Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the name of Dr. Martin Luther King and John Robert Lewis, our late colleague. I rise today to say that we are not finished. The work of this Nation is not finished, even in the aftermath of a sinister vote on the floor of the United States Senate that could not see clearly to determine that the Constitution and the right to vote rose above the silly and insignificant rule of the Senate called the filibuster. In the midst of that debate, we heard eloquent and beautiful statements about the many times the filibuster had been eliminated or relieved. We heard a brilliant analysis of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' desire for the filibuster not to be in the Constitution, yet due process and the 15th Amendment are. Mr. Speaker, we saw justice crushed and democracy gored. In Texas, of course, more criminal laws are now related to voting. Poll watchers can attack voters in terms of what they are doing. We are now in a constitutional hearing in Judiciary. It is my commitment to go forward on the John Robert Lewis and all the bills attached to it because the Nation is crying out for justice. The country is crying out for democracy. We will not let it down. The Senate must continue its debate, and we must get these billed passed.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to stand here this morning with a very solemn heart, overwhelmed, one would say, with a sense of grief. And in that grief, there is joy. The grief, of course, is to feel the personal pain of the lack of unity around the very core of democracy, and that is the right to vote. As has been evidenced by Members over and over again, as I listened to Senators last night, everyone acceded to the point that voting is the core of democracy. It means that the individual in pain, in frustration, in affirmation, in the understanding of policies, gets to select a person of their choosing. It is not about those who are elected or candidates or the elections. It is about the voters having that right. Right now, today, in the hands of the other body is the crux of democracy. I am, frankly, undone by the usage of an insignificant procedural rule that has been used over the decades and centuries to crush democracy. The filibuster is insignificant. It is an order. It is not a statute; it is not the Constitution; it is not the 15th Amendment or the 14th Amendment; it is not the 13th Amendment, which freed slaves. It is also the recognition that voting rights is for all persons irrespective of their race, color, creed, or religion, and their party affiliation. Why is the other body, under the leadership of Minority Leader McConnell, not coming to the table of unity? I extend an olive branch. The filibuster has been changed already over 161 times. Do we recognize that between 1866 and 1890 many landmark pieces of civil rights legislation that were essential to protecting the constitutional rights of Americans of color--this was during Reconstruction--they were, if you will, voted along party lines? But from 1917 to 1994, civil rights were crushed by the use of the filibuster. And so I rise today to ask for the better angels of the other body, two Members who happen to be Democratic Senators, and others who are in total lockstep in the other party. But listen to William E. Mason saying: ``But every schoolboy in the United States knows that the Senate is practically the only parliamentary body in the world where the majority cannot transact the public business, and where the minority instead of the majority transacts the business of the country.'' Senator William E. Mason, April 21, 1897, a Republican. I ask for mercy. As someone who worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who had the privilege of being here for the reauthorization in the mid-2000s, who wrote the Coretta Scott bill legislation that was added that said no mid-term redistricting, and as well helped rename the bill at that time to many icons of diversity. I want to conclude my remarks by referring to Martin Luther King's mountaintop speech, to read as much of it as I can. He speaks at the beginning by saying if he had sneezed when he was knifed by a demented woman in the 1950s, he says, I wouldn't have been around in 1962 when Negroes in Albany, Georgia, decided to straighten their backs up. And whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can't ride your back unless it is bent. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been here in 1963 when the Black people of Birmingham, Alabama, aroused the conscience of this Nation and brought into being the civil rights bill. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have had a chance later that year, in August, to try and tell America about a dream that I had had. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been in Selma, Alabama, or Memphis. And then they were telling me, now, it doesn't matter, now. It really doesn't matter what happens. I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started the pilot said we had to stop for a moment because Dr. Martin Luther King is on the plane, we have to check and see if there were bombs. And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say the threats or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick brothers, who did not look like me? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I am not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He has allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land. That is today, today, January 19, 2022. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And so I'm happy tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. Those who say they honor him, do not disgrace him. Vote for the Voting Rights Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, yesterday was the Federal holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, and I accepted the challenge of the Martin Luther King family, under the name of Martin Luther King III, his oldest child: No celebration without legislation. So I rise in the middle of the debate and debacle that is going on over an ill-fated and wrong policy of the filibuster and cloture to read the words of Dr. Martin Luther King that he issued on April 3, 1968, speaking about having been stabbed by a demented woman and saying that if he had only sneezed, he might not have been there even in 1968. And so he says: ``And I want to say tonight, I want to say that I am happy that I didn't sneeze. Because if I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around here in 1960 when students all over the South started sitting in at lunch counters. And I knew that as they were sitting in, they were really standing up for the best in the American Dream and taking the whole Nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around in 1962 when Negroes in Albany, Georgia, decided to straighten their backs up. And whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere because a man can't ride your back unless it is bent. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been here in 1963 when the Black people of Birmingham, Alabama, aroused the conscience of this Nation.'' Finally, I want to say that he wanted to make sure that his life was not in vain and that he would be recognized and remembered for the work that he had done.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Sometimes it is extremely difficult, Madam Speaker, to really convey in this form both the pain and the emotion of one's journey in life. I worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the conference that Dr. Martin Luther King and Ralph David Abernathy organized and gathered foot soldiers for from around America. They were, in fact, the beloved community, and included the likes of John Robert Lewis and many others that sit in this House today. I walked on plantations and tried to register sharecroppers. And so, I come today to recount for us the words of Dr. King: ``We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' We need to enact democracy reform now more than ever because State lawmakers introduced over 440 suppression bills in 49 States. We cannot allow the other body to stand on some sort of pro forma dignity that they cannot overturn the filibuster, when people died for the vote. We honor Dr. King on Monday. I want that vote to be in his honor that we have voting rights.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the distinguished leader of this debate, Mr. Butterfield, and his service to this Nation. Madam Speaker, this is a somber, sacred moment in our lives on this floor. I stand here in the name of the blood shed by those foot soldiers, Dr. Martin Luther King and John Robert Lewis, who shed his blood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. My friends who vote ``no'' today will disregard and ignore that bloodshed. I refuse to ignore the blood that was shed for the right to vote. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, this committee built over the course of 13 hearings in two Congresses led by Jerry Nadler and Steve Cohen the record for the John Robert Lewis bill, and for that I am grateful, for I stand as a victim of the lack of preclearance. The bills that we have will eliminate a legislature, as a Texas bill states, to overturn duly voters' choice. It will prevent the purging of voters which happens all the time. It will protect you at the polls, Madam Speaker, and it will disallow people from interfering with your vote. It is now a sacred honor and charge. We must vote now in the name of Martin King and John Robert Lewis. We cannot do any less. The Senate must do its job. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, and the Congressional Black Caucus, I am pleased to co-anchor this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order with my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from New York, Congressman Ritchie Torres. I thank the Chair of the CBC, Congresswoman Beatty of Ohio, for organizing this Special Order to discuss the reasons why the CBC strong supports H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which for nearly 50 years protected the most precious of all rights of a citizen in a democracy--the right to vote--until it was seriously undermined by the right-wing conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court, starting with the outrageously wrong decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), and exacerbated by Brnovich v. DNC, 594 U.S. __, No. 19-1257 and 19-1258 (July 1, 2021). Over the next hour, several of our colleagues will share their perspectives on why it is essential that it is urgent and essential to correct these miscarriages of justice by passing H.R. 4, H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an original cosponsor, let me say plainly at the outset that H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, corrects the damage done in recent years to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and commits the national government to protecting the right of all Americans to vote free from discrimination and without injustices that previously prevented them from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship. I thank my CBC colleague, Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama for introducing this legislation, to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and the Democratic leadership, and to the many colleagues and countless number of ordinary Americans who never stopped agitating and working to protect the precious right to vote. Madam Speaker, in response to the Supreme Court's invitation in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), H.R. 4 provides a new coverage formula based on ``current conditions'' and creates a new coverage formula that hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years. It is significant that this 25-year period is measured on a rolling basis to keep up with ``current conditions,'' so only states and political subdivisions that have a recent record of racial discrimination in voting are covered. States and political subdivisions that qualify for preclearance will be covered for a period of 10 years, but if they have a clean record during that time period, they can be extracted from coverage. H.R. 4 also establishes ``practice-based preclearance,'' which would focus administrative or judicial review narrowly on suspect practices that are most likely to be tainted by discriminatory intent or to have discriminatory effects, as demonstrated by a broad historical record. Under the bill, this process of reviewing changes in voting is limited to a set of specific practices, including such things as: 1. Changes to the methods of elections (to or from at-large elections) in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse. 2. Redistricting in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse. 3. Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse; and 4. Changes in documentation or requirements to vote or to register. It is useful, Madam Speaker, to recount how we arrived at this day. Madam Speaker, fifty-six years ago, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery. Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to bring it even closer to its founding ideals. The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to vote. On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia for whom this important legislation is named, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote. ``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American. No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will ever forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory and experience. On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol President Johnson addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act: ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.'' The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter discrimination violations that historically left millions of African Americans disenfranchised. In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans registered to vote in Texas and only about 3 percent of African Americans living in the South were registered to vote. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major causes of these racially discriminatory results. After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than 1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote. In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the South. Because of the Voting Rights Act, in 2007 there were more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest number ever. Madam Speaker, the Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress. Native Americans, Asians, and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly. The crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Section 5, which requires that states and localities with a chronic record of discrimination in voting practices secure federal approval before making any changes to voting processes. The preclearance requirement of Section 5 protects minority voting rights where voter discrimination has historically been the worst. Between 1982 and 2006, Section 5 stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes right here in Texas. Passed in 1965 with the extraordinary leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, the greatest legislative genius of our lifetime, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was bringing dramatic change in many states across the South. But in 1972, change was not coming fast enough or in many places in Texas. In fact, Texas, which had never elected a woman to Congress or an African American to the Texas State Senate, was not covered by Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the language minorities living in South Texas were not protected at all. But thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Barbara Jordan was elected to Congress, giving meaning to the promise of the Voting Rights Act that all citizens would at long last have the right to cast a vote for person of their community, from their community, for their community. Madam Speaker, it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in Houston that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to all Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also represented this 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. We must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge or dilute the precious right to vote. Madam Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that need to pass this legislation is urgent because the right to vote--that ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''--faces grave threats. The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements. Not to be content with the monument to disgrace that is the Shelby County decision, the activist right-wing conservative majority on the Roberts Court, on July 1, 2021, issued its evil twin, the decision in Brnovich v. DNC, 594 U.S.__, No. 19-1257 and 19-1258 (July 1, 2021), which engrafts on Section 2 of the Voting Rights onerous burdens that Congress never intended and explicitly legislated against Madam Speaker, were it not for the 24th Amendment, I venture to say that this conservative majority on the Court would subject poll taxes and literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich v. DNC. According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was that ``times change.'' 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 and that is why we must pass H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. 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 stymieing the practices that resulted in the wholesale disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did 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. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in Shelby County v. Holder, ``[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' Madam Speaker, in many ways my home state of Texas is ground-zero for testing and perfecting schemes to deprive communities of color and language minorities of the right to vote and to have their votes counted. Consider what has transpired in Texas in recent past, let alone the noxious voter suppression bill, SB7, it is currently trying to ramrod through the legislature. Only 68 percent of eligible voters are registered in Texas and state restrictions on third party registration, such as the Volunteer Deputy Registrar program, exacerbate the systemic disenfranchisement of minority communities. These types of programs are often aimed at minority and underserved communities that, for many, many other reasons (like demonization by the president, for example) or mistrust of law enforcement are afraid to live as openly as they should. In Harris County, we had a system where voters were getting purged from the rolls, effectively requiring people to keep active their registrations and hundreds of polling locations closed in Texas, significantly more in number and percentage than any other state. In addition, the Texas Election Code only requires a 72-hour notice of polling location changes. Next, take what happened here in Texas in 2019 when the Texas Secretary of State claimed that his office had identified 95,000 possible noncitizens on the voter rolls and gave the list to the Texas State Attorney General for possible prosecution--leading to a claim from President Trump about widespread voter fraud and outrage from Democrats and activist groups. The only problem was that list was not accurate. At least 20,000 names turned out to be there by mistake, leading to chaos, confusion, and concern that people's eligibility vote was being questioned based on flawed data. The list was made through state records going back to 1996 that show which Texas residents were not citizens when they got a driver's license or other state ID. But many of the person who may have had green cards or work visas at the time they got a Texas ID are on the secretary of state's office's list, and many have become citizens since then since nearly 50,000 people become naturalized U.S. citizens in Texas annually. Latinos made up a big portion of the 95,000-person list. Texas Republicans adopted racial and partisan gerrymandered congressional, State legislative redistricting plans that federal courts have ruled violate the Voting Rights Act and were drawn with discriminatory intent. Even after changes were demanded by the courts, much of the damage done was already done. Reversing the position by the Obama administration, the Trump Department of [in]Justice represented to a federal court that it no longer believed past discrimination by Texas officials should require the state to get outside approval for redistricting maps that will be drawn in 2021. In addition to affirmative ways to making it harder to vote, we also now face other odious impediments in Texas. Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their votes. This is the harm that can be done without preclearance, so on a federal level, there is an impetus to act. Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their votes. Consider the demographic groups who lack a government issued ID: 1. African Americans: 25 percent 2. Asian Americans: 20% percent 3. Hispanic Americans: 19 percent 4. Young people, aged 18-24: 18 percent 5. Persons with incomes less than $35,000: 15 percent And there are other ways abridging or suppressing the right to vote, including: 1. Curtailing or eliminating early voting; 2. Ending same-day registration; 3. Not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day will not count; 4. Eliminating adolescent pre-registration; 5. Shortening poll hours; and 6. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges thus allowing self-proclaimed ``ballot security vigilantes'' like the King Street Patriots to cause trouble at the polls. The malevolent practice of voter purging is not limited to Texas; we saw it in 2018 in Georgia, where then Secretary of State and now Governor Brian Kemp purged more than 53,000 persons from the voter, nearly the exact margin of his narrow win over his opponent, Stacy Abrams in the 2018 gubernatorial election. Voter purging is a sinister and malevolent practice visited on voters, who are disproportionately members of communities of color, by state and local election officials. This practice, which would have not passed muster under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, has proliferated in the years since the Supreme Court neutralized the preclearance provision, or as Justice Ginsburg observed in Shelby County v. Holder, ``threw out the umbrella'' of protection. Madam Speaker, citizens in my congressional district and elsewhere know and have experienced the pain and heartbreak of receiving a letter from state or local election officials that they have been removed from the election rolls, or worse, learn this fact on Election Day. That is why I am very pleased that H.R. 4 includes language that I worked hard to include in the Manager's Amendment to the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019 that strengthens the bill's ``practice-based preclearance'' provisions by adding specifically to the preclearance provision, voting practices that add a new basis or process for removing a name from the list of active registered voters and the practice of reducing the days or hours of in-person voting on Sundays during an early voting period. For millions of Americans, the right to vote protected by 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. Madam Speaker, it is the responsibility and sacred duty of all members of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and expand the precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Madam Speaker, free and fair elections, along with open, ethical, and honest government, provide the foundation of our democracy. But these principles have been threatened in recent years by an unyielding strategy of voter suppression and outright attacks on historical statutes which were designed to protect voting rights. On Tuesday, the President traveled to Atlanta to make the case for the legislation that we bring to the floor today. My Judiciary Committee colleagues and I have labored for the last two congresses, holding more than a dozen hearings to build a record to demonstrate the critical need for a revitalized Voting Rights Act after the erosion of the Shelby County and Brnovich decisions. We must continue to confront the anti-democratic intent of those behind these discriminatory schemes--attempting to stop any practice proven to bring more people to the polls--to cling to power in an increasing multicultural America. Make no mistake, we vote at a critical juncture in our Nation's history. I urge all Members to join me in honoring the legacy of our beloved colleague, the late John Lewis--who shed his blood to secure passage of the Voting Rights Act--by supporting this vital legislation. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5746--the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. This measure would, among other things, revitalize and strengthen the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to confront the onslaught of discriminatory voting laws and practices that has emerged in recent years across the country. Significant portions of this measure--in particular, the bulk of Division D--rests on a substantial record that the House Judiciary Committee built over the course of 13 hearings in two Congresses, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Steve Cohen. This record documents the myriad ways that the right to vote--the most fundamental right in a democracy--remains under threat for too many Americans. I also applaud Congresswoman Terri Sewell for introducing H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which was ultimately incorporated into this measure. I urge all Members to join me in honoring the legacy of our beloved colleague, the late John Lewis--who shed his blood to secure passage of the Voting Rights Act--by supporting this vital legislation. Make no mistake, we are at a critical juncture in our Nation's history. The House faces a stark choice with this vote--protect democracy or let it die. Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Homeland Security, and Terrorism, and a senior member of the Homeland Security, and Budget Committees, I rise in strong support of the rule governing debate for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5746, the ``Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.'' We are here tonight because we must act. On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol President Johnson addressed the Nation before signing the Voting Rights Act--considered the most effective civil rights statute ever enacted by Congress: ``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.'' This bill is the result of tireless work and compromise by my colleagues in the House and my colleagues in the Senate. The signing of the Voting Rights Act came after, in that same year, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery. Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to bring it even closer to its founding ideals. The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to vote. On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved former colleague, the late Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote. ``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American. However, since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the right to vote has been under constant assault. The Voting Rights Act was enacted at a time when many African Americans in southern states had been denied the right to vote, and when attempting to register, organize or even assist others in their attempt to register to vote meant risking their jobs, homes, and racial violence. Prior to the enactment of the VRA, litigation initiated under the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 failed to eliminate discrimination in voting because jurisdictions simply shifted to different tactics in order to disenfranchise African Americans. Nearly fifty-seven years later, we face another turning point in the life of the Nation and for the dignity of men and women and the destiny of democracy. Although the Supreme Court has described the right to vote as the one right that is preservative of all others, this ``powerful instrument that canbreak down the walls of injustice''--faces grave threats. The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements. According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down Section 4(b) was that ``times change.'' 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. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in Shelby County v. Holder, ``[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' The current Supreme Court majority has simply never understood, or refuses to accept, the fundamental importance of the right to vote, free of discriminatory hurdles and obstacles. In fact, were it not for the 24th Amendment, I venture to say that this conservative majority on the Court would subject poll taxes and literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich v. DNC. Protecting voting rights and combating voter suppression schemes are two of the critical challenges facing our great democracy. Without safeguards to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the polls, more injustices are likely to occur and the voices of millions silenced. And this is exactly what we have seen over this past year. The polarization of Americans is ever increasing, as seen during the 2020 election through tactics meant to impede the right of certain Americans to vote, such as the removal of mailboxes and the closing of postal stations in order to impede mail-in voting. After the former president was soundly defeated at the ballot box in what experts unanimously proclaim was the most secure election in history, still the former president and his cronies propagated the Big Lie that the election was illegitimate because it was rife with fraud. The former president persisted in this specious claim even though, despite ample opportunities to do so, they produced not a scintilla of evidence to persuade any of the 61 state and federal courts that entertained the claims. But to this has been added reactionary state laws passed or introduced to suppress, abridge, restrict, or deny the right to vote of millions of eligible Americans, particularly persons of color, young persons and persons with disabilities, and working parents, precisely the constellation of persons whose votes determined the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, according to the Brennan Center For Justice, between January 1 and July 14, 2021, at least 18 states enacted 30 laws that restrict access to the vote, some making mail voting and early voting more difficult, others imposing harsher voter ID requirements, and making faulty voter purges more likely. In total, more than 400 bills with provisions that restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states in the 2021 legislative sessions. My home state of Texas is ground zero for this desperate effort to hold back an American future led by the ascendant coalition of young, racially diverse and all other tolerant, imaginative, and innovative voters who became energized and inspired by Barack Obama in 2008 and the belief in a new and just America. To combat not their ideas but instead their increasing numbers, the Republican legislature and Governor of Texas passed and signed into law SB1, which: bans drive-thru voting, 24-hour voting, and the distribution of mail-in ballot applications; imposes new and extraneous ID requirements for voting by mail; authorizing ``free movement'' to partisan poll watchers, effectively turning them into vote suppression vigilantes; requires monthly checks of voting rolls to facilitate purging unwanted voters; and imposes onerous new rules for voter assistance. All of this is more than enough to sound the warning bell that we are now engaged, as President Lincoln observed at Gettysburg, in a great contest testing the proposition that this Nation, or any nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal, can long endure. This is the present crisis in which we find ourselves and it indeed is soul trying. But as Thomas Paine wrote on Christmas Eve in 1776: ``The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.'' The work for civil rights and voting rights involved tens of thousands of individuals who fought to correct the course of the Nation by setting it on a path of equal rights and justice for all. The efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, Andrew Young, Hosea Williams, Coretta Scott King, and John Robert Lewis, among others, as well as the thousands of foot soldiers in the civil rights movement succeeded in waking the Nation to the idea that change was needed. The result of their work was the establishment of protections that allowed voters of every race, creed, color, and political belief to cast ballots free of interference or threat. The blood spilled during these difficult times is not forgotten by the communities that saw and experienced these battles, which is why laws like Texas SB1 cannot go unanswered by the United States House of Representatives and Senate. To meet the challenge we have been called upon to face and overcome, what is needed is for men and women of courage, conscience, and conviction to step forward and come to the aid of their country by passing the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to strengthen the foundation of our democracy upon which all else depends, including the important necessary investments to Build Back Better and mitigate the effects of Climate Change. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule governing debate of Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 1836, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, which will expand eligibility for post-9/11 G.I. Bill educational benefits to members of the National Guard and the Reserves. Current law defines the term ``active duty'' as those individuals who are on full-time duty in the active military service of the United States, including full-time training duty, annual training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned. H.R. 1836, will expand eligibility criteria to include those training in full-time National Guard duty, which includes the National Guard, the Army National Guard, and the Air National Guard, as well as those same members when performing active duty. Under current rules, service members need three years on active-duty to be eligible for full Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, which include 36 months of in-state college tuition, a monthly living stipend and other payouts. Reaching that amount of time mobilized to active-duty is difficult for guardsmen and reservists, and outdated and confusing eligibility requirements means the difference of tens of thousands of dollars for college for those individuals. For example, the deployment of thousands of Guard troops to Capitol Hill following the January 6 attack counted towards GI Bill eligibility, because the mission was being paid for with federal funds. However, troops mobilized for crowd control during racial equality protests in Washington, D.C., last summer were not able to count that time, because those missions weren't funded by federal dollars. Some other riot response missions across the nation were funded by federal funds, and did count towards the education benefits. Similarly, tens of thousands of Guard and Reserve troops have been mobilized for pandemic response missions over the last two years, but their eligibility varies depending on the specific orders and units involved. For years, members of the National Guard and Reserve Components have been disadvantaged and overlooked in the accumulation of their education benefits while performing the same or similar service as their Active-Duty counterparts. Time and time again, through natural disasters, global pandemics, and threats to our democracy, our National Guard and Reserve members have answered the call to serve. But despite taking on the same risks and doing the same jobs as their active-duty counterparts, these service members don't have access to the same benefits. This has become much clearer and more severe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Members of the National Guard and Reserve Component have risked their lives on the front lines of this pandemic, administering aid and protecting the Capitol on training status. Our brave men and women continue to selflessly answer our nation's call and are long overdue the benefits befitting their service. The Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act of 2021 will ensure the men and women of the National Guard are entitled to GI Bill education benefits when activated for service either for training or for operational needs of our country, just like their Active- Duty counterparts. I want to thank all of our armed serviceman and women for their selfless dedication to our protection every day. In my home state of Texas, the National Guard has been deployed time and time again to assist citizens and save lives during numerous natural disasters, including the Winter Freeze of last February and the tragic Hurricane Harvey. The Texas National Guard is host to nearly 21,000 troops, including its army and air components. The National Guard is a diverse force that includes all ethnicities: White: 69 percent; Black: 15 percent; Hispanic: 10 percent; Asian: 3 percent; Male: 83.1 percent; Female: 16.9 percent This bill, in which we further the benefits and recognition that our servicemen and women deserve, also reminds us that we have an overriding duty to protect the health and dignity of those serving today. For this reason, I would like to discuss the crisis that our National Guardsmen and Guardswomen have been thrust into at the Texas Governor's direction on our Southern Border. In March 2021, the Texas Governor launched the ill-fated and ineffective Operation Lone Star which he claimed was necessary to stem a so-called invasion of migrants at Texas' southern border. As of November 2021, more than 10,000 Texas National Guardsmen have been deployed to the southern border in pursuit of this folly. According to published media accounts, National Guard members who have been activated for Operation Lone Star are experiencing habitual pay delays and poor working conditions during the border mission, including being exposed to COVID-19, and many are missing the equipment necessary for safety and mission success. In addition, the National Guard has faced austere conditions and limited resources, leading to unsanitary conditions such as the lack of portable restrooms. Rather than addressing these conditions, just last week the Texas Governor filed a frivolous lawsuit in federal court challenging the authority of President Biden, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to require that members of the National Guard be vaccinated against COVID-19. There is no merit to this nuisance law suit as demonstrated by the summary rejection of similar arguments raised by neighboring Oklahoma Governor Stitt. The Texas Governor's failure to comply with the policies intended to reduce the spread of COVID-19 among the Armed Forces will mean that there will be less military personnel available national disasters that have struck Texas in recent years, such as the winter freeze of last year. This will also mean that there are fewer personnel to respond to any attacks on the homeland. Encouraged by the Texas Governor's obstinacy, about 40 percent of the members of the Texas Army National Guard are refusing to get vaccinated, which puts at risk their colleagues and the persons they are sworn to defend and protect. National Guardsmen and Guardswomen deployed in this disastrous mission at the Texas Governor's insistence face the deadly spread of COVID-19, unsanitary conditions, lack of pay, and a lack of a certain future. These uniformed men and women deserve better, and some of them, seeing no alternative to their present reality, have decided to end it all. Five National guard soldiers have shot and killed themselves in the past three months, and one more survived a suicide attempt. One of these men, private first class Joshua R. Cortez, was preparing to accept a ``lifetime job'' with one of the nation's biggest health insurance companies in late October last year, but the Texas National Guard had other ideas. Operation Lone Star required involuntary activations to meet the Texas Governor's troop quotas, and Cortez was one of the soldiers tapped to go on state active duty orders--with no idea how long the mission would last. In November, the 21-year-old mechanic requested a hardship release from the mission: ``I've been waiting for this job and I'm on my way to getting hired . . . I missed my first opportunity in September when I had to go on the flood mission in Louisiana. . . . I can not miss this opportunity because it is my last opportunity for this lifetime job.'' Cortez's company commander recommended approval. But his battalion commander and brigade commander disapproved. Within 36 hours of his request being denied, Cortez drove to a parking lot in northwest San Antonio and shot himself in the head. Three other soldiers tied to Operation Lone Star have died by suicide, including: Sgt. Jose L. De Hoyos was found dead in Laredo, Texas, on Oct. 26. He was a member of the 949th Brigade Support Battalion's headquarters company. 1st Sgt. John ``Kenny'' Crutcher died Nov. 12, as time ran out on his temporary hardship waiver. He was the top NCO for B Company, 3rd Battalion, 144th Infantry. 1st Lt. Charles Williams, a platoon leader in Crutcher's company, died at home overnight Dec. 17 while on pass. The string of suicides raises urgent questions about the mission's conditions and purpose, as well as the way it's organized and manned through indefinite involuntary call-ups. This is an excellent and common-sense bill that will enhance the benefits of our servicemen and women. We must also act to ensure that our servicemen and women are protected from COVID-19, both for their own safety and the safety of our nation. When called to action, the National Guard performs the name duties as our active duty forces, oftentimes in extraordinarily difficult situations. Although we cannot bring back the lives lost due to the Texas Governor's misguided actions, we can remember the names of those we have lost and work to ensure that we treat all members of our military equally and with dignity and respect.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, today is my birthday, and I could not think of a better gift for the American people. In the last 24 hours, we found that five States--Republicans--decided to put in false certifications to determine that Trump actually won the November 2020 election. In a bill in Texas that was passed after the big lie, they allowed the legislature to overturn a duly held election. Do you not think there is a siege on the rightful vote of Americans no matter who they are, of people of color and young people? I am so happy that we decided to move forward on the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act that will stop the detrimental gerrymandering that wants to eliminate Members of color. It is time now that the relic of the filibuster no longer promotes discrimination and racism but frankly that we move on protecting democracy, on cradling democracy, on recognizing that we are patriots who stand to support the idea of the Constitution. Madam Speaker, I support this rule because the Constitution rules and the American people deserve the right to vote. Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Homeland Security, and Terrorism, and a senior member of the Homeland Security, and Budget Committees, I rise in strong support of the rule governing debate for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5746, the ``Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.'' We are here tonight because we must act, and this legislation provides the tools to address discriminatory practices and seeks to protect all Americans' right to vote. On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol, President Johnson addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act--considered the most effective civil rights statute ever enacted by Congress: ``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.'' This bill is the result of tireless work and compromise by my colleagues in the House and my colleagues in the Senate. The signing of the Voting Rights Act came after, in that same year, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery. Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to bring it even closer to its founding ideals. The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to vote. On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved former colleague, the late Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote. ``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American. However, since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the right to vote has been under constant assault. The Voting Rights Act was enacted at a time when many African Americans in southern states had been denied the right to vote, and when attempting to register, organize, or even assist others in their attempt to register to vote meant risking their jobs, homes, and racial violence. Prior to the enactment of the VRA, litigation initiated under the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 failed to eliminate discrimination in voting because jurisdictions simply shifted to different tactics in order to disenfranchise African Americans. Nearly fifty-seven years later, we face another turning point in the life of the nation and for the dignity of men and women and the destiny of democracy. Although the Supreme Court has described the right to vote as the one right that is preservative of all others, this ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice'' faces grave threats. The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements. According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down Section 4(b) was that ``times change.'' 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. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in Shelby County v. Holder, ``[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' The current Supreme Court majority has simply never understood, or refuses to accept, the fundamental importance of the right to vote, free of discriminatory hurdles and obstacles. In fact, were it not for the 24th Amendment, I venture to say that this conservative majority on the Court would subject poll taxes and literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich v. DNC. Protecting voting rights and combating voter suppression schemes are two of the critical challenges facing our great democracy. Without safeguards to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the polls, more injustices are likely to occur and the voices of millions silenced. And this is exactly what we have seen over this past year. The polarization of Americans is ever increasing, as seen during the 2020 election through tactics meant to impede the right of certain Americans to vote, such as the removal of mailboxes and the closing of postal stations in order to impede mail-in voting. After the former president was soundly defeated at the ballot box in what experts unanimously proclaim was the most secure election in history, still the former president and his cronies propagated the Big Lie that the election was illegitimate because it was rife with fraud. The former president persisted in this specious claim even though, despite ample opportunities to do so, they produced not a scintilla of evidence to persuade any of the 61 state and federal courts that entertained the claims. But to this has been added reactionary state laws passed or introduced to suppress, abridge, restrict, or deny the right to vote of millions of eligible Americans, particularly persons of color, young persons and persons with disabilities, and working parents, precisely the constellation of persons whose votes determined the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, according to the Brennan Center For Justice, between January 1 and July 14, 2021, at least 18 states enacted 30 laws that restrict access to the vote, some making mail voting and early voting more difficult, others imposing harsher voter ID requirements, and making faulty voter purges more likely. In total, more than 400 bills with provisions that restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states in the 2021 legislative sessions. My home state of Texas is ground zero for this desperate effort to hold back an American future led by the ascendant coalition of young, racially diverse and all other tolerant, imaginative, and innovative voters who became energized and inspired by Barack Obama in 2008 and the belief in a new and just America. To combat not their ideas but instead their increasing numbers, the Republican legislature and Governor of Texas passed and signed into law SB1, which: Bans drive-thru voting, 24-hour voting, and the distribution of mailin ballot applications; imposes new and extraneous ID requirements for voting by mail; authorizing ``free movement'' to partisan poll watchers, effectively turning them into vote suppression vigilantes; requires monthly checks of voting rolls to facilitate purging unwanted voters; and imposes onerous new rules for voter assistance. All of this is more than enough to sound the warning bell that we are now engaged, as President Lincoln observed at Gettysburg, in a great contest testing the proposition that this nation, or any nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal, can long endure. This is the present crisis in which we find ourselves and it indeed is soul trying. But as Thomas Paine wrote on Christmas Eve in 1776: ``The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.'' The work for civil rights and voting rights involved tens of thousands of individuals who fought to correct the course of the nation by setting it on a path of equal rights and justice for all. The efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, Andrew Young, Hosea Williams, Coretta Scott King, and John Robert Lewis, among others, as well as the thousands of foot soldiers in the civil rights movement succeeded in waking the nation to the idea that change was needed. The result of their work was the establishment of protections that allowed voters of every race, creed, color, and political belief to cast ballots free of interference or threat. The blood spilled during these difficult times is not forgotten by the communities that saw and experienced these battles, which is why laws like Texas SB1 cannot go unanswered by the United States House of Representatives and Senate. To meet the challenge we have been called upon to face and overcome, what is needed is for men and women of courage, conscience, and conviction to step forward and come to the aid of their country by passing the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to strengthen the foundation of our democracy upon which all else depends, including the important necessary investments to Build Back Better and mitigate the effects of Climate Change. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule governing debate of Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is often said that his were the words of a giant who could galvanize all of America around the wonderful concept of the ``beloved community.'' Dr. King was assassinated in 1968, and so many have come from his spirit, but I thought this year, in the midst of the very divisive fight for voting rights, we could just remember his marches, his words, believing in a dream, and recognizing the goodness of America. He marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. He walked with our friend John Robert Lewis and his other friends Hosea Williams, Reverend Andrew Young, and Ralph David Abernathy. And he always thought that he could never give up, as he went to the White House with Lyndon Baines Johnson and insisted on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We must honor him in these coming days not by words and tributes but by doing the right thing, building on the democracy that he so much dreamed for, even though his life was cut short, and to thank his family--Martin Luther King III and all of his children and his wife-- for the sacrifice they made for America. I pay tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, ``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Formulated by the people of the United States to create a more perfect union--we know these words. They are the core of our being. Our Nation of over 300 million people embraces diversity and individualism, has birthed a citizenry that speaks many languages, holds a plethora of deep religious beliefs, or none, and practices customs and traditions originating on distant shores. We are unique. African Americans, in particular, have a unique history embedded in slavery, discrimination, and the denial of our rights, but voting rights have been our refuge. Today I rise and say there is no option other than passing the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. There is no option. We do not just survive; our Nation thrives because of our shared belief that helps us against all odds. It helped us in World War I and World War II and the conflicts in and around. It helps us in wars where we have lost our young men and women. We have a country formed out of many to become one people. Americans share the same compact that we are a nation of laws that flow from the most crucial and fundamental law, the Constitution of the United States. The impact of the Constitution and its basic premise can be summarized by the simple belief that every individual is entitled to an equally valid vote. We saw in 2020 that fragile vote that saw the largest turnout in any Presidential election in the history of the United States--that is a very long time--challenged from its very beginning, challenged on the day of the election, continued to be challenged and misrepresented and distorted, and election officials attacked and intimidated, even removed from office. So I stand today on the shoulders not only of Dr. Martin Luther King, who I view, in fact, as a modern-day prophet; and our own colleague, John Robert Lewis; but I stand on the shoulders of a widow, Coretta Scott King, who I got to know in the aftermath of her husband's death. She worked without ceasing to have his principles, his values, his understanding of the ``beloved community'' recognized and to continue the sense of the rightness and righteousness of voting. I had the privilege of working for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. It will always be a special part of my history. I had the privilege of working with individuals with names that we know, the young Hosea Williams, James Orange, some of the generals and foot soldiers that were in the army of Dr. Martin Luther King's beloved America. Yes, I had the privilege--I call it that--of walking on plantations to try to register Black sharecroppers frightened and intimidated, though dignified, to vote. Their intimidation was real because those who owned the general store or the plantation were not eager for those Blacks in the South to vote or for those Hispanics and others who worked, as Dr. King worked, with Cesar Chavez and the farmworkers. They were not eager for them to vote. Today, as we are about to watch as a step is to be made, both in terms of the speech of a President and Vice President but the actual vote in the Senate, we cannot isolate ourselves to focus on one or two persons. We really have to focus on who we are as a Nation, that this vote binds us together. It is the voice of the people. And the Constitution, it trumps any figment of our imagination that may consider something legitimate. The filibuster is not legitimate. It is a rule of one body of this Congress. It is a rule that we adhere to, as civil people do. We adhere to rules. We adhere to those in this House. I agree with that until a rule is used to trump and deny the basic constitutional values of the 14th Amendment and the Fifth Amendment of due process and equality, as it was utilized in the 20th century by segregationist Senators to deny civil rights laws. Mr. Speaker, it is important that I stand here today on Coretta's name and Martin's name and Bobby's name and John's name, that we must demand courage. To not vote for the Voting Rights Act is not an option. I will not allow that to happen because I will stand with every breath in my body to ensure that the American people can vote without intimidation, and they will be intimidated without the laws of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and as well the Freedom to Vote Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, spoken like my good friend from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter--who I really insist that he remain in this body for his astuteness and his way of analyzing--might I just take a quick moment to say that the schools of America are open. But today, the hospitalization rate for omicron is the highest ever since we have had COVID-19. And so I believe that school superintendents, teachers, parents, and others--like Madam Speaker--are making decisions for our children to be in school but also to be safe. Madam Speaker, I move on these two very important legislative initiatives, H.R. 1836 and H.R. 4673. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I thank my good friend who has served in the United States military from Pennsylvania. I thank him for his service as well. Madam Speaker, I rise enthusiastically on this legislation for a number of reasons, but more importantly, I have worked extensively with the Guard, particularly the Texas National Guard. We in Texas can sometimes be called disaster alley as it relates to hurricanes and tornadoes, as it relates to COVID-19. And alongside of us on those battles, if you will, saving lives have been the National Guard. We are grateful for their service. They are citizen soldiers. I think we don't acknowledge that what the Guard is is individuals who put on the uniform, leaving being a bus driver or a teacher or a mechanic, lawyer or doctor; and in doing so, they sacrifice and leave their families. So I am excited about H.R. 1836 by Mr. Levin because right now in terms of education, it is Active Duty, those individuals in active military service, including full-time training and annual training. But H.R. 1836 will expand the eligibility criteria to include those training in full-time National Guard duty. They are on the front lines. In my hospital during COVID-19, it was the Guard that came as nurses and support systems when we were literally overwhelmed with patients. It is the Guard that is coming back again to be able to help us now that we are also at the peak. Texas Children's Hospital seeing more sick COVID-19-impacted children in their history, the Guard is vital. And I would just say that this is not about data. It is about the lives of our Guard. And I want to move to say how important it is to get our young soldiers on to the healthcare system under the bill of Mr. Takano as quickly as they come out. It is not about data, it is about saving lives. And that leads me to Governor Abbott's untimely and wrong policies in Texas. I will be seeking an official investigation from the department in Washington, the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, the issue is very clear. In his wrongheaded dispatching of our guard to the border--of course, this is a Federal responsibility, the southern border--we now have documented crises, guards committing suicide, guards not getting their paychecks, and guards having their education tuition slashed. Yes, that is what is happening in the State of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am a fighter for the Guard. They have worked without ceasing and question. And I demand that this Congress, this Committee on Armed Services, the Pentagon, investigate when the commander of a particular State abuses those individuals who have put on the uniform as citizen soldiers and who are in desperate need of our help. Suicide? Not getting your paychecks timely because you are dispatching people to the border without order and without understanding? Madam Speaker, I support this legislation, but I am calling upon my colleagues to help me, help these young soldiers with family members who, at this point as we stand here, are not getting the kind of treatment equating to their dignity, their service, and their sacrifice. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Rule for House consideration of H.R. 1836, Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, and H.R. 4673, EVEST Act. I thank Rules Committee Chairman McGovern for shepherding this legislation to the floor. I also thank House Veterans Committee Chair Mark Takano, for his stewardship of the committee and unwavering commitment to our nation's veterans. H.R. 1836, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act will expand eligibility criteria for certain education benefits. Current law defines the term ``active duty'' as those individuals who are on full-time duty in the active military service of the United States, including full-time training duty, annual training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned. H.R. 1836, will expand eligibility criteria to include those training in fulltime National Guard duty, which includes the National Guard, the Army National Guard, and the Air National Guard, as well as those same members when performing active duty. H.R. 4673, the EVEST Act, would forward the goal of seamless enrollment in health care coverage. Specifically, this bill will require the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to automatically enroll new veterans into VA health care, and notify veterans of their enrollment and instructions on how to un- enroll, if desired. I rise today to pay tribute to all the men and women who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States and risked their lives to defend our freedoms and way of life and took and lived the oath to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic'' and bore true faith and allegiance to the same, an obligation they took freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Veterans are truly heroes walking among us. I want to thank all of our armed serviceman and women for their selfless dedication to our protection every day. Today's Rule includes a very important bill that provides for our nation's reservists, H.R. 1836, Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act. When it is signed into law it will repair a disparity issue by placing the Guard and Reserve on equal footing with regards to GI bill benefits. This Rule, in which we further the benefits and recognition that our veterans deserve, also reminds us that we have an overriding duty to protect the health and dignity of those service today. For this reason, I would like to discuss the actions of the Texas Governor, because he is taking whatever steps he can to prevent local jurisdictions and municipalities in Texas from promulgating and enforcing any mandate that may be necessary to respond to and mitigate the substantial threat posed by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. It is no exaggeration to say that Executive Orders issued by the Texas Governor have consigned thousands of Texans to needless death and suffering. According to virtually all public health experts, these deaths and suffering could be alleviated by taking the simple but life-saving precautions of getting a vaccination shot, wearing a protective face covering, and maintaining recommended social distancing. To date, the COVID-19 virus has afflicted more than 35.3 million persons in the United States and more than 5.09 million Texas. In Harris County alone, the number is approaching 753,000 cases and already 9,821 persons have died of the virus, which represents more than 10 percent of the 76,839 Texas lives claimed by this lethal disease. To exacerbate matters, in March 2021, the Texas Governor launched the ill-fated and ineffective Operation Lone Star which he claimed was necessary to stem a so-called invasion of migrants at Texas' southern border. As of November 2021, more than 10,000 Texas National Guardsmen have been deployed to the southern border in pursuit of this folly. According to published media accounts, National Guard members who have been activated for Operation Lone Star are experiencing habitual pay delays and poor working conditions during the border mission, including being exposed to COVID-19, and many are missing the equipment necessary for safety and mission success. Finally, just last week the Texas Governor filed a frivolous lawsuit in federal court challenging the authority of President Biden, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces to require that members of the National Guard be vaccinated against COVID-19. There is no merit to this nuisance law suit as demonstrated by the summary rejection of similar arguments raised by neighboring Oklahoma Governor Stitt. The Texas Governor's failure to comply with the policies intended to reduce the spread of COVID-19 among the Armed Forces will mean that there will be less military personnel available national disasters that have struck Texas in recent years, such as the winter freeze of last year. This will also mean that there are fewer personnel to respond to any attacks on the homeland. Encouraged by Governor Abbott's obstinacy, about 40 percent of the members of the Texas Army National Guard are refusing to get vaccinated, which puts at risk their colleagues and the persons they are sworn to defend and protect. This Rule governs debate of excellent and common-sense bills that will enhance the respect and benefits of our servicemen and women. We must also act to ensure that our servicemen and women are protected from COVID-19, both for their own safety and the safety of our nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute the late majority leader, Harry Reid, who served his Nation for 48 years in public service by appointment or election. But Harry Reid can be more than the public service that he has given. He is and was a true patriot, a family man, and someone who cared enough to not only secure this Nation but to mentor and to love his State and to love America. Thousands--no, millions of Americans, at all economic levels, have healthcare because of Harry Reid. Nevada was prevented from being a nuclear waste dumping ground because of Harry Reid. And I stood by him, glad to have known him--I, as a member of the United States House; he, then in the United States Senate. It is with deep sympathy that I offer to his family and friends and the people of Nevada for he truly was an American patriot--tough, but strong and kind. And may I say, he served as a U.S. Capitol Hill police officer. What a man--a boxer, but always a patriot. May he rest in peace and may he know that his 48 years--44 of them in the United States Congress--counts toward his historical mark of changing America, making America the place where no matter who you are you have an opportunity to succeed and to overcome. He did that and helped others as well. Thank you to patriot Majority Leader Harry Reid. May he rest in peace and may he rest in power.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, as the descendant of patriotic and heroic veterans who risked their lives to defend our nation and our freedoms, as a parent with the fervent hope and determination to pass on this great democracy to the next generation, and as a citizen of the greatest republic in world history, I rise to reflect on the state of our democracy as it is about to open a new chapter in the remarkable story of America. In 1776 the Framers declared the self-evident and later the universal truth that all persons are created equal and endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As important, the Framers declared that ``to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.'' This genius of self-government is the Framers' gift to us and America's gift to the world, and for nearly 250 years the world has looked upon the United States with wonder, awe, and envy not just for its awesome powers and achievements, but for being the exemplar to which most freedom-loving nations aspire. But as President Lincoln reminded us at Gettysburg, the proposition that a people can govern themselves is not to be taken for granted; it is a proposition that will be tested time and again and it is for us, the living, to highly resolve to commit ourselves to the great task always before us, that government of the people, by the people, and for the people not perish from the Earth. As Thomas Paine said in his time, the past four years were times that tried one's soul. The nation was tested, severely so, by what can only be described as the modern-day Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: a deadly pandemic, economic devastation unseen since the Great Depression, social justice unrest, and the very real threat of authoritarianism. While the threat posed by these challenges are still with us to varying extent, we can all rejoice that the nation withstood the challenge, e pluribus unum, by standing together as ``We The People.'' President Lincoln reminded us that in times of testing and challenge that ``the fiery trial through which we pass will mark us down in honor or dishonor until the latest generation'' but that so long as the people ``retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.'' And Lincoln was right, for on Election Day 2020, Americans by a substantial majority, voted to withhold consent to govern from an incumbent administration and confer it upon another. That act of self- government and sovereign expression was solemnized on January 20, 2021, at noon when Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris took the oath of office as the 46th President and 59th Vice-President of the United States. The Philadelphia Miracle of 1789 endures but only because we Americans resolve that it does and work to make it so. The President takes the oath of office pledging to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. As does every one of my congressional colleagues, I have sacredly pledged true faith and allegiance in defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to well and faithfully execute the duties of the office I hold. I do this ever mindful that the purpose of our form of government is ``to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for the common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for posterity.'' But we all have a responsibility to preserve and strengthen this constitutional republic and pass it on to the next generation by engaging in robust, lawful, and peaceful civic activity to hold our government to account and to peaceably assemble when necessary to petition for a redress of grievances as shown by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at the March on Washington, following the example of Mahatma Gandhi; by John Lewis and the Civil Rights foot soldiers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama; by Elizabeth Cady Staton and Lucretia Mott at Seneca Falls; by Cesar Chavez leading the fight for human dignity of farmworkers, and by Black Lives Matter demonstrators protesting inequalities in the criminal justice system. For the work of democracy is never complete, our union is always in the process of being made more perfect. Americans have suffered, endured, and survived much pain and heartbreak over the past five years. But Psalms 30:5 teaches that ``weeping lasteth for a night, but joy cometh in the morning'' and our collective journey towards the beloved community continues inexorably forward.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman of the January 6 Select Committee for yielding. I serve as the chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, which, collectively with the Judiciary Committee, may ultimately be addressing the legislative aspect of what we are here for. In particular, Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day. I served with our former colleague, Mr. Meadows, a Member of the United States Congress. I believe that it was a number of years that he rose and took an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America. In that oath he should have recognized the fact that the Article I body which we stand in today indicates that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. All legislative powers. In order to have legislative powers, one must have the facts. That is what is being asked for today. I think the American people need to understand that although there may be many concerns--I am from Texas as well; I know the border is not in crisis. It should be addressed. We as Texans know how to address it, and President Biden and Vice President Harris know how to address it, as other Presidents have. People are fleeing for their lives. But our Constitution says of the Congress ``to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.'' We are vested with a lot of powers. One of them is to be able to find the truth, to determine how we preserve our democracy, and how we need to legislate to do so. So I stand on the Constitution as I proceed with why we should move forward. Again, this is a very sad day, but Mark Randall Meadows, former White House chief of staff, had a part in the perpetration of the big lie of the election fraud, and we must investigate it. Mr. Meadows was one of a relatively small group of people who witnessed the events of January 6 in the White House with the former President. He was there. Firsthand knowledge. Some of these that I will recite have already been recited, but they are only a small measure with the huge bounty of documents that he and his lawyer consented to give to this committee. Consented to give. Consented to give. Voluntarily. And so one must understand that when you do that, there is a question of waiver of the so-called alleged privilege that you are alleging, the executive privilege. But the courts have already indicated that the privilege lies with the existing President, not the former President. With that in mind, should we not recognize that the very allies, the media allies of the President--the former President, Laura Ingraham said to Mark, ``The President needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Brian Kilmeade, ``Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.'' Sean Hannity, ``Can he make a statement?'' And Donald Trump Jr., in profanity, said, Please help us. But I want to just say, the United States v. Bryan says, ``A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case, then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures, would be a nullity. We have often iterated the importance of this public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.'' We must do this, sadly, in order for his remarks to save the democracy to be heard. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 851, ``Recommending That The House of Representatives Find Mark Randall Meadows In Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on The United States Capitol.'' It is with a heavy heart that I stand here today; this resolution will find a former colleague in contempt of the very body he once faithfully served. However, protecting our democracy is the ultimate duty for each of us in this body, so we will do what must be done. It is my sincere hope that during the course of this day, Mr. Meadows will reverse course and agree to comply with this lawful subpoena, in order to protect the dignity and sanctity of Congress. On January 6th, the domestic terrorists who beat law enforcement officers and breached the Citadel of democracy of the United States proudly wore symbols of White Supremacist groups, waved confederate flags, hung a noose on the lawn, and they shouted racial epithets. Mark Randall Meadows, former White House Chief of Staff, had a part in the perpetuation of the Big Lie of election fraud, and we must investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power'' that Mr. Meadows was involved in. Mr. Meadows was one of a relatively small group of people who witnessed the events of January 6 in the White House and with the former president. Mr. Meadows was with the former president on January 6 as he learned about the attack on the U.S. Capitol and decided whether to issue a statement that could stop the rioters. In fact, according to documents already handed over to the Committee, as the violence at the Capitol unfolded, Mr. Meadows received many messages encouraging him to have the former president issue a statement that could end the violence. According to the records, multiple Fox News hosts, and the former president's son knew that the former president needed to act immediately. They texted Mr. Meadows, and he turned over these texts to this Committee. These are some of those texts: Laura Ingraham texted, ``Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.'' Brian Kilmeade texted, ``Please, get him on TV destroying everything you have accomplished.'' Sean Hannity texted, ``Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.'' Donald Trump Jr. texted, ``he's got to condemn this shit ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.'' To this last text, Meadows responded, ``I'm pushing it hard. I agree.'' One former White House employee reportedly contacted Mr. Meadows several times and told him, ``[you guys have to say something. Even if the president's not willing to put out a statement, you should go to the [cameras] and say, `We condemn this. Please stand down.' If you don't, people are going to die.'' As time passed without the former president intervening, Donald Trump Jr. again texted, ``we need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.'' But still, hours passed without necessary action by the president. Moreover, Mr. Meadows reportedly spoke with Kashyap Patel, who was then the chief of staff to former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, ``nonstop'' throughout the day of January 6. Mr. Meadows apparently knows if and when the former president was engaged in discussions regarding the National Guard's response to the Capitol riot, a point that is contested but about which Mr. Meadows provided documents to the Select Committee and spoke publicly on national television after the former president left office. But Mr. Meadows knows much more than just what happened during the attack. Prior to the January 6 attack, Mr. Meadows received text messages and emails regarding apparent efforts to encourage Republican legislators in certain States to send alternate slates of electors to Congress, a plan which one Member of Congress acknowledged was ``highly controversial'' and to which Mr. Meadows responded, ``I love it.'' Mr. Meadows traveled to Georgia to observe an audit of the votes days after then- the former president complained that the audit had been moving too slowly and claimed that the signature-match system was rife with fraud. That trip precipitated the former president's calls to Georgia's deputy secretary of state and, later, secretary of state. In the call with Georgia's secretary of state, which Mr. Meadows joined, the former president pressed his unsupported claims of widespread election fraud, including claims related to deceased people voting, forged signatures, out-of-State voters, shredded ballots, triple-counted ballots, Dominion voting machines, and suitcase ballots, before telling the secretary of state that he wanted to find enough votes to ensure his victory. Mr. Meadows was chief of staff during the post-election period when other White House staff, including the press secretary, advanced claims of election fraud. In one press conference, the press secretary claimed that there were ``very real claims'' of fraud that the former president's re-election campaign was pursuing and said that mail-in voting was one that ``we have identified as being particularly prone to fraud.'' Mr. Meadows participated in a meeting that reportedly occurred on December 18, 2020, with the former president, the White House counsel, an attorney associated with the campaign, White House staff, and private citizens, on proposals relating to challenging the 2020 election results. Mr. Meadows reportedly sent an email--subject line: ``Constitutional Analysis of the Vice President's Authority for January 6, 2021, Vote Count''--to a member of then-Vice President Pence's senior staff containing a memo written by an attorney affiliated with the former president's re-election campaign. The memo argued that the Vice President could declare electoral votes in six States in dispute when they came up for a vote during the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021, which would require those States' legislatures to send a response to Congress by 7 p.m. EST on January 15 or, if they did not, then congressional delegations would vote for the former president's re-election. Mr. Meadows was in contact with at least some of the private individuals who planned and organized a January 6 rally, one of whom reportedly may have expressed safety concerns to Mr. Meadows about January 6 events. It is apparent that Mr. Meadows's testimony and document production are of critical importance to the Select Committee's investigation, and Congress, through the Select Committee, is entitled to discover facts concerning what led to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, as well as White House officials' actions and communications during and after the attack. Mr. Meadows is uniquely situated to provide key information, having straddled an official role in the White House and unofficial role related to the former president's reelection campaign since at least election day in 2020 through January 6. Mr. Meadows was required under federal law to turn over documents to investigators and appear for a deposition in accordance with a subpoena the committee issued, but he did not comply by the dates set in the subpoena. An individual--whether a member of the public or an executive branch official--has a legal (and patriotic) obligation to comply with a duly issued and valid congressional subpoena, unless a valid and overriding privilege or other legal justification permits noncompliance. In United States v. Bryan, the Supreme Court stated: A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case, then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures, would be a nullity. We have often iterated the importance of this public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned. The Select Committee seeks testimony from Mr. Meadows on information for which there can be no conceivable privilege claim. In fact, the non-privileged nature of some key information has been recognized by Mr. Meadows's own documents which he has previously handed over to the Committee. Congress is entitled to Mr. Meadows's testimony on that information, regardless of his claims of privilege over other categories of information. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703-16 (1974), the Supreme Court recognized an implied constitutional privilege protecting presidential communications. The Court held though that the privilege is qualified, not absolute, and that it is limited to communications made ``in performance of [a President's] responsibilities of his office and made in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.'' Mr. Meadows has refused to testify in response to the subpoena ostensibly based on broad and undifferentiated assertions of various privileges, including claims of executive privilege purportedly asserted by former-President Trump. However, his claims of testimonial immunity and executive privilege do not justify Mr. Meadows's conduct with respect to the Select Committee's subpoena. His legal position is untenable in light of Mr. Meadows's public descriptions of events in the book that he is trying to sell and during his numerous television appearances, and his own previously produced documents. Even if privileges were applicable to some aspects of Mr. Meadows's testimony, he was required to appear before the Select Committee for his deposition, answer any questions concerning non-privileged information, and assert any such privilege on a question-by-question basis. After promising to appear, Mr. Meadows has now reversed course and resumed his contemptuous behavior. Mr. Meadows's conduct in response to the Select Committee's subpoena constitutes a violation of the contempt of Congress statutory provisions. The contempt of Congress statute makes clear that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year. Further, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.'' The Supreme Court also recently reinforced this clear obligation by stating that ``when Congress seeks information needed for intelligent legislative action, it unquestionably remains the duty of all citizens to cooperate.'' DOJ's legitimacy and effectiveness depends on the public's confidence that its administration and enforcement of federal laws is done impartially, free from actual or perceived partisan or political influence. Mr. Speaker, the January 6 insurrection caused tragic loss of life and many injuries, while leaving behind widespread physical damage to the Capitol Complex and emotional trauma for Members, congressional employees, and the Capitol Police. It bears repeating often that the Congress and the Nation owe undying gratitude to the men and women who answered the call of constitutional duty and heroically won the day on that bloody and deadly afternoon. Mr. Speaker, the domestic terrorists and seditionists who attacked the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 were not, as some of their ardent defenders and apologists across the aisle have stated falsely, on a ``normal tour visit''; nor was their effort to lay siege to the Capitol and disrupt the processes of government an act of persons who love their country. And it is absurd to suggest that it was a celebration of the United States and what it stands for when the leading edge of terrorists desecrated the Capitol by offensively parading the treasonous Confederate flag through the building and when, because of their insurrection, several members of law enforcement made the supreme sacrifice and scores more were seriously injured. Mr. Speaker, we owe it not just to those who lost their lives on January 6th, but to all Americans to figure out what happened and how that day came to be. We must understand that day in order to prevent the intended purpose of the January 6 insurrection--to disrupt the Joint Meeting of Congress to tally the votes of Presidential electors and announce the results to the Nation and the world--from every occurring again. This attack on our Capitol Building was the greatest threat to the American experiment since the Civil War when the pro-slavery forces decided to wage war, rather than let the Nation survive, and the pro- freedom forces would accept war rather than let the Nation perish. The Select Committee has diligently continued in their duty to determine the causes and events that transpired during the insurrectionist attack. Specifically, the Select Committee's purposes include: To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex.'' To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power.'' To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to ``the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.'' Understanding the full role that Mr. Meadows played in the events that led up to the January 6th attack is crucial to preventing anything like this from ever happening again. Rather than comply with Congress' inherent powers, and help heal the trauma this Nation witnessed on January 6th, Mr. Meadows has simply refused to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue; it is the very power of Congress to investigate matters of issue that is at stake. For this reason, I rise in total support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 851, ``Recommending That The House of Representatives Find Jeffrey Bossert Clark In Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on The United States Capitol.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, when the heinous acts of 9/11 came, this Nation could have easily fell upon the splinters of divisiveness and begin to point fingers in a massive way toward our fellow human beings, Muslims around the world and in the United States. Isn't it interesting that the President of the United States, a Republican, George W. Bush, took to the microphone to denounce that kind of divisive action--a Republican. We came together, even though there were incidences that many confronted, to hold this Nation together. Even with the small percentage of Muslims in the United States, we recognize the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, which makes up nearly one-forth of the world's population. It is the world's second largest religion. I am proud to be able to serve or have served with former Member Keith Ellison, the first to be elected; Congressman Andre Carson, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar. I am proud to chair the Pakistan Caucus, the Afghan Caucus, and to work with Muslims around the world; and I have visited the Middle East often, and engaged with Muslims who desired peace. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule and the underlying bill, to create the position of special envoy for monitoring and combatting Islamophobia that would be responsible for tracking and coordinating efforts to combat Islamophobia abroad. It would require the State Department to encourage reports on human rights practices and an annual report on international religious freedom, and include, where possible, the assessments on the nature and extent of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement that occur abroad. My colleagues on this floor might take heed to the importance of recognizing the humanity of all people. The hijab is a thing of beauty. Muslim women can choose to wear it, they wear it in front of men who are not their family members. Our Member, Ilhan Omar, wears that. It is not a sign of terrorism, and that kind of language should be denounced whether it is on the floor of this House or in some kind of private interaction. We do not want the world to look at the United States as not caring about the rights of Muslims. America stands against the committing of acts of atrocities against the Uyghurs in China, or the Rohingya in Burma, or the brutal crackdowns on Muslim populations in other countries including Southeast Asia, scapegoating of Muslim refugees and other Muslims in Hungary and Poland, the acts of white supremacist violence against Muslims in New Zealand and Canada, or the targeting of minority Muslim communities in Muslim majority countries like those in Southeast Asia and Iran. I know that we are working hard to ensure that does not happen.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This legislation is crucial and important. The reason is because it speaks to who we are as Members of the most powerful lawmaking body in the world. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to sit on the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission with Chairman McGovern and that we can talk about human rights for all people. And we need to get over it and recognize that it is important to unify the world. Let the United States be the leader for what is right and to be able to acknowledge the doctors, lawyers, and other leaders in our Nation who happen to be Muslim. So this legislation gives the United States the right hand, the upper hand to be able to assess this around the world and be the leader against anti-hate or anti-Muslim hate. Let's be the leader rather than the provoker of it. I end by saying this plea to my colleagues: Whether you are Republican or Democrat, is this, in essence, the reputation you want to give to this Congress, that we are attacking people for their religion and who they are? Let this bill pass but let it be a symbol that we will stop this kind of Islamophobia, and it starts with each and every one of us. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Rule Governing Debate of H.R. 5665, the Combating International Islamophobia Act, which will address the increasing number of incidents of Islamophobia around the world. Specifically, this bill will: Create the position of Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Islamophobia, who will be responsible for tracking and coordinating efforts to combat Islamophobia abroad. Require that the State Department's annual country reports on human rights practices and annual Report on International Religious Freedom include, wherever possible, assessments of the nature and extent of acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement that occur abroad. As Islamophobia rises globally, it is vital that the State Department have senior personnel in place charged with understanding, reporting on, and combating this scourge worldwide. In recent decades, we have seen a staggering rise in incidents of violent Islamophobia worldwide. Whether it is the atrocities being committed against the Uyghurs in China and the Rohingya in Burma, the brutal crackdowns on Muslim populations around the world. The scapegoating of Muslim refugees and other Muslims in Hungary and Poland, the acts of white supremacist violence targeting Muslims in New Zealand and Canada, or the targeting of minority Muslim communities in Muslim-majority countries. It is time for us as policymakers to understand these problems as interconnected and genuinely global. There are about 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, which makes up nearly one-fourth of the world's population. Islam is the world's second largest religion. Painfully, a staggering number of people have experienced anti-Muslim hate in their lifetime; a number that has only inflated since 9/11. America is home to one of the most diverse Muslim populations in the world, including people of almost every ethnicity, country and school of thought. Approximately one third of the community is African American, one third is of South Asian descent, one quarter is of Arab descent, and the rest are from all over the world, including a growing Latino Muslim population. While exact numbers are difficult to establish, there are between 3-6 million American Muslims. About one half of this population was born in the U.S., a percentage that continues to grow as immigration slows and younger individuals start having families. American Muslims are present in all walks of life, as doctors and taxi drivers; lawyers and newspaper vendors; accountants, homemakers, academics, media personalities, athletes, and entertainers. Although American Muslims make up approximately one percent of the U.S. population, most Americans can name several famous American Muslims. Names like Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Mos Def, Fareed Zakaria, Shaquille O'Neal, Lupe Fiasco, Dr. Oz and Rima Fakih are part of our popular consciousness. Important business figures like Farooq Kathwari (CEO of Ethan Allen), Malik M. Hasan (a pioneer in the field of HMOs), and Safi Qureshey (a leader in PC component manufacturing) are all American Muslims. Many American Muslims are also civically engaged, working with their neighbors to better their communities. Well-known American Muslim leaders include Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL-Minn.), the first American Muslim to be elected to the U.S. Congress; Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.); Mohammed Hameeduddin (Mayor, Teaneck, N.J.); and Amer Ahmad (Comptroller, Chicago). Nevertheless, levels of Islamophobia are so high that the United Nations Human rights Council has declared it an issue of ``epidemic proportions.'' Atrocities have been occurring across the globe, from hate-messages spray-painted on buildings in America to the violent genocide of the Uyghurs in China. The United States State Department estimated that up to 2 million members of Muslim minorities have experienced a system on detention centers in Xinjiang, known political indoctrination, forced labor, torture, and sexual abuse. The US, UK, and Canada have accused China of committing genocide and crimes against humanity against Muslim populations at Xinjiang. In 2018, UN investigators accused the Myanmar's military of carrying out mass killings of Muslim populations with ``genocidal intent.'' There are reports of attacks on mosques in Southeast Asia and Iran, a history of anti-Muslim sentiments and attacks in Sri Lanka, police targeting against Shia Muslims in Southeast Asia again, massacres of Muslim people in New Zealand, and Islamophobic hate-speech in Canada. We have to demand justice for Muslims and better treatment for all religions. This global injustice must be addressed and rectified and the United States must step up to spearhead the movement. We need to establish a comprehensive plan for combating Islamophobia not only to ensure the religious freedom and human rights of Muslims, but to protect against a threat to international religious freedom and democratic principles. The Combating International Islamophobia Act will require the State department to create a Special Envoy for monitoring and combating Islamophobia answering the call of the American Muslim community for the past two decades. The envoy will work with domestic and international nongovernmental organizations and institutions to carry out its directives. The special envoy will give reports on acts of physical violence or harassment against Muslim people as well as acts of vandalism of Muslim community institutions like schools, mosques, and cemeteries. Regarding anti-Muslim government actions, the envoy will monitor instances of propaganda in media that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred or incite acts of violence against Muslim people. With the new wealth of information this envoy will bring, policymakers will have a better understanding of the interconnected, global problem of anti-Muslim bigotry. As part of our commitment to international religious freedom and human rights, we must recognize Islamophobia as a pattern that is repeating in nearly every corner of the globe. It is past time for the United States to stand firmly in favor of religious freedom for all, and to give the global problem of Islamophobia the attention and prioritization it deserves. I urge all members to join me in voting for the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5665, the ``Combating International Islamophobla Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5665, Combating International Islamophobia Act. I have listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and they are my friends. I hope that we will have the opportunity to work together for what the values of America stand for. I have heard my colleagues recount the various efforts of inhumane treatment of Muslims around the world. This is an important statement made by America, to create the position of special envoy for monitoring and combating Islamophobia that will be responsible for tracking and coordinating efforts to combat Islamophobia. Also, it would require the State Department's annual ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices'' to include acts of Islamophobia. With 1 billion Muslims, the reason why I support this legislation is the statement it makes to the world about the values of this country, and the values of this country should be grounded in the fact that the religious freedom of all should be respected. Then, finally, I am really overwhelmed by the constant battering of our colleague, Ilhan Omar. To make her the center point of opposition in this place is beneath the dignity of this House. So by passing this legislation, let the world know that America's values are valuing religious freedom and that we stand against the abuse of Muslims around the world as well as here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I ask my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support H.R. 5665. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5665, the Combating International Islamophobia Act, which will address the increasing number of incidents of Islamophobia around the world. Specifically, this bill will: Create the position of Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Islamophobia, who will be responsible for tracking and coordinating efforts to combat Islamophobia abroad; and Require that the State Department's annual country reports on human rights practices and annual Report on International Religious Freedom include, wherever possible, assessments of the nature and extent of acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement that occur abroad. As Islamophobia rises globally, it is vital that the State Department have senior personnel in place charged with understanding, reporting on, and combating this scourge worldwide. In recent decades, we have seen a staggering rise in incidents of violent Islamophobia worldwide. Whether it is the atrocities being committed against the Uyghurs in China and the Rohingya in Burma, the brutal crackdowns on Muslim populations in India and Sri Lanka, the scapegoating of Muslim refugees and other Muslims in Hungary and Poland, the acts of white supremacist violence targeting Muslims in New Zealand and Canada, or the targeting of minority Muslim communities in Muslim-majority countries like Pakistan, Bahrain, and Iran, it is time for us as policymakers to understand these problems as interconnected and genuinely global. A staggering number of people have experienced anti-Muslim hate in their lifetime; a number that has only inflated since 9/11. America is home to one of the most diverse Muslim populations in the world, including people of almost every ethnicity, country, and school of thought. Approximately one third of the community is African American, one third is of South Asian descent, one quarter is of Arab descent, and the rest are from all over the world, including a growing Latino Muslim population. While exact numbers are difficult to establish, there are between 3-6 million American Muslims. About one half of this population was born in the U.S., a percentage that continues to grow as immigration slows and younger individuals start having families. American Muslims are present in all walks of life, as doctors and taxi drivers; lawyers and newspaper vendors; and accountants, homemakers, academics, media personalities, athletes, and entertainers. Although American Muslims make up approximately one percent of the U.S. population, most Americans can name several famous American Muslims. Names like Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Mos Def, Fareed Zakaria, Shaquille O'Neal, Lupe Fiasco, Dr. Oz, and Rima Fakih are part of our popular consciousness. Important business figures like Farooq Kathwari (CEO of Ethan Allen), Malik M. Hasan (a pioneer in the field of HMOs), and Safi Qureshey (a leader in PC component manufacturing) are all American Muslims. Many American Muslims are also civically engaged, working with their neighbors to better their communities. Well-known American Muslim leaders include Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL-Minn.), the first American Muslim to be elected to the U.S. Congress; Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.); Mohammed Hameeduddin (Mayor, Teaneck, N.J.); and Amer Ahmad (Comptroller, Chicago). Nevertheless, levels of Islamophobia are so high that the United Nations Human Rights Council has declared it an issue of ``epidemic proportions.'' Atrocities have been occurring across the globe, from hate-messages spray-painted on buildings in America to the violent genocide of the Uyghurs in China. The United States State Department estimated that up to 2 million members of Muslim minorities have experienced a system on detention centers in Xinjiang, known political indoctrination, forced labor, torture, and sexual abuse. The US, UK, and Canada have accused China of committing genocide and crimes against humanity against Muslim populations at Xinjiang. In 2018, UN investigators accused the Myanmar's military of carrying out mass killings of Muslim populations with ``genocidal intent.'' There are reports of attacks on mosques in India and Iran, a history of anti-Muslim sentiments and attacks in Sri Lanka, police targeting against Shia Muslims in Pakistan, massacres of Muslim people in New Zealand, and Islamophobic hate-speech in Canada. This global injustice must be addressed and rectified and the United States must step up to spearhead the movement. We need to establish a comprehensive plan for combating Islamophobia not only to ensure the religious freedom and human rights of Muslims, but to protect against a threat to international religious freedom and democratic principles. The Combating International Islamophobia Act will require the State Department to create a Special Envoy for monitoring and combating Islamophobia answering the call of the American Muslim community for the past two decades. The envoy will work with domestic and international nongovernmental organizations and institutions to carry out its directives. The special envoy will give reports on acts of physical violence or harassment against Muslim people as well as acts of vandalism of Muslim community institutions like schools, mosques, and cemeteries. Regarding anti-Muslim government actions, the envoy will monitor instances of propaganda in media that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred or incite acts of violence against Muslim people. With the new wealth of information this envoy will bring, policymakers will have a better understanding of the interconnected, global problem of anti-Muslim bigotry. As part of our commitment to international religious freedom and human rights, we must recognize Islamophobia as a pattern that is repeating in nearly every corner of the globe. It is past time for the United States to stand firmly in favor of religious freedom for all, and to give the global problem of Islamophobia the attention and prioritization it deserves.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 33--Joint resolution relating to increasing the debt limit, a measure raising the national debt limit by $2.5 trillion, which is imperative to avoid a wasteful, irresponsible, reckless threatening of the nation's singular indispensable asset: the full faith and credit of the United States. Madam Speaker, preserving the full faith and credit of the United States by raising to the debt limit to ensure that America pays the bills for past expenditures when they come due is not a partisan exercise but an act of patriotism, a recognition and embrace of the solemn obligation to preserve the unrivaled advantages that flow from the ability provided in the Article I, Section 8, clause 2 of the Constitution to ``borrow money on the credit of the United States.'' Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth. It is because of the existence and wise use of the Borrowing Power that the nation was able to expand its reaches, resources, and riches by financing the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Alaska from Russia, to fund the investments to end the Great Depression, to finance the mobilization of resources needed in World War II to defeat fascism and save freedom in the nation and the world, to revive the economy after the catastrophic Great Recession of 2008, and most recently, to protect the public health and safety and restore the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is why the ability to borrow money on the credit of the United States to finance its growth and protect its people and interests is essential to the national security and led Hamilton to proclaim that ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.'' But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.'' In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills. The United States has never defaulted on the payment of any debt incurred, and because of the size and strength of its economic and unmatched creditworthiness, is able to borrow on the lowest and most favorable terms of any nation or entity in the history of the world. So secure and reliable is a bond issues by the Department of Treasury that the United States is the preferred haven for investments of foreign governments, corporations, and sovereign wealth funds. The interest rate charged the federal government of the United States is the base for which every rate, from the prime rate charged the richest corporation to rates charged small business on purchases to the mortgages rates and students loans taken out by consumers. If you raise the cost of borrowing for the government of the United States, you set off a chain reaction of increased interest rates for every other borrower in the United States and around the world. This is why leading public finance experts and agencies, like Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi, have said it would be ``cataclysmic'' for the United States to default on its loan obligations. Republicans know the debt ceiling needs to be raised; in 2019 during the Trump Administration, the Republican Senate Majority Leader marshalled Senate Republicans to vote to raise the debt ceiling, saying: ``We raised the debt ceiling because America can't default[,] that would be a disaster.'' Madam Speaker, this debate over extending the debt limit is not about restraining future spending, it is about paying the bills piled up already under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The question of raising the national debt limit does not depend on how one feels about the Build Back Better agenda, as wildly popular as it is among all Americans, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans included. It is instead about preserving the singular asset of the United States, its enviable and unrivaled creditworthiness, to finance future investments beneficial to the national interest, like the provision of free college for two years, or $2 billion investment to reduce violence in communities approved by the Committee on the Judiciary, or investments to preserve and strengthen Medicaid expansion programs, or extend broadband to underserved rural and urban areas, an action that will be as life-changing as the rural electrification program was in the 1930s. Madam Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than by tampering with the U.S. Constitution. The easier and better way is for the American people to keep a Democrat in the White House and place Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected surpluses exceeded $5 trillion. Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, and 15 million jobs were created. In contrast, under every Republican administration since President Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was substantially larger than the deficit he inherited, a major economic recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than it was at the beginning of his administration. To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure the continued growth of the economy, I support and urge all Members to join me in voting for S.J. Res. 33--Joint resolution relating to increasing the debt limit.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support American families. And as I do that, I am sad to say that the Texas workforce sent almost a two-page, small-type letter to Texans around the State to tell them that they could ignore the President's mandate on vaccines, as the omicron variant rises, and as hospitals are beginning to teem over with the delta variant. Isn't that sad? To my fellow Texans, do what is right for your family. Get your children vaccinated. Get your booster, or your first or second shot. Let us save lives. I am saddened by government tax dollars being used to counter and distort the President's mandates and the President's desire to impact the lives of Americans. To also impact the lives of Americans, I intend to introduce the Kimberly Vaughan storage bill. In light of what happened in Oakland County and the tragedy of a family leaving a gun--as they gave it to a child for a birthday--but leaving it accessible to that child, four precious lives are lost. I think this is certainly bipartisan legislation to create the opportunity for you to buy a gun, but to have the message, storage is important. This bill will provide a variety of best practices and penalties for those that do not store their guns. Support me in the Kimberly Vaughan storage bill to make sure that we do what is right for our children. Store your guns and make them safe.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for her leadership. Madam Speaker, it is not about President Trump but it is about his behavior. But it is overall about the sanctity of democracy and the recognition that behaviors result in the final destination that challenges the very core of democracy. January 6, 2021, when Members duly sworn to take an oath to defend this Nation and to uphold the Constitution were cowering on the floor. I stand with enormous support for the Protecting Our Democracy Act. Why? Because the Nation needs it and the world is watching. I stand to avoid the abuse of the pardon powers that existed clearly in the last administration. Need I give a long list of examples? Generals and best friends; or then enforcement of the foreign and domestic emolument clauses; the horrors of a hotel where many went to pay money into the coffers of a President of the United States or enforcement of Congressional subpoenas, the very authority that can protect democracy, reasserting Congressional power of the purse when dollars were manipulated and friends got a lot of dollars. So I am believing that this is imperative, security from political interference injustice. I might think a noose hanging in the front to insist that Vice President Pence be arrested or hung might be an interference. I do want to acknowledge the amendment that I offered, very quickly.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The amendment indicates that violation by officeholders be treated as a violation of oath of office for purposes of ineligibility to hold public office under the 14th Amendment. And so the collective actions, not a person, but if your actions suggest that you are violating democracy, you should not ever run again. Madam Speaker, I look forward to this amendment becoming law, and I look forward to this bill becoming law because we must protect democracy. The Constitution says that we have been created to create a more perfect union. I insist that we create a more perfect union. Support this great legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to discuss briefly the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17 to Rules Committee Print 117-20, the Protecting Our Democracy Act (H.R. 5314), introduced by Congressman Schiff of California, the Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This Jackson Lee amendment improves the bill and strengthens an important guardrail in the pillars upholding and protecting our democracy by providing that any person who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the United States, as a member of a State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, is finally convicted of violating laws prohibiting foreign interference in American elections, specifically section 304(j) of the Federal Election Campaign. The Protecting Our Democracy Act is a sweeping package of reforms to prevent presidential abuses and to restore the Constitutional system of checks and balances. Madam Speaker, the actions of the past Administration revealed serious vulnerabilities in our democratic systems--vulnerabilities that can and will be exploited again if we do not act urgently to address them. The Protecting Our Democracy Act will take immediate steps to safeguard and strengthen our democracy so no future president-- regardless of political party--can act as if they are above the law. And it will restore the accountability and transparency of our institutions so that the American people can have confidence in our government's ability to address the challenges we face. Let me briefly highlight some of the important provisions of this vitally important legislation that should be enthusiastically supported by all Members.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in this holiday season, a time of joy, there are still families who are mourning the tragedy of loss of their beautiful, precious students in Oakland County, Michigan. What a suffering time. In this place where our voices speak volumes, two Members decided to show their holiday spirit by exhibiting their families with any manner of weapons, AK-47s and otherwise, automatic weapons. How they thought that this was the volume that should be heard from this place, I do not know. But I really condemn this kind of attitude and this kind of volume that generates into violence. We have a responsibility as we take an oath in this place to not only uphold the laws of the land but to be role models for the American people. Guns in the holiday season in the midst of precious souls who died--enough is enough. Pass real gun safety laws and pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Elections count. Enough is enough. Let us act like those who have taken an oath to serve this Nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, if there is one thing that we have heard so often, it is doctors who have sacrificed during this period of the pandemic, who have maintained their offices. We often hear in public settings and private settings about the cuts that they are expecting and how much it will undermine the work that they do, their offices' expenses. I am very glad that, rather than talking, the Democrats are working together to ensure that the Medicare sequester payments will not occur and that we will protect against that, as we will do for the farmers. But here is the point: The pandemic continues. Doctors in private practice are trying to survive. This is a crucial decision and relief that is long overdue. I want to be able to say to my physicians that Democrats care. And I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will do as much acting on doctors and medicine and healthcare as they will talking. Tonight, we need to act to provide the safety net for these physicians. I support this legislation, supporting the healthcare providers during this COVID-19 pandemic.