight of building a major construction project through a heavily populated neighborhood; or it could be oversight on many aspects of America's business--then this bill says it is simply deemed up--deemed up, Mr. Chairman. So how can one believe that problems will be solved by just ignoring--ignoring--the process? There is a major problem with the section that my amendment addresses, and that is that automatic approval, that deeming up, that beaming up. And so I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment which relieves us of that burden of fearfully passing legislation that would, in fact, deem up. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the manager, my friend, Congressman Johnson, Mr. Marino, our colleagues on the floor of the House, and as well on the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Chair, I rise to accept the fact that there are opportunities for discussion on streamlining and effectively expediting processes in a collaborative way in the Federal Government to continue to move forward the Federal Government, as it is responsible to the American people. Unfortunately, I believe that we are not at that place today with H.R. 2641. President Obama has been cited repeatedly. I believe that his words at that time and today are accurate. No one would want the Federal Government to stall moving projects forward. I might ask my colleagues, however, if they would join me in fully funding infrastructure and rebuilding this country, which we have not been able to do for almost 5 years. By reading the Statement of Administration Policy, the administration strongly rejects the legislation's premise in H.R. 2641 that public input and responsible agency decisionmaking under current law hinders job creation. The administration believes that H.R. 2641, if enacted, will lead to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in the permitting process, and ultimately hamper economic growth. There lies, Mr. Chairman, the underpinnings of the President's veto threat. Where is this bill going? I will, at the appropriate time, place the administration's statement into the Record. So what are we talking about with this legislation? One, this legislation would narrow the scope of judicial review. In addition, this legislation would narrow the review by one Federal agency, who would allegedly coordinate other Federal and State agencies. Let me tell you what the problem with that is, Mr. Chairman; that is that each of the agencies have their own extra expertise, so you are snuffing their expertise. You are quashing their expertise. You are forcing one agency to be the giant understander of all the nuances of the other agencies which have a responsibility to their constituency and to the American people. Then you have a set of circumstances that suggests, as my amendment will hope to correct, that you are going to deem up. If you don't get the job done, we are going to deem you up. Beam you up. We are going to just assume that everything has been done and you can go forward. It doesn't matter whether you trample on farmland in Texas or whether or not you are, in essence, leveling suburban homes in Pennsylvania or whether or not you are in the mountains of Georgia and cause havoc. So I would make the argument that this is not an act that is answering the question. It is a solution searching for a problem. Frankly, the argument made by many of us is the principal causes of unjustified delay in implementing the NEPA review process are inadequate agency resources. And the Bush administration noted that NEPA was not a cause for delay. I would ask my colleagues, how can we work together? I think for a moment I will just pause and say that yesterday was an unfortunate incident in the House Oversight Committee. It did not reflect well on this institution or chairmen who lead committees. I pause to say that because I believe it is an important statement to make on the Floor of the House, that we should never have a setting in a committee where a ranking member is silenced, or that a hand is used across one's neck to make a comment about an individual not being able to speak. All of us are equal. I raise that here because we are talking about process and procedure. And even though one might argue that there was a regular process of this particular legislation, we could have been more collaborative, because I am empathetic and I am sympathetic that we all want to make sure that projects move quickly, that jobs are created. But the administration has made an assessment that NEPA is not the delay; the Bush administration has done so. And what we need is to fully fund the government with adequate resources so that our agencies with the appropriate staff can move forward.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am from the region of the oil spill of 2010, and that oil spill, at that time voices that were Republican and Democrat from the gulf region were raising their voices about the process of review. What happened with BOMA? Why wasn't there some understanding that there were some cracks in the system? Even the industry recognized that we must work on best practices, not less regulation--not bad practices, but best practices. And what did we do? We have put in regulations that would enhance oversight of the issues of drilling. So, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I rise to oppose this legislation. We could do it more collaboratively, and we need to treat each other with the dignity and the respect that this particular institution deserves, both in committees and on the Floor of the House. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2641, the ``Responsible and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013, or as some have termed it, the ``Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.'' If the RAPID Act were to become law in its present form, a permit or license for project would be ``deemed'' approved if the reviewing agency does not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120 days. Mr. Chair, I share some of the frustrations expressed by many members of the House Judiciary Committee, which marked up this bill last summer, with the NEPA process. Why are we wasting time with this bill when we could be passing H.R. 3546, a bill introduced by my colleague Sandy Levin, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee which amends the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 to extend emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) payments for eligible individuals to weeks of employment ending on or before January 1, 2015. Or we could bring up and pass H.R. 3888, ``The New Chance For a New Start in Life Act,'' a bill I introduced which provides grants for training to those out of work--who are merely seeking to pull themselves up by their bootstraps--the American way. But here we are on the Floor of the House of Representatives voting and speaking on the ``Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.'' There is something odd about a system in which it can take half a year or more to approve the siting plan for a wind farm but fracking operations regulations can be approved and conducted a few hundred feet from somebody's home with no community oversight process in just a few months. Something is wrong with this picture. But I strongly believe that this bill is a solution in search of a problem. The bill in its current form is an example of a medicine that is worse than a disease. There is a major problem with the section that my amendment addresses, namely automatic approval of projects with the need for positive agency action. I expect to speak on my amendment shortly but suffice it-to-say, this bill goes out of its way to ensure that some projects might be prematurely. approved. That's because under H.R. 2641, if a federal agency fails to approve or disapprove the project or make the required finding of the termination within the applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or 180 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved, deemed approved by such agency. This creates a set of perverse incentives. First, as an agency is up against that deadline and legitimate work is yet to be completed, it is likely to disapprove the project simply because the issues have not been vetted. Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the complexity of issues that need to be resolved necessitates a longer review period, rather than an arbitrary limit. So if H.R. 2641 were to become law the most likely outcome is that federal agencies would be required to make decisions based on incomplete information, or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time. In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more. Mr. Chair, the new requirements contained in H.R. 2641 amend the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), even though the bill is drafted as an amendment to the APA. The bill ignores the fact that NEPA has for more than 40 years provided an effective framework for all types of projects (not just construction projects) that require federal approval pursuant to a federal law, such as the Clean Air Act. I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed and jaded legislation. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2641--Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013 (Rep. Marino, R-Pennsylvania, and 10 cosponsors, Mar. 5, 2014) The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2641, which would undercut responsible decision-making and public involvement in the Federal environmental review and permitting processes. As the Administration said when this legislation was considered previously, H.R. 2641 will increase litigation, regulatory delays, and potentially force agencies to approve a project if the review and analysis cannot be completed before the proposed arbitrary deadlines. This legislation complicates the regulatory process and creates two sets of standards for Federal agencies to follow to review projects-- one for ``construction projects'' and one for all other Federal actions, such as rulemakings or management plans. The Administration strongly rejects the legislation's premise that public input and responsible agency decision- making under current law hinders job creation. The Administration believes that H.R. 2641, if enacted, will lead to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in the permitting process, and ultimately hamper economic growth. The Administration supports efforts to improve the efficiency of the environmental review processes without diminishing requirements for rigorous analyses, agency consultation, and public participation. This includes an Interagency Steering Committee that will publish a plan with 15 reforms and over 80 actions to modernize the Federal permitting and review of major infrastructure projects. If the President were presented with H.R. 2641, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me restate again what is in this legislation. If a Federal agency fails to approve or disapprove the project or make the required finding of the determination within the applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or 180 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved--deemed approved--by such agency. Mr. Chairman, do the American people want something deemed approved that might be a dangerous and unsuitable project in their community? And as it relates to the creation of jobs, I thank the gentleman for his explanation, but I will tell you that it is said by the Federal Highway Administration, the majority of the approved projects required limited documentation or analysis under NEPA. Further, when environmental requirements have caused project delays, requirements established under laws other than NEPA have generally been the fault. NEPA has not stopped the creation of jobs. But what I can tell my good friend is that, if we could pass the unemployment insurance extension, we can give opportunity to Americans to keep looking for jobs; and if we pass an infrastructure bill, we would have jobs. So my point is that my amendment is very simple. It is just to eliminate that provision that might dangerously put Americans in jeopardy by, in essence, allowing projects to be approved while there is a studious, conscientious review of that project that is to generate jobs but to provide for the safety, the security, the tranquility, and the peace of the American people. I can't imagine that we would want to throw into legislation on streamlining an absolute hatchet that says your neck is cut off if, in fact, you are not finished with your work; the heck with it, we are going on to produce this project. I know that the American people believe in the spirit of my good friend from Pennsylvania's intentions. We can work together. We can put legislation forward that can be constructive. But a shortened time of 4 years is nothing to celebrate if, in essence, the time is needed for review. I have cited some of the challenges that we face: oil spills; construction projects that have seen large numbers of deaths because of the way it was done; collapse of buildings, as we have seen in the tragedy of the building that was collapsed in Pennsylvania; and other terrible disasters that have occurred that require the rebuild of certain facilities in the United States. I cannot imagine--again, I might say that the general counsel that was general counsel for the CEQ to all of the last four Presidents has indicated NEPA is not a problem. I ask that my amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment, be supported and make this legislation a step better and a step in a direction to get it where it should be. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2641, the ``Responsible and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013.'' If the RAPID Act were to become law in its present form, a permit or license for project would be ``deemed'' approved if the reviewing agency does not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120 days. My amendment strikes the provision deeming approved any project for which agency does not meet deadlines contained in the bill. Mr. Chair, I share some of the frustrations expressed by many members of this committee with the NEPA process. There is something odd about a system in which it can take half a year or more to approve the siting plan for a wind farm but fracking operations regulations can be approved and conducted a few hundred feet from somebody's home with no community oversight process in just a few months. Something is wrong with this picture. But I strongly believe that this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Mr. Chair, why are we wasting time with this bill when we could be passing H.R. 3546, a bill introduced by my colleague Sandy Levin, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee, which amends the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 to extend emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) payments for eligible individuals to weeks of employment ending on or before January 1, 2015. Or we could bring up and pass H.R. 3888, ``The New Chance For a New Start in Life Act,'' a bill I introduced which provides grants for training to those out of work--who are merely seeking to pull themselves up by their bootstraps--the American way. But here we are on the Floor of the House of Representatives voting and speaking on the ``Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.'' The bill in its current form is an example of a medicine that is worse than a disease. There is a major problem with the section that my amendment addresses, namely automatic approval of projects with the need for positive agency action. Under H.R. 2641, if a federal agency fails to approve or disapprove the project or make the required finding of the termination within the applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or 180 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved, deemed approved by such agency. This creates a set of perverse incentives. First, as an agency is up against that deadline and legitimate work is yet to be completed, it is likely to disapprove the project simply because the issues have not been vetted. Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the complexity of issues that need to be resolved necessitates a longer review period, rather than an arbitrary limit. So if H.R. 2641 were to become law the most likely outcome is that federal agencies would be required to make decisions based on incomplete information, or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time. In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more. The Jackson Lee Amendment sets up a trigger after a period of time for a process, which is not automatic approval, but is rather a convening of the stakeholders around figuring out what is standing in the way of the NEPA decision. Mr. Chair, the new requirements contained in H.R. 2641 amend the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), even though the bill is drafted as an amendment to the APA. The bill ignores the fact that NEPA has for more than 40 years provided an effective framework for all types of projects (not just construction projects) that require federal approval pursuant to a federal law, such as the Clean Air Act. I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2641 and keep Americans working.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, study after study has documented the difficulties experienced by a majority of men and women transitioning from the Armed Services to the civilian sector. Veterans regard one of their greatest challenges to be finding a meaningful job even though nearly 90% of them believe they have the general skills needed to land their ideal job such as problem solving, leadership, ethics, and time management and most believe they possess specific marketable skills, such as information technology, health care, mechanical, and aviation. Some of the major challenges faced by veterans are: 1. Overcoming the difficulty in translating to employers the value of the skills they learned in the military; 2. Competing with candidates who have been in the workforce longer; 3. The perceived reluctance of employers to hire due to concerns about multiple deployments or military training and time commitments of the Reserve Component, and fears of dealing with veterans' disabilities. That is why I have introduced H.R. 4110, the ``Helping to Encourage Real Opportunity for Veterans Transitions from Battlespace to Workplace Act of 2014'' or ``Transitioning HERO Act.'' The Transitioning HERO Act addresses these problems by providing strong incentives for employers to hire, retain, and employ veterans in positions that take maximum advantage of their skills and experience. It does this by providing tax credits for those employers who employ Military Relations Managers (MRM), who will be experts in understanding how military-acquired training translates into useful skills in the civilian labor market. Military Relations Managers (MRMs) will: 1. work with hiring agencies and within their companies to promote the hiring of transitioning military leaders; and 2. advocate and represent the interests of veterans thoroughly by focusing on placement of veterans within companies in positions that reflect the breadth of leadership and technical skills obtained and utilized during military service. My bill also directs the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish, maintain, publicize, and make available to employers a Military Skills Translator Database. This database will assist private sector employers in understanding, applying, and valuing military skills and experiences to the civilian economy. The tax credit provided under the bill is $1000 per hired veteran. To be eligible to claim the credit, an employer must employ and utilize a Military Relations Manager. This important legislation will benefit both veterans and hiring companies, by giving our transitioning veterans the jobs and positions that are appropriate to their invaluable experience and by encouraging companies to examine the application of veterans' acquired skills with quality representation. Mr. Speaker, Americans want Congress to focus on jobs and economic growth, not more political posturing. Instead of trying to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act for the 50th time, we should be focusing on the real problems of the American people, like extending unemployment insurance and providing training opportunities for the long-term unemployed and helping our veterans transition from the battlespace to the workplace by passing H.R. 4110, the ``Transitioning HERO Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule for H.R. 2641, the ``Responsible and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2013, or as some have termed it, the ``Regrettably Another Partisan Ideological Distraction Act.'' If the RAPID Act were to become law in its present form, a permit or license for project would be ``deemed'' approved if the reviewing agency does not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120 days. Mr. Speaker, I share some of the frustrations expressed by many members of the House Judiciary Committee, which marked up this bill last summer, with the NEPA process. There is something odd about a system in which it can take half a year or more to approve the siting plan for a wind farm but fracking operations regulations can be approved and conducted a few hundred feet from somebody's home with no community oversight process in just a few months. Something is wrong with this picture. But I strongly believe that this bill is a solution in search of a problem. The bill in its current form is an example of a medicine that is worse than a disease. There is a major problem with the section that my amendment addresses, namely automatic approval of projects with the need for positive agency action. I expect to speak on my amendment shortly but suffice it-to-say, this bill goes out of its way to ensure that some projects might be prematurely approved. That's because under H.R. 2641, if a federal agency fails to approve or disapprove the project or make the required finding of the termination within the applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or 180 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved, deemed approved by such agency. This creates a set of perverse incentives. First, as an agency is up against that deadline and legitimate work is yet to be completed, it is likely to disapprove the project simply because the issues have not been vetted. Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the complexity of issues that need to be resolved necessitates a longer review period, rather than an arbitrary limit. So if H.R. 2641 were to become law the most likely outcome is that federal agencies would be required to make decisions based on incomplete information, or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time. In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more. Mr. Speaker, the new requirements contained in H.R. 2641 amend the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), even though the bill is drafted as an amendment to the APA. The bill ignores the fact that NEPA has for more than 40 years provided an effective framework for all types of projects (not just construction projects) that require federal approval pursuant to a federal law, such as the Clean Air Act. I urge my colleagues to reject this Rule and the underlying bill. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 501 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3546) to provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 3546.