Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today not just to commemorate the landmark achievement of 56 years ago but to inform our colleagues and the nation of the need to redouble and rededicate our efforts to the work that remains to be done to protect the right of all Americans to vote free from discrimination and the injustices that prevent them from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship. On August 6, 1965, in the rotunda of the Capitol and in the presence of such luminaries as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Ralph Abernathy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Roy Wilkins of the NAACP; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; James Foreman of the Congress of Racial Equality; A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis of the Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee; Senators Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen; 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, today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest number ever. Because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on this day 53 years ago, I stand before you as the first African American woman Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. 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. Section 5 protects minority voting rights where voter discrimination has historically been the worst. Since 1982, Section 5 has stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes right here in Texas. And 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. During the floor debate on the 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman Jordan explained why this reform was needed: ``There are Mexican-American people in the State of Texas who have been denied the right to vote; who have been impeded in their efforts to register and vote; who have not had encouragement from those election officials because they are brown people. ``So, the state of Texas, if we approve this measure, would be brought within the coverage of this Act for the first time.'' When it comes to extending and protecting the precious right to vote, the Lone Star State, the home state of Lyndon Johnson and Barbara Jordan, can be the leading state in the Union, one that sets the example for the nation. But to realize that future, we must turn from and not return to the dark days of the past. 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 the right to vote, that ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice,'' is facing 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. 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. However, officials in some states, notably Texas and North Carolina, seemed to regard the Shelby decision as a green light and rushed to implement election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime. My constituents remember very well the Voter ID law passed in Texas in 2011, which required every registered voter to present a valid government-issued photo ID on the day of polling in order to vote. The Justice Department blocked the law in March of 2012, and it was Section 5 that prohibited it from going into effect. At least it did until the Shelby decision, because on the very same day that Shelby was decided officials in Texas announced they would immediately implement the Photo ID law, and other election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime. The Texas Photo ID law was challenged in federal court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos that Texas' strict voter identification law discriminated against Blacks and Hispanics and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Madam Speaker, 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. 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: African Americans: 25 percent; Asian Americans: 20 percent; Hispanic Americans: 19 percent; young people, aged 18 through 24: 18 percent; persons with incomes less than $35,000: 15 percent; And there are other ways abridging or suppressing the right to vote, including: Curtailing or eliminating early voting; ending same-day registration; not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day will not count; eliminating adolescent pre-registration; shortening poll hours. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges thus allowing self-proclaimed ``ballot security vigilantes'' like the King Street Patriots to cause trouble at the polls. Madam Speaker, on this day, the 56th anniversary of the landmark Voting Rights Act signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965, I call upon the leadership of Congress in both chambers to bring to a vote legislation intended to protect the right to vote of all Americans. Specifically, I call for the passage of H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, of which I am an original co-sponsor, which repairs the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court's Shelby decision. This legislation provides even greater federal oversight of jurisdictions which have a history of voter suppression and protects vulnerable communities from discriminatory voting practices. Madam Speaker, before concluding there is one other point I would like to stress. In his address to the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Johnson said: ``Presidents and Congresses, laws and lawsuits can open the doors to the polling places and open the doors to the wondrous rewards which await the wise use of the ballot. ``But only the individual Negro, and all others who have been denied the right to vote, can really walk through those doors, and can use that right, and can transform the vote into an instrument of justice and fulfilment.'' In other words, political power, and the justice, opportunity, inclusion, and fulfillment it provides, comes not from the right to vote but in the exercise of that right. And that means it is the civic obligation of every citizen to both register and vote in every election, state and local as well as federal. Because if we can register and vote, but fail to do so, we are guilty of voluntary voter suppression, the most effective method of disenfranchisement ever devised. And in recent years, Americans have not been doing a very good job of exercising our civic responsibility to register, vote, and make their voices heard. Madam Speaker, 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. So on this 56th anniversary of that landmark law, let us rededicate ourselves to honoring those who won for us this precious right by remaining vigilant and fighting against both the efforts of others to abridge or suppress the right to vote and our own apathy in exercising this sacred right

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 56th Anniversary of the passage of Medicaid and Medicare, two of the most beneficial and consequential government programs ever launched. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law as part of the Social Security Act and in the process made good on the commitments made by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy to provide health security to Americans in their old age. Medicare is a promise kept to those who have contributed a lifetime to our nation could enjoy their golden years with peace of mind and the security of reliable, affordable, and high quality healthcare. Likewise, Medicaid created a crucial partnership between the government and the people to provide a basic health care safety net for the most vulnerable Americans: children of adults with low incomes, persons with disabilities, and the poor. Madam Speaker, 56 years later, the legacy of these programs have I proven how effective and critical government action can be to the life and wellbeing of our nation's most vulnerable. In 1965, almost half of all Americans aged 65 and older had no health coverage, living in fear that the colossal healthcare costs would drive them and their families into poverty. Today, because of Medicare, over 98 percent of seniors have health insurance, which has led to a five-year increase in life expectancy for those over 65. Today, 55 million Americans rely on Medicare for health care, ranging from preventive services, hospital visits, lab tests, to critical medical supplies, and prescription drugs. It is difficult for some to imagine what 1965 was really like, when today affordable, accessible and available health insurance is a reality for so many people living with disabilities. Before Medicaid was enacted children from poor families, pregnant I women, and low-income working Americans were not able to afford even the most basic medical care they needed to remain healthy and productive. When the legislation was first passed, many claimed that Medicaid would not live up to its promise; but today, because of expansion of Medicaid through passage of the Affordable Care Act the program provides comprehensive coverage for over 70 million children, pregnant women, low-income adults, and people living with disabilities. Madam Speaker, it cannot be seriously disputed that Medicare and Medicaid have changed our country and made it better. In my home state of Texas and in communities across the country, both programs have significantly changed the lives and improved health outcomes of many Americans over the past century and represent the best of American values. Unfortunately, Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation, and Texas' refusal to participate in the Medicaid expansion created by the Affordable Care act puts the poor residents in my state in Jeopardy. So the 56th anniversary of Medicaid is bittersweet for Texans because while we celebrate a program that has saved lives, helped people live longer, expanded care to marginalized communities, and reduced disparities in access to healthcare, thousands of low income Texans still do not have the peace of mind that comes with access to affordable, quality health care enjoyed by low-income residents of states that have expanded their Medicaid program with funds made possible by the Affordable Care Act. In the 18th Congressional District of Texas there are 195,400 persons with Medicaid and 74,704 with medical care provided by Medicare. Madam Speaker, my constituents favor the Affordable Care Act because they understand the insecurity and feeling of helplessness of being uninsured or underinsured. Like Medicare and Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, or ``Obamacare,'' was vehemently opposed and derided by its adversaries, who said it was too costly, would not work, was unnecessary, or would change the character of America for the worse. Like the critics of Social Security, Medicare, and the G.I. Bill, all of whom are silent now, they are wrong. The Affordable Care Act has been an unqualified success. This historic legislation has extended affordable health coverage to tens of millions of Americans and has helped to bring peace of mind to many of those for whom relief seemed far out of reach. The Affordable Care Act was driven by a simple premise: that citizens of the most prosperous nation on earth should not be forced to choose between their health and their financial security. Since the passage of the ACA in 2010, the number of uninsured , Americans has fallen by nearly one-third, or roughly 16 million people. These Americans come from all walks of life. They are women, who can no longer be denied coverage or be forced to pay exorbitant amounts for coverage simply because of their sex. They are nine million seniors and persons with disabilities, who have saved an average of $1,600 on expensive and lifesaving prescription medication. And they are this country's most at risk citizens; people who are working hard and struggling make ends meet while living in near- poverty, and who have been covered by Medicaid expansion in 32 states and the District of Columbia. These benefits have been felt across the country, especially in my home state of Texas: 1. 10. 7 million individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children--no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher prices because of their health status or history; 2. 4.9 million uninsured Texans have new health insurance options through Medicaid or private health plans in the ACA Marketplace; and 3. 5.2 million persons on private insurance have gained coverage for at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In addition to the tangible healthcare benefits for millions of families, the ACA has had powerful effects on the financial state of our nation. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have extended the solvency of the Medicare Trust fund by more than a decade and helped save taxpayers $116 billion through new Medicare efficiencies. The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that hospitals saved more than $5.7 billion in costs that would have normally gone unpaid by patients without insurance. Contrary to the claims of the ACA's critics, private insurance companies have leaped at the opportunity to compete for business among the newly insured, and the healthcare industry has boomed. Through all of these successes, however, House Republicans remained obsessed with destroying this law, and unraveling the security it provides to millions of Americans. Medicare and Medicaid also continue to drive innovation and set the standard for coverage, quality, and innovation in American healthcare. Madam Speaker, Medicare and Medicaid continue to play crucial roles in providing equitable and affordable healthcare, leading innovation in payment and delivery reform, carrying out outreach to the most vulnerable communities, and reshaping the delivery of care for the future. Because of these programs, more Americans have access to affordable, equitable health care today than at any point in our history. And I am committed to making sure that number will continue to grow. On this 56th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, we should remember that a healthy America is a prosperous America. And as we look ahead to the next half century, we can celebrate that what was put in place in 1965 has given us the foundation for a healthy and prosperous future for all Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his reminding us of the World Civility Day and its importance. I rise today in the spirit of civility, facts, and bringing people together. First of all, we are all saddened by the surge of crime across America, and we are working with our communities, those who intervene, and those who are responding to the issues of depredation and danger that permeates many of our communities and many of our young people. I believe it is important to ensure that the excessive amount of guns that are trafficked illegally are taken off the street. Soon in my community we will hold a gun buyback with the Houston Police Department because they are working with the community. So I think it is important to state the fact that the Obama administration, President Joe Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris are strong advocates and have invested much to ensure that crime goes down. We know that it is a mixture of the toxicity of the COVID-19 pandemic, poverty, and, of course, those who are inclined to do the crime. With that in mind, it is very important to factually make the point that there is nothing in the Biden administration's agenda or its funding packages or those of Democrats that deal with the defunding of police. We are reimagining and working with our communities collectively. As we say: Police community relations will improve and continue to improve, one, the finding of those who perpetrate the crime for them to be brought to justice fairly because crime does not look to the color of one's skin. It is without discrimination and hits all of America. So I am very proud to have been an original cosponsor and lead on the Victims of Crime Act that was signed by the President last week that ensured that our communities will now have a victims fund that our States will be able to deal with. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to go home and interact with the victims of crime. Show them that you care and work with your communities so that they are compensated in the full. Let me also indicate that it is appropriate for us to move on H.R. 40. An enormity of Members of Congress have sponsored the commission to study slavery and develop reparation proposals. In civility, this would give us an opportunity to have a first federal conversation on race for a full discussion and analysis of the economy, political, psychological, scientific, and sociological effects of slavery in the United States. The legislation makes no judgment on how to respond to the slavery of African Americans that began its sinful roots 401 years ago, but it points us to developing a response and a repair to deal with what is a continuing stigma of institutional racism. Mr. Speaker, you cannot ignore the disparities that exist in the community, and we cannot ignore the opportunity to have that discussion. I am very grateful for the wide variety of individuals from the East, the West, the North, and the South of varying political perspectives who have supported this, the religious organizations that have supported this, the social justice organizations, or just plain people who raise their voices--57 percent in a recent poll. So let us look forward to repairing, being a repair, the repairers. We know that our beloved pastor and leader who has provided us with the words that he is the repairer of the breach, and we thank him for that. And we thank all those who are willing to have a civil discussion to ensure that we can end the surge of crime and the scourge of crime and as well be able to discuss race in a manner of civility in a way that we can come together and repair it. I know that it is the intent of those who cosponsored the bill and all of the vast supporters across America. It is certainly my intent as the lead cosponsor after the Honorable John Conyers, and I know it is the intent of the Congressional Black Caucus and all those who raise their voices for a civil discussion on the question of race. I think America is that good and better than that to be able to say that we can have that civil discussion. As has been said in our meetings of the Congressional Black Caucus: our power and our message.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 4373, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2022, which incorporates Jackson Lee Amendments Nos. 15, 16, and 17. I thank the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order and State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chair DeLauro for including them in this En Bloc Amendment. Jackson Lee Amendments No. 15 and No. 16 have been approved several times by the relevant subcommittee, made in order by the Rules Committee, and adopted by the full House; Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17, while being offered for the first time, makes a very important contribution to the health and safety of the global community. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 will designate $1,000,000 to combat the trafficking of endangered species. The amendment makes a good bill better by providing a $1 million focus to combat the transportation of the remains of endangered species, to confront the transport of the remains of killed endangered species. The brutal killing of Cecil the lion after being lured off a protected preserve was an indication that we needed to do more to protect endangered species at risk of being killed. At that time, I introduced and sought the support of my colleagues as original cosponsors of my legislation, Cecil the Lion Endangered and Threatened Species Act of 2015. This bill sought to strengthen partner countries' capacity in , countering wildlife trafficking and designating major wildlife countries for protection. The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 is again offered in the same spirit: to prohibit the taking and transportation of any endangered and threatened species as a trophy to the United States. Currently, the Endangered Species Act does not protect most wildlife animals killed. At this point, we can choose to make wise decisions that will sustain the global population, or we can ignore the warning signs. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 is one that the House has strongly supported in the past because it would bring greater awareness and protection to these beautiful and vital populations that are too often taken for granted, by allowing this amendment to address the senseless trafficking in trophy killings of all endangered and threatened species. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 15 provides funds to be allocated for Global Health Programs to the fight against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation. I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women. Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls. Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut. For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C, annually. The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetric fistula, complications during childbirth and death. Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion. According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 15 prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end. Finally, I thank the Rules Committee for making in order, and Chairwoman Lee for including in this En Bloc Amendment, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17, which increases and decreases the Global Health Programs fund by $1,000,000 to emphasize the national commitment for USAID to provide unused vaccines that would otherwise be destroyed to countries in need around the world. Increasing the availability to those countries in need of superfluous but life-saving vaccines is what a great nation does; not only is it the right thing to do, but it also builds goodwill and rebuilds important global relations that were ruptured by the previous Administration. With the spread of Covid-19 variants on the rise, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17 will help our neighbors in this hemisphere, and our friends and allies around the world cope with this ongoing global public health crisis. I urge all members to vote for the En Bloc Amendment and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4373, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2022.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 4373, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2022, which incorporates Jackson Lee Amendments Nos. 15, 16, and 17. I thank the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order and State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chair DeLauro for including them in this En Bloc Amendment. Jackson Lee Amendments No. 15 and No. 16 have been approved several times by the relevant subcommittee, made in order by the Rules Committee, and adopted by the full House; Jackson Lee Amendment #17, while being offered for the first time, makes a very important contribution to the health and safety of the global community. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 will designate $1,000,000 to combat the trafficking of endangered species. The amendment makes a good bill better by providing a $1 million focus to combat the transportation of the remains of endangered species, to confront the transport of the remains of killed endangered species. The brutal killing of Cecil the lion after being lured off a protected preserve was an indication that we needed to do more to protect endangered species at risk of being killed. At that time, I introduced and sought the support of my colleagues as original cosponsors of my legislation, Cecil the Lion Endangered and Threatened Species Act of 2015. This bill sought to strengthen partner countries' capacity in countering wildlife trafficking and designating major wildlife countries for protection. The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 is again offered in the same spirit: to prohibit the taking and transportation of any endangered and threatened species as a trophy to the United States. Currently, the Endangered Species Act does not protect most wildlife animals killed. At this point, we can choose to make wise decisions that will sustain the global population, or we can ignore the warning signs. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 16 is one that the House has strongly supported in the past because it would bring greater awareness and protection to these beautiful and vital populations that are too often taken for granted, by allowing this amendment to address the senseless trafficking in trophy killings of all endangered and threatened species. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 15 provides funds to be allocate funds provided for Global Health Programs to the fight against the practice of Female Genital Mutilation. I have been a dedicated champion against this practice for a long while, working closely with former Congressman Joe Crowley of New York to introduce legislation targeted at supporting the elimination of this ludicrous practice of mutilating young women. Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. This practice is rooted in gender inequality and is often linked to other elements of gender-based violence and discrimination, such as child marriage and recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of women and girls. Unfortunately, this means an estimated 200 million girls and women alive today have been victims of FGM/C, with girls 14 and younger representing 44 million of those who have been cut. For example, consider that around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of FGM/C, annually. The impacts of FGM/C on the physical health of women and girls can include bleeding, infection, obstetric fistula, complications during childbirth and death. Other significant barriers to combatting the practice of FGM/C include the high concentration in specific regions associated with several cultural traditions, that is not tied to any one religion. According to UNICEF, FGM/C is reported to occur in all parts of the world, but is most prevalent in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Due to the commonality of this practice many migrants to the U.S. bring the practice of FGM/C with them, increasing the importance of combatting FGM/C abroad. Jackson Lee Amendment #15 prioritizes funding for foreign assistance to combat Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), an internationally recognized violation of the human rights of girls and women comes to an end. Finally, I thank the Rules Committee for making in order, and Chairwoman Lee for including in this En Bloc Amendment, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17, which increases and decreases the Global Health Programs fund by $1,000,000 to emphasize the national commitment for USAID provide unused vaccines that would otherwise be destroyed to countries in need around the world. Increasing the availability to those countries in need of superfluous but life-saving vaccines is what a great nation does; not only is the right thing to do, but it also builds goodwill and rebuilds important global relations that were ruptured by the previous Administration. With the spread of Covid-19 variants on the rise, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17 will help our neighbors in this hemisphere, and our friends and allies around the world cope with this ongoing global public health crisis. I urge all members to vote for the En Bloc Amendment and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4373, the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2022.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, COVID cases in America are rising. They are rising in almost 25 States. Texas happens to be one of the States with the largest number of COVID cases. The United States has over 31 million cases and, of course, over 600,000 who have died. Hospitals today in certain areas are full, and the plague or the impact, tragically, on those who are unvaccinated. But the story goes on. As we begin to enter school, children under 12 cannot be vaccinated, even though research is going on. Here is my plea: To those in the 18th Congressional District, in Houston, Texas, in Harris County, in Texas, and in the Nation, the unvaccinated should get vaccinated. The surge is creating a rise in the pandemic again. If we are to get back to normal, find someone that you agree with that comforts you--your faith leader, your best friend--and talk about the importance of getting vaccinated. People are dying. Children will become infected and/or carriers when they go back to school. Everyone in school should be vaccinated. Yes, in the schools today, going back, you must be masked. You should wear a mask, and wear a mask inside, even if you are vaccinated. We are trying to save lives. Get vaccinated. It will save lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut. As I would want her to know, I am ecstatic about the great leadership of her chairwomanship as well as all the Cardinals who have worked, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of whom really know that this is a very, very fine response to the needs of the American people. Might I just say to the chair of the Appropriations Committee, just very quickly, that I was here for the Hyde amendment. I was on the Judiciary Committee. I think my colleagues need to understand that for all the years of the Hyde committee, women who were poor, who were Medicaid recipients, many of them might have died in childbirth and might have had other important emergency health issues because they were subjected to decisions that they did not make for themselves. In that instance, we have discriminated against women just because of their poverty. Again, abortion is that of the woman, her faith, and her family. I believe this eliminating of the Hyde amendment is finally saying to all women in America that we respect you and your bodies. I am very grateful for the support of an amendment that recognizes the crisis of diabetes and the need for research professionals and patients participating in clinical trials. Diversity in medical trials is essential to ensuring that cures, especially vaccines and therapies, work for the greatest number of persons. So my amendment decreases and increases the amount for $10 million to emphasize and get more emphasis to develop that diversity pool in research professionals and patients participating in trials.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Diabetes impacts all social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds, particularly African Americans. I meet many people in my constituency who have had an amputation because they were not able to receive medical care. Finally, I have an amendment that increases and decreases funds $10 million with the intent of supporting individuals who might not finish college because of the impact of COVID. COVID is now resurging but the delta variant is surging. People are being hospitalized, the unvaccinated. I make a national plea for people to be vaccinated. As well it is impacting young people. That means that we need to focus on young people getting vaccinated. They are in college. We don't know, if they are not vaccinated, how it will impact their education and their future life. So this is to provide the targeting programs to reach out to young people to tell them: One, get vaccinated. But to give them a bridge so that their education will not be interrupted, that they will never go back again, and that they will not suffer economically. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my amendments being brought to the floor. I thank the leadership and as well I thank leadership for all the community projects that are helping the impoverished in my district. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of En Bloc Amendment No. 2 to Rules Committee Print 117-12, which incorporates Jackson Lee Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. I thank the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order and Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chair DeLauro for including them in this En Bloc Amendment. Division A--Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Jackson Lee Amendment #25, increases and decreases funds by $10,000,000 increase in funding to support greater diversity in the pool of diabetes research professionals and patients participating in clinical trials. Diversity in medical trials is essential to ensuring that cures, especially vaccines, and therapies, work for the greatest number of persons impacted by an illness. 34.2 million people, or 10.5 percent of the U.S. population, have diabetes. An estimated 26.8 million people--or 10.2 percent of the population--have been diagnosed with diabetes. Approximately 7.3 million people have diabetes but have not yet been diagnosed (2018). Diabetes impacts all social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds, particularly African Americans. Type 1 diabetes accounts for about 5.2 percent of all diagnosed cases of diabetes, affecting approximately 1.6 million people. Jackson Lee Amendment #26 increases and decreases funds by $10,000,000 with the intent of supporting programs that provide outreach and support services targeting program participants at greatest risk of not completing a college degree due to COVID-19 education disruption. I urge all Members to vote En Bloc Amendment #2.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask support for en bloc No. 3 and these important amendments. Let me emphasize my first amendment, really, with a great deal of gratitude, because this is so very important. Human trafficking is a scourge on this Nation, and it has no boundaries; it is both domestic and international, but one of the things that is needed is for those who are trafficked, when they are found, to be able to cooperate with law enforcement. Many of those women are nondocumented immigrant women. My amendment says none of the funds made available by this act for domestic food programs, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program may be used in contravention of section 107(b) of Division A of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. The effect of this amendment will be to make clear that nothing in this bill restricts the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture or any Federal agency head from providing assistance and benefits to victims of trafficking under current law so that they can engage with law enforcement and get the scourge, the person who trafficked, because they take advantage of these immigrants, and they cannot survive if they don't have subsistence. Many times they are denied it, because we have not made it clear to the States they are allowed to have it. This amendment is going to save lives. I thank my colleagues for providing this particular amendment, and as well it is clear that it is needed, because it provides victims of trafficking access to information about their eligibility to receive SNAP benefits. It does not constitute the type of SNAP recruitment activity or advertising of the SNAP program prohibited by the bill, but more importantly, it helps those who are victims. Trafficking in humans, and especially domestic child trafficking, has no place in civilized society. It is the most lucrative business, better than drugs, and that is why it is--over and over again. Having held the first field hearing on human trafficking, I can tell you this is an important amendment. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment and en bloc No. 3. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of En Bloc Amendment No. 3 to Rules Committee Print 117-12, which incorporates Jackson Lee Amendment No. 68. I thank the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order and Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Bishop for including it in this En Bloc Amendment. Jackson Lee Amendment #68 is simple and straightforward, but it makes an important contribution to the bill and to a goal that every Member of this body shares--and that is ending the scourge of human trafficking. My amendment provides that: None of the funds made available by this Act for ``Domestic Food Programs--Food and Nutrition Service--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program'' may be used in contravention of section 107(b) of Division A of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105(b)). The effect of this amendment will be to make clear that nothing in this bill restricts the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture or any federal agency head from providing assistance and benefits to victims of trafficking under current law as authorized by 22 U.S.C. Sec. 7105(b) of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 1464, Pub. Law 106-386). In particular, Jackson Lee Amendment #68 is necessary to make clear that providing victims of trafficking access to information about their eligibility to receive SNAP benefits does not constitute the type of SNAP recruitment activities or ``advertising'' of the SNAP program prohibited by the bill and by Section 4018 of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (Public Law No: 113-079). Trafficking in humans, and especially domestic child trafficking, has no place in a civilized society. Those who engage in this illicit trade should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This House made that clear again last month when it passed H.R. 3530, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which contained my Sense of the Congress amendment added during the Judiciary Committee markup. That means we need to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies have the tools, resources, and training necessary to identify, apprehend, and prosecute criminals who ruthless traffic in children and young persons. And one of the most effective resources in bringing criminals to justice is the cooperation and assistance of their victims. Perpetrators of crime know that they are more likely to evade detection and punishment when their victims refuse to assist or cooperate with law enforcement. That is why they make it a point to instill fear in their victims--for their own safety or that of family and loved ones. I urge all Members to vote En Bloc Amendment #3.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me mention the amendments that I have in en bloc No. 6. I will focus on a few of them. I have Nos. 157, 216, 220, 219, 218, 217, amendments that I think will make the legislation better but also help the American people and, certainly, focus on issues that are impacting my district. But these are universal matters that should be addressed. My amendment increases and decreases funding for the Environmental Programs and Management by $5 million to highlight the need to support culturally competent Federal, State, and local public health and environmental protection efforts to address cancer clusters impacting overburdened communities in the Gulf Coast region. That includes Fifth Ward and Kashmere Gardens, among others, in the northeast part of Houston which have suffered because of creosote contamination, Superfunds, railroads that have contaminated the soil. They have seen the seismic increase of cancer among families. It is going through generations. I have met these families, and they have had mothers, fathers, children, grandchildren have cancer and die of cancer. This is an important legislative amendment for me. Amendment No. 216, very quickly, deals with the reckless utilization of Federal dollars by the Texas Department of Transportation. We have, by our community, filed 106 complaints against them. This amendment indicates that you cannot put in place a transportation project that has not been determined to meet the statutory and fiduciary obligations of the National Historic Preservation Act. It pertains to I-45. In addition, we provide funding or focus on motorcycle, urban bicycle, and pedestrian safety. That is a challenge in the State of Texas, and we have had a lot of injuries because of the lack of sensitivity to that question. In addition, we have a housing amendment and other amendments that are very important to this legislation in my district. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of En Bloc Amendment No. 6 to Rules Committee Print 117-12, which incorporates Jackson Lee Amendments Nos. 157, and 216-220. I thank the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order and Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Price for including them in this En Bloc Amendment. Division E--Interior and the Environment Jackson Lee Amendment #157 increases and decreases funding for Environmental Programs and Management by $5 million to highlight the need to support culturally competent federal, state, and local public health and environmental protection efforts to address cancer clusters impacting overburdened communities in the gulf coast region. Division G--Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Jackson Lee Amendment #216 prohibits the Department of Transportation from using funds for Section 106 Transportation construction projects in urban areas that have not been determined to meet the statutory and fiduciary obligations of the National Historic Preservation Act. Jackson Lee Amendment #220 increases and decreases the National Infrastructure Investments account by $1,000,000 to emphasize support for urban bicycle and pedestrian safety programs. Jackson Lee Amendment #219 increases and decreases by $1 million the Federal Rail Administration Safety and Operation's account to emphasize the need to provide dedicated funding to address community engagement on safety issues related railroad crossings in urban areas. Jackson Lee Amendment #218 provides $1,000,000 in assistance to address challenges faced by communities impacted by persistent poverty and are not included in decision making when major highway construction threatens their homes, businesses, and culturally significant structures. Jackson Lee Amendment #217 increases by $1,000,000 the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to address the fairness in the use of Community Development Block Grant Disaster funding to repair or replace single family homes damaged during Hurricane Harvey to ensure that multigenerational homes can house the family at documented pre-disaster capacity. I urge all Members to vote En Bloc Amendment #6 and yield back my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for mentioning Bob Moses. For those of us who care and know about history, we know about Bob Moses, and it makes this night even more significant because if you are losing the peaceful warriors who helped organize and put themselves on the line, then we must carry on. I thank the gentlewoman from Delaware. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me make an argument regarding where we are, and then I will be happy to yield to my coanchor and happy to conclude. Madam Speaker, I wanted to reemphasize where we are today and reemphasize that, unfortunately, a bill that had been passed as bipartisan for years has been ``upheavaled'' by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, a Supreme Court that, as my friend from New York described, is an activist Supreme Court--the Shelby Court and now the Brnovich Court, absolutely wrongheaded decisions. In Shelby, I believe the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that you don't throw away an umbrella in a rainstorm. Now, let me characterize these words and not attribute them. I think one of the other points that was made is: Just because polio is not on the rise, you don't get rid of the polio vaccine. Just because you think COVID-19 is gone, you don't throw all manner of precautions to the wind. Obviously, we see what is happening with this kind of reckless behavior and this kind of red State, blue State discord. People are dying. That is where we are with voting rights. The Shelby case in 2013 just imploded the preclearance, which in actuality says that as you begin to think about a bill that may have these discriminatory impacts, they can be precleared by the Department of Justice and stopped in their tracks. Section 2 says the harm has been done, and you can run into court making the argument that it is discriminatory. Tragically, all we were left with, before the Brnovich case, was section 2. But here, what has happened in this case that came out of Arizona--a place where the big lie is playing out every day with a false and misleading and disreputable vote count. To my colleague, I don't know what they found yet, but it is certainly one that has no basis in fact. The Court in Brnovich suggested that they would have something called guideposts--I call them burdens or suggestions--that when reviewing claims that are facially so-called neutral election policy, practice, or voting rule, and it is discriminating, you can look at these aspects. You can burden us by saying, ``Here is what you look at.'' Are they ordinary burdens or mere inconvenience exception, the size of disparities and burdens imposed by the challenge rule, other opportunities to vote provided by a State's election system. So, the polls are closed. You can't do a mail ballot. You don't have Souls to the Polls. So, just find some other way to vote. That is the question. They say, ``other opportunities to vote.'' You close out all the other supporting aspects of voting, and maybe you can get to vote in a snowstorm. Maybe you can get to vote as a military person in battle. Maybe you can show up to the voting poll on election day because that is another opportunity. Maybe you can get on a plane and leave battle to vote. These are the just nonsensical aspects of the Brnovich case. Legitimate State interests justifying the challenge voting rule--oh, there is a State interest to close your polling locations in minority neighborhoods, to not have places to get a voter ID in eight counties in Texas when you have a law that says you must have a voting ID, or to close out Souls to the Polls, a perfectly legal concept to allow people who work around the clock through a Sunday to go vote. I guess you would tell them to just find another opportunity. When we were in the middle of COVID-19 and nurses and doctors were working around the clock, Harris County said: We will give you 24-hour voting. Legally, law enforcement present, machines in order, no fraud detected at all, but you are fighting COVID, and you might not get off until 1 a.m., 3 a.m., 4 a.m. Yet, this is what the big lie brings about, and then the degree to which a voting rule departs from what was a standard practice when section 2 was amended in 1982. Now, the crisis of this is that all of this must be run down for you to be able to prevail under section 2, under the Brnovich case. Taken together, this Supreme Court cabal is saying to racial, ethnic, and language minorities already intimidated--and you need to look at what John Lewis faced in 1965, this brunt force, law enforcement on horses chasing foot soldiers back over the bridge, 8-year-olds running for their lives, and bloodied older persons, foot soldiers, and John Robert Lewis, who said he thought he was going to die. That is what sacrifice has been made for voting. Taken together, this court decision is saying: What is the big deal? It is only voting. Just like with bad weather, sometimes you just have to grin and bear it and have a little inconvenience. Just a little bit of discrimination. Why are you concerned about that? And so I assume that without the 24th amendment, that this conservative majority and the court will subject poll taxes and literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich. Just a little bit of inconvenience. Take that money out and pay that poll tax. You don't have any money? I guess your fundamental right to vote has just been extinguished. That is where we are today. That is why we are here today challenging the filibuster, speaking about the Federalist papers nullification, and trying to understand that the Constitution prevails over all of these miserly bills across the Nation. The 15th amendment and then the Constitution statement, very clearly says that Congress, that no one can nullify or stop your rights as a person that is elected to Congress because they have no rights. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article, an op-ed, that I submitted on June 26, 2021, authored by myself. Where GOP Lawmakers Have Passed New Voting Restrictions Around the Country Republican state legislators have introduced hundreds of bills that would tighten access to voting around the country, many of them echoing former president Donald Trump's false claims that loose election laws allowed fraud to taint the 2020 White House race. The groundswell began early this year with the introduction of 253 bills proposing voting restrictions across 43 states as of mid-February, according to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice. That number rose to at least 389 bills in 48 states as of mid-May. The national spotlight is now on Texas after Democratic lawmakers left the state on July 12 in an effort to block passage of one of the most stringent new voting measures in the country. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said the members could face arrest when they return, which is not expected until the state's special legislative session concludes-- potentially as late as Aug. 7. Across the country, 17 states have enacted laws this year that tighten the rules around casting ballots and running elections, according to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, which tracks developments in state election law. Many of the bills target mail voting and other policies that helped safeguard the franchise during the coronavirus pandemic and produce the highest turnout among American voters in more than a century. Some of the bills also seek to curtail early voting, impose restrictions on voter registration efforts, limit the power of local officials to oversee elections and stop private donors from supplementing their operational budgets. Democratic-controlled states have moved in the other direction, approving measures to formalize more permissive voting policies from 2020, complementing proposed federal legislation to protect voting rights with a set of national standards. In addition to the states listed below, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming have also passed laws with restrictive language.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), my co-anchor, and I thank him again for his joining me tonight, and for our journey that we are on trying to raise up justice in this country.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I am here to anchor this Special Order on the fierce urgency of preserving the precious right to vote by passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and legislation like H.R. 1, For The People. I am delighted to be co-anchoring this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order at the request of our tireless leader for justice, Congresswoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio, and to be joined by my co-anchor, Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York, and many other members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Fifty-six years ago, in a century that was close to a hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation and the rendition of the 15th Amendment, the very right to vote, there we were fighting with this beloved Member of Congress, who challenged us to get into good trouble, fighting in 1965, pursuant to the collapse of the understanding of the 15th Amendment, fighting for the right to vote again. Madam Speaker, here we are today, 2021, now 56 years after the 1965 Voting Rights Act, fighting for the right to vote. I want to make sure that I pay tribute to Our Power, Our Message, led by the Honorable Joyce Beatty, who does not only speak her words, but she acts on her words, how proud we were. But I am sure pride is not what she wants us to feel as she walked down this difficult road here in Washington, D.C., to be able to express, with Black women and others, that we have a fierce sense of urgency, and was arrested, just about two weeks ago, in the name of voting rights. So let me, for a moment, read to you out of the book that has just been published by a dear, beloved friend, ``Carry On.'' I use this book in the Rules Committee, when there seems to have been a challenge to helping the impoverished. I concluded my remarks, when I was giving amendments, to help the impoverished to carry on. But on the issue of justice, these are his words: ``We must practice what we preach. If we believe in life and liberty, then we should not defer the dream of equality and justice''--the right to vote--``under the law for people of color. We must use the system of government to improve our laws and to make our society fairer and more just. While no one bill can right the many wrongs, we can stitch together partial solutions to deal with the complex societal issues that lead to systemic bias and inequality.'' That is why we stand here today. We are stitching together a response to the collapse of voting rights in America. We are stitching together laws that will deal with the mass of suppression laws being passed in State legislatures across America. We are stitching together a response for those brave Texas Democratic representatives who are here in Washington, D.C., who are begging us to pass H.R. 1 and S. 1 and of course we have passed H.R. 1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Let me just briefly say that serious damage to the precious right to vote occasioned by the rightwing conservative majority on the Supreme Court demands that the Congress exercise its powers under section 5 of the 15th Amendment to restore the extraordinary reach and effectiveness of section 2 and section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The 15th Amendment said that no law, no State legislature should abridge the right to vote on the basis of discrimination of race and color and ethnicity and that the Congress should stand up and provide the relief and the answer. Did you hear, Madam Speaker? The Congress. And the Congressional Black Caucus has said that, not only with their words but with their bodies. Hank Johnson was just arrested last week, Congressman Hank Johnson. So the objection to the VRA and their opponents is without substance. I have long said that the States that were subject to preclearance under the Voting Rights Act earned their way into so doing by discriminatory laws. Madam Speaker, June 25, 2021, marked the eighth anniversary of the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which immobilized the Department of Justice from subjecting discriminatory voting and election laws to the preclearance. On August 6 will be the commemoration of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 56 years. And look at the predicament we are in. Later on in this debate I will recount all the times we voted for the Voting Rights Act. Madam Speaker, it was bipartisan. It was across racial lines, regional lines, because we knew it was the right thing to do. So tonight we stand on what is right. We stand on good trouble. We stand on making the decision that not the Shelby case, not the Arizona case. The Arizona case is Brnovich v. DNC that dashes section 2, and frankly says, by one of the justices, that a little bit of discrimination is okay. Not on the watch of the Congressional Black Caucus and all of my colleagues, because voting rights belongs to every single person in this Congress and to their constituents. Why would they want to deny the implementation and the substance of the Constitution and the 15th Amendment? So here we are tonight to be able to explain to the American public and our colleagues that we cannot wait any longer for H.R. 4 or H.R. 1, S. 1, S. 4, and we are here tonight to tell our story. It is my pleasure and certainly my privilege, as we continue to tell our story, and as I continue to weave in that story, to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Beatty), who, again, has spoken with her actions, not just her words, the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, senior member and chairwoman on the Financial Services Committee, and, again, someone who showed the Nation that it is both our message and our power by being arrested in the name of the fight for equality, getting into a little good trouble. I am sure John Lewis, rest in power, is looking down on us.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus for her powerful words. And, yes, thank her for acknowledging the women who stood in the gap, including Melanie Campbell and Reverend Barbara Williams Skinner and Clayola Brown, and Tamika, who has been at the forefront as well, and many, many others that have, likewise, been at the forefront. We are pleased to be able to join in their leadership as well. General Leave

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this Special Order.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), a gentleman who now walks in history, who knows his history, and who is prepared to fight against that history that should never be repeated, my coanchor, who has eloquently articulated what was in General Granger's Order No. 3, and that is the equality of rights.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for opening the pathway. We may have him continue to explore that journey, which I will take up, and that is the question of the filibuster. Someone described it as busting things up and busting good things up. We know that there has to be a solution to those who have argued that, in fact, they are about the institution of the other body; they are about the integrity of the other body. I would argue that where blood has been shed so that people have died so that people might vote, it is not the integrity of the institution. It is the life and death of voting rights, not only for people of color, but for this Nation. A man who has argued eloquently about the filibuster and a resolve of our next steps, but also recognizes historically, not only the civil rights journey but the fundamental right of voting that should not be hindered or undermined is our majority whip, and we are very grateful for his leadership and his historical perspective and his current understanding of how we have to get the job done. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina for his comments. He clearly acted, as I indicated, and that is, he presented the history, but he brought us to the 21st century and 2021. I think the challenge that we are now offering to the American people, incredulously, how can anyone try to undermine the votes of any American, and particularly those Americans of color? As I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, let me at least just depict for a moment the uniqueness of our history, for this picture is a picture of a whipped, beaten back of a slave. That means that we had extraordinary conditions, extraordinary circumstances. In the 1800s preceding and around the Emancipation Proclamation, I will just read these words as I yield: Congress put forward the 15th Amendment and it made it very clear that: No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the rights of any citizen of the United States to vote on the account of race, or color, or language minority status. This was coming out of slavery when they had the 13th Amendment that eliminated slavery but didn't eliminate stigma and institutional racism, gave due process, and then gave the right to vote out of the history of what is depicted here. That is why this is so serious that an institutional rule cannot survive over the right to vote, and the big lie cannot supersede the right to vote. It is my pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), who is a historian and professor in her own right and spent her life's work teaching at historically Black colleges which were born out of the seeds or born out of the quagmire and the fires of slavery but born to make a difference. She has been a champion for the HBCUs and understands what the denial of the vote and voting rights means to that constituency.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her pointed message about North Carolina and her district. I think I join her. My district is a voting rights district, so we know what it is to be at the edge of surviving. The only way that we have survived is with the protection of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We are living testimony that it is crucial to the vast diversity that has been created in this House on behalf of the American people. Madam Speaker, let me now take the pleasure of yielding to another distinguished Member who has had her own history in a very unique State. Someone asked the question: Is it Southern? Is it Northern? I think you only have to hear her--and, of course, the President of the United States, who is a very forthright leader. President Joe Biden and Vice President Harris have been forthright in confronting issues that have been meant to help the American people heal and unite. She has been right in the mix and, as well, has been a leader on labor issues, a leader on healthcare issues. But one thing she knows is the depth of disparity that plagues a community when voting is extinguished. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York. I am so glad he said the words ``by any means necessary.'' That is striking, and without a doubt, the approach of the activist Supreme Court, right-wing, of the big lies, and of those who wish to stall and stop the very lifeline of American democracy, and that is the right of each person to vote their conscious. As we have said: Our message, our power; but our voice, our vote; our vote, our voice. And I thank him for joining me this evening for elaborating and detailing and roll-calling where we are today. I notice the gentleman did not step in the breach and indicate that we might need to expand the Court. That is another discussion altogether. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush), a member of the Judiciary Committee. I think she can speak in her own way on the vitality of a vote for poor people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing me to anchor this Special Order on the fierce urgency of preserving the precious right to vote by passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and legislation like H.R. 1, the For The People Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the importance of passing H.R. 40, legislation which I introduced that establishes a commission to study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans. Now--more than ever--the facts and circumstances facing our Nation demonstrate the importance of H.R. 40 and the necessity of placing our nation on the path to reparative justice. As I speak, H.R. 40 is cosponsored by 191 Members from all parts of the nation and was marked up and reported favorably to the House by the Judiciary Committee on April 14, 2021. In 2019, when the Judiciary Committee met to discuss this legislation, three overflow rooms were required. Since that time, we have seen a pandemic sweep the country, taking more than 600,000 souls in its wake and devastating the African American community. According to the latest estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Black people get COVID-19 at a rate nearly one and a half times higher than that of white people, are hospitalized at a rate nearly four times higher, and are three times as likely to die from the disease. Interestingly, a recent peer-reviewed study from Harvard Medical School suggests that reparations for African Americans could have cut COVID-19 transmission and infection rates both among Blacks and the population at large. Their analysis, based on Louisiana data, determined that if reparations payments had been made before the COVID- 19 pandemic, narrowing the wealth gap, COVID transmission rates in the state's overall population could have been reduced by anywhere from 31 percent to 68 percent. Last summer we saw hundreds of thousands peacefully take to the streets in support of Black Lives and accountability for law enforcement. Many of those protesters carried signs in support of H.R. 40 and made the important link between policing and the movement for reparative justice. Tragically, we have also witnessed insurrectionists attack this institution, brandishing symbols of division and intolerance, that echo back to the darkest periods of our nation's history. Clearly, we require a reckoning to restore national balance and unity. Four hundred years ago, ships set sail from the west coast of Africa and in the process, began one of mankind's most inhumane practices: human bondage and slavery. For two centuries, human beings--full of hopes and fears, dreams and concerns, ambition, and anguish--were transported onto ships like chattel, and the lives of many forever changed. The reverberations from this horrific series of acts--a transatlantic slave trade that touched the shores of a colony that came to be known as America, and later a democratic republic known as the United States of America--are unknown and worthy of exploration. Approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865. The institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the Government of the United States from 1789 through 1865. American Slavery is our country's Original Sin and its existence at the birth of our nation is a permanent scar on our country's founding documents, and on the venerated authors of those documents, and it is a legacy that continued well into the last century. The framework for our country and the document to which we all take an oath describes African Americans as three-fifths a person. The infamous Dred Scott decision of the United States Supreme Court, issued just a few decades later, described slaves as private property, unworthy of citizenship. And, a civil war that produced the largest death toll of American fighters in any conflict in our history could not prevent the indignities of Jim Crow, the fire hose at lunch counters and the systemic and institutional discrimination that would follow for a century after the end of the Civil War. The mythology built around the Civil War has obscured our discussions of the impact of chattel slavery and made it difficult to have a national dialogue on how to fully account for its place in American history and public policy. While it is nearly impossible to determine how the lives touched by slavery could have flourished in the absence of bondage, we have certain datum that permits us to examine how a subset of Americans--African Americans--have been affected by the callousness of involuntary servitude. We know that in almost every segment of society--education, healthcare, jobs, and wealth--the inequities that persist in America are more acutely and disproportionately felt in Black America. This historic discrimination continues: African-Americans continue to suffer debilitating economic, educational, and health hardships including but not limited to having nearly 1,000,000 black people incarcerated; an unemployment rate more than twice the current white unemployment rate; and an average of less than \1/16\ of the wealth of white families, a disparity which has worsened, not improved over time. A closer look at the statistics reveals the stark disparity in these areas. Black household wealth is less than one fifth of the national average. The median black household had a net worth of just $17,600 in 2016. Yet in that same year, the median white household held $171,000 in wealth while the national household median was $97,300. The black unemployment rate is 6.6 percent, more than double the national unemployment rate. Approximately 31 percent of black children live in poverty, compared to 11 percent of white children. The national average is 18 percent, which suggests that the percentage of black children living in poverty is more than 150 percent of the national average. In the healthcare domain, the disparities suffered by African Americans is also troubling. Over 20 percent of African Americans do not have health insurance, compared to a national average between 8.8 percent and 9.1 percent. One in four African American women are uninsured. Compared to the national average, African American adults are 20 percent more likely to suffer from asthma and three times more likely to die from it. Black adults are 72 percent more likely to suffer from diabetes than average. Black women are four times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes, such as embolisms, and pregnancy-related hypertension, than any other racial group. In our nation, among children aged 19-35 months, black children were vaccinated at rates lower than white children: 68 percent versus 78 percent, respectively. Education has often been called the key to unlocking social mobility. African American students are less likely than white students to have access to college-ready courses. In fact, in 2011-12, only 57 percent of black students have access to a full range of math and science courses necessary for college readiness, compared to with 81 percent of Asian American students and 71 percent of white students. Black students spend less time in the classroom due to discipline, which further hinders their access to a quality education. Black students are nearly two times as likely to be suspended without educational services as white students. Black students are also 3.8 times as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as white students. In addition, black children represent 19 percent of the nation's pre- school population, yet 47 percent of those receiving more than one out- of-school suspension. In comparison, white students represent 41 percent of pre-school enrollment but only 28 percent of those receiving more than one out-of-school suspension. Even more troubling, black students are 2.3 times as likely to receive a referral to law enforcement or be subject to a school-related arrest as white students. School districts with the most students of color, on average, receive 15 percent less per student in state and local funding than the whitest districts. And, of course, we cannot consider the disparities between black and white in America without considering the intersection of African Americans and the Criminal Justice system. There are more Black men in bondage today who are incarcerated or under correctional control, than there were black men who were enslaved in the 1800s. The United States locks up African American males at a rate 5.8 times higher than the most openly racist country in the world ever did: South Africa under apartheid (1993), African American males: 851 per 100,000 and United States (2006), African American males: 4,789 per 100,000 Incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment. For example, incarceration rates in the United States by race were: African Americans: 2,468 per 100,000; Latinos: 1,038 per 100,000; Whites: 409 per 100,000. African American offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes and are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Looking at males aged 25-29 and by race, you can see what is going on even clearer: For White males ages 25-29: 1,685 per 100,000; For Latino males ages 25-29: 3,912 per 100,000; For African American males ages 25-29: 11,695 per 100,000. (That's 11.7 percent of Black men in their late 20s.) Looking at males aged 25-29 and by race, you can see what is going on even clearer: For white males ages 25-29: 1,685 per 100,000; For Latino males ages 25-29: 3,912 per 100,000; for African American males ages 25-29: 11,695 per 100,000. (That's 11.7 percent of Black men in their late 20s.) And African Americans are more likely to be victims of crimes. Black children die from firearm homicides at a rate 10 times higher than their white counterparts. Overall, one in 50 murders is ruled justified--but when the killer is white and the victim is a black man, the figure climbs to one in six. A handgun homicide is nine times more likely to be found justified when the killer is white and the victim is a black man. Handgun killings with a white shooter and a black male victim exhibit an even more dramatic bias: one in four is found justified. But then again, we knew these inequities existed because for many Black Americans, these disparities are just a part of daily life. Examined in the aggregate, they represent a stunning chasm between the destinies of White America and that of Black America. This is why, in 1989, my predecessor as the most senior African American on this august Judiciary Committee, the honorable John Conyers, a past Chairman of this Committee introduced H.R. 40, legislation that would establish a commission to study and develop proposals attendant to reparations. Though many thought it a lost cause, John Conyers believed that a day would come when our nation would need to account for the brutal mistreatment of African-Americans during chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation and the enduring structural racism endemic to our society. I would like to take this moment to personally thank the estimable John Conyers for his work on this legislation for the last thirty years. With the rise and normalization of white supremacist expression during the Trump administration, the discussion of H.R. 40 and the concept of restorative justice have gained more urgency, garnering the attention of mainstream commentator, and illustrating the need for a national reckoning. H.R. 40 is intended to create the framework for a national discussion on the enduring impact of slavery and its complex legacy to begin that necessary process of atonement. For many, it was not until The Atlantic published Ta-Nehisi Coates' The Case for Reparations that the mainstream public began to reckon with, or even consider, the concept of reparations. Though the Federal government has been slow to engage the issue of reparations, individuals, corporations, and other public institutions have engaged the discussion out of both necessity and conscience. In 1994, a group of California plaintiffs sued the Federal government and by 2002, nine lawsuits were filed around the country by the Restitution Study Group. Though litigation has yielded only mixed success in court, a serious foundation was laid for alternative forms of restitution. For example, in 2005, J.P. Morgan & Company tried to make amends for its role in the slave trade with an apology and a $5 million, five-year scholarship fund for Black undergraduates in Louisiana. In 2008, the Episcopal Church apologized for perpetuating American slavery through its interpretation of the Bible and certain diocese have implemented restitution programs. In 2003, Brown University created the Committee on Slavery and Justice to assess the University's role in slavery and determine a response. Similarly, in 2016, Georgetown University apologized for its historical links to slavery and said it would give an admissions edge to descendants of slaves whose sale in the 19th century helped pay off the U.S. school's debts. In 2017, my alma mater, Yale University, announced that it would rename Calhoun College--named for John C. Calhoun--would be changed to honor Grace Murray Hopper, a trailblazing computer scientist who also served as rear admiral in the United States Navy. The University's president, Peter Salovey, indicated that removing Calhoun's name was consistent with its values because Calhoun had a legacy of a white supremacist and a national leader who passionately promoted slavery as a positive good. And, in April of this year, students at Georgetown University voted in favor of paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people who were sold by the university to satisfy its debts. In 1838, in a practice likely far wider spread than is likely accounted for, Georgetown Jesuits sold 272 slaves who worked on plantations. When the results of the Georgetown poll were announced, the numbers were overwhelming: \2/3\ of students indicated that payments should be funded to descendants of these slaves and would be paid for by a fee that would apply to all undergraduate students. While the vote was nonbinding, it nonetheless represents the first time the student body of a university has voted to implement a mandatory fee to account for reparations. These are only a few examples of how private institution have begun reckoning with their past records. I expect that a growing number of institutions will be forced to examine their histories of discrimination, if for no other reason than increasing public scrutiny will force their history to light. Since my reintroduction of H.R. 40 at the beginning of this Congress, both the legislation and concept of reparations have become the focus of national debate. For many, it is apparent that the success of the Obama administration has unleashed a backlash of racism and intolerance that is an echo of America's dark past which has yet to be exorcised from the national consciousness. Commentators have turned to H.R. 40 as a response to formally begin the process of analyzing, confronting, and atoning for these dark chapters of American history. Even conservative voices, like that of New York Times columnist David Brooks, are starting to give the reparations cause the hearing it deserves, observing that ``Reparations are a drastic policy and hard to execute, but the very act of talking and designing them heals a wound and opens a new story.'' Similarly, a majority of the Democratic presidential contenders have turned to H.R 40 as a tool for reconciliation, with 17 cosponsoring or claiming they would sign the bill into law if elected. Though critics have argued that the idea of reparations is unworkable politically or financially, their focus on money misses the point of the H.R. 40 commission's mandate. The goal of these historical investigations is to bring American society to a new reckoning with how our past affects the current conditions of African Americans and to make America a better place by helping the truly disadvantaged. Consequently, the reparations movement does not focus on payments to individuals, but to remedies that can be created in as many forms necessary to equitably address the many kinds of injuries sustained from chattel slavery and its continuing vestiges. To merely focus on finance is an empty gesture and betrays a lack of understanding of the depth of the unaddressed moral issues that continue to haunt this nation. While it might be convenient to assume that we can address the current divisive racial and political climate in our nation through race neutral means, experience shows that we have not escaped our history. Though the Civil Rights Movement challenged many of the most racist practices and structures that subjugated the African American community, it was not followed by a commitment to truth and reconciliation. For that reason, the legacy of racial inequality has persisted, and left the nation vulnerable to a range of problems that continue to yield division, racial disparities, and injustice. By passing H.R. 40, Congress can start a movement toward the national reckoning we need to bridge racial divides. Reparations are ultimately about respect and reconciliation--and the hope that one day, all Americans can walk together toward a more just future. We owe it to those who were ripped from their homes those many years ago an ocean away; we owe it to the millions of Americans- yes, they were Americans--who were born into bondage, knew a life of servitude, and died anonymous deaths, as prisoners of this system. We owe it to the millions of descendants of these slaves, for they are the heirs to a society of inequities and indignities that naturally filled the vacuum after slavery was formally abolished 154 years ago. The Judiciary Committee hearing held in the 116th Congress was the first time in history that the House of Representatives held a hearing on H.R. 40, we held another earlier this year on February 17, 2021, before marking up this landmark legislation on April 14, 2021. It was fitting that the first hearing occurred on the 19th of June, also known to many in this room, as Juneteenth--the day that, 154 years ago, General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas and announced the freedom of the last American slaves; belatedly freeing 250,000 slaves in Texas nearly two and a half years after Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Juneteenth was first celebrated in the Texas state capital in 1867 under the direction of the Freedmen's Bureau. Juneteenth was and is a living symbol of freedom for people who did not have it. Today, Juneteenth now is both the oldest known celebration of slavery's demise and the nation's newest national holiday. It commemorates freedom while acknowledging the sacrifices and contributions made by courageous African Americans towards making our great nation the more conscious and accepting country that it has become. Let me end by noting that the recently passed 400th commemoration of the 1619 arrival of the first captive Africans in English North America, at Point Comfort, Virginia. With those dates as an historical marker for today's hearing, let us proceed to the work of repair with free hands, full hearts, and a passion for achieving justice. Let us also do the work in the spirit of reconciliation and understanding that H.R. 40 represents.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the fierce urgency of preserving the precious right to vote by passing H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, H.R. 1, the For The People Act. I will continue the dialogue at a future time, when I discuss the importance of passing H.R. 40, legislation which I introduced that establishes a commission to study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans. Madam Speaker, the serious damage to the precious right to vote occasioned by the right-wing, conservative majority on the Supreme Court demands that Congress exercise its powers under Section 5 of the 15th Amendment to restore the extraordinary reach and effectiveness of Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. As an aside, Madam Speaker, on the objection of VRA opponents to states subject preclearance having the burden to bail themselves out, I have long said that the states that were subject to preclearance under the Voting Rights Act earned their way in, so it only fitting that they earn their way out. Madam Speaker, June 25, 2021, marked the 8th anniversary of the Supreme Court's infamous decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), which immobilized the Department of Justice from subjecting discriminatory voting and election law changes to prior review and approval, or ``preclearance.'' It was predicted at the time by me and other defenders of the precious right to vote that the Court's misguided and naive decision would usher in a wave of state and local initiatives intended to suppress and nullify the rights of black Americans, persons of color, young adults, and marginalized communities to exercise the most basic act in the political process: voting. As we have seen in recent months, this prediction has tragically come to pass. Not to be content with the monument to disgrace that is the Shelby 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 to ensure that: ``No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of' race or color, or language minority status.'' Among these burdens, couched as ``guideposts,'' or ``suggestions'' are that when reviewing claims that a facially neutral election law, policy, practice, or voting rule has a discriminator, and therefore unlawful, effect on minority citizens, courts are to consider the following matters: 1. An ``ordinary burdens'' or ``mere inconvenience'' exception; 2. Size of disparities in burdens imposed by the challenged rule; 3. Other opportunities to vote provided by a state's election system; 4. Legitimate state interests justifying the challenged voting rule; and 5. The degree to which a voting rule departs from what was standard practice when 2 was amended in 1982. Taken together, this Supreme Court cabal is saying to racial, ethnic, and language minorities: ``What's the big deal, it's only voting. Just like with bad weather, sometimes you just have grin and bear a little inconvenience.'' This 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. 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. Their predecessors on the Court understood this, going back at least as far as 1938, when the Supreme Court held in Chief Justice Hughes' famous Footnote 4 in United States v. Caroletie Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), that government action alleged to discriminate against ``discrete and insular minorities'' would be subject to ``strict scrutiny'' by reviewing courts. Madam Speaker, you might be asking who are these `discrete and insular minorities' about whom the Court was referring? The answer is they were and are persons ``excluded from ``those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect'' them, racial and language minorities, and aliens, all of whom were denied the single most important tool for protecting and advancing one's interests in a democracy: the right to vote. 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 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. 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 and in the presence of such luminaries as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Ralph Abernathy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Roy Wilkins of the NAACP; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; James Foreman of the Congress of Racial Equality; A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis of the Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee; Senators Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen; 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. As I indicated, 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. Section 5 has protected 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 and the tireless voter registration work performed in 1972 by Hillary Clinton in Texas, along with hundreds of others, including her future husband Bill, 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. During the floor debate on the 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman Jordan explained why this reform was needed: ``There are Mexican-American people in the State of Texas who have been denied the right to vote; who have been impeded in their efforts to register and vote; who have not had encouragement from those election officials because they are brown people. ``So, the state of Texas, if we approve this measure, would be brought within the coverage of this Act for the first time.'' When it comes to extending and protecting the precious right vote, the Lone Star State--the home state of Lyndon Johnson and Barbara Jordan--could be the leading state in the Union, one that sets the example for the nation. But to realize that future, Texas must turn from and not return to the dark days of the past. By embracing the discriminatory Texas SB7 and the `Big Lie' that the 2020 election, by all accounts adjudged the most secure and inclusive in American history, was riven by voter fraud, Texas Republicans are making the wrong choice to their eternal shame. Texans must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge or dilute the precious right to vote, like the odious Texas SB7 recently passed by the Texas State Senate but killed, but not yet permanently, by the unity and courage of Democrats in the Texas State House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, I applaud the House Democrats of the Texas General Assembly for being on the front lines, fighting in opposition to Texas SB7 on the House floor and I join with them in calling upon the U.S. Senate to eliminate the filibuster and to bring to the floor for debate and vote--so Congress can pass--H.R. 1 and H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. We must all do our part to preserve this most important heritage because it was earned with the sacrifices and the lives of our ancestors. The right to vote is a ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice'' and must be protected against attack from all enemies, foreign and domestic, using all the legal tools at our disposal. Madam Speaker, the right to vote and to participate meaningfully in civic and political affairs has done more to advance the cause of freedom, justice, and equality than the Second Amendment has ever done, if it has done anything at all. It is time the Congress act to protect and expand the right to vote, the only right that is preservative of every other right. Madam Speaker, how often have we heard our friends across the aisle claim that burdening the right to vote with new restrictions and limitations are racially neutral and that their intentions must be adjudged pure because `after all, they're the party of Lincoln'? This is a short horse soon curried. The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s because of its opposition to slavery that Southern Democrats like future Vice-President of the Confederate States of America Alexander Stephens boasted was the ``cornerstone of America.'' In 1861, after the election of Abraham Lincoln as President, the eleven slave-holding states succeeded from the Union, not to preserve their heritage, but to keep their slaves. That led to the Civil War, in which more than 600,000 persons on both sides gave their lives and ended in the utter defeat and unconditional surrender of the Confederate Army led by its traitor general Robert E. Lee. Also, as a consequence of the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were passed and ratified. Madam Speaker, I am grateful that at the time when it was needed most, the Republican Party was born and committed to the extinction of slavery. It was the pro-freedom, pro-civil rights party. The Democratic Party in those nightmarish days was centered in the ``Solid South,'' and proudly wore the label of the pro-slavery, white supremacy party. This was not lost on the American people, and for a century Black Americans overwhelmingly self-identified with the pro-civil rights, anti-white supremacy Republican Party. Even after the national Democratic Party renounced de jure racism and `states rights' at the 1948 DNC in Philadelphia, resulting in Strom Thurmond leading his fellow Dixiecrats out of the convention and his running failed bid for the presidency, Black Americans remained a core constituency of the Republican Party, while nearly all whites in the southern states were Democrats, distinguishing themselves from northern liberals by calling themselves `Southern Democrats' or `constitutional Democrats'. All of this changed in 1964. That was the year the Republican Party nominated Sen. Barry Goldwater for President, an active and die-hard opponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Southern Democrats saw in Goldwater's support for `states rights' a kindred spirit and vehicle to halt the federal government's commitment to extend the writ and guarantees of the Constitution to all persons in all regions of the country. Madam Speaker, the result of that realigning election remains with us to this day. Before the Great Depression and the election of Franklin Roosevelt, the overwhelming majority of votes cast by Black Americans were for Republican candidates. Even in the election of 1960, the parties closely competed for the votes of Black Americans, with Republican Richard Nixon winning more than 35 percent. Fast forward to 1964. Republican Barry Goldwater was routed 486-52 in an electoral college landslide and lost 43 states; Lyndon Johnson won the popular vote by 16 million votes (61-38 percent). Goldwater won only his native state of Arizona and five Deep South states--Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina. It is interesting to note that the five Southern states that voted for Goldwater swung over dramatically to support him; for example, in Mississippi, where Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt had won 97 percent of the popular vote in 1936, Goldwater won 87 percent of the vote. Lyndon Johnson would say the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would cost Democrats the South for 50 years but it was worth it. What accounted for this change in voting allegiance, which persists to this day? The answer is simple and obvious, beginning in 1964 the Democratic Party became, and was perceived by Americans, as the party of civil rights; the Republican Party not so much. The difference now is that white supremacists have not been welcome or embraced by the national Democratic Party since 1948 and have been pariahs since 1964. But they are welcome in today's Republican Party; in fact, one was even nominated and renominated as its standard-bearer in 2016 and 2020. We Democrats are not reluctant to remove and banish those who bring shame and dishonor to our cause of advancing equal justice for all Americans. I challenge our friends across the aisle to stop glorifying as `heritage' a history of terror, injustice, violence, and racism represented by the persons whose statues are being removed and anyone who proudly waves a Confederate flag, like the one that disgraced the Capitol when it was paraded by domestic terrorists during the January 6 insurrection and attack on American democracy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?