Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the manager of the bill for his leadership continuously on issues of technology as well as his very fine work on the issues of antitrust. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the manager of this legislation. As well, I thank the Senate and the Senate sponsor for some very important legislation. It is interesting that we would be able to bring this legislation up in a time when our children, in particular, are wedded to virtual technology or virtual learning all over America, leaving them vulnerable in terms of what has the opportunity to become a predator. So, I couldn't think of a more important moment to bring up S. 134, the Combat Online Predators Act, making it very clear the lack of tolerance for practices that would create harassment of children. Clearly, now, with virtual learning being at the cornerstone of the survival of education for our children with COVID-19 raging, it seems an appropriate initiative. The legislation calls for the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to produce an evaluation of Federal, State, and local efforts to enforce laws relating to stalking and to identify and describe elements of these efforts that constitute best practices. Our intent here is to save lives and, as well, to protect our children, protect their minds, protect their thoughts, protect the information that might draw them to leave home. We know that that certainly has been a basis for many of our children running away, because someone caught them on the internet. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the United States Senate because this was a difficult amendment to be able to craft and to understand, and that is that we recognize that children can be children. In essence, this legislation also has, for parents to understand, a provision that if children are within a certain age and the stalker is not much older than a child over 15 and under 17 and they engage in the kind of play that teenagers might engage in--we call it Romeo and Juliet--that those individuals would be exempt from the criminal aspects of this legislation. I think it is a very important exception inasmuch as we want parents to be engaged as much as we can in teaching teenagers and young people and overseeing their activity, making sure they don't do things that would create a criminal liability or criminal acts. So, I support this legislation because of its fairness; because of the recognition by the Senate of the importance of that exemption; and, most of all, to be able to make a national statement while we are in the midst of COVID-19, and our children are facing virtually everything, that we want to combat online predators. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this act, S. 134, to protect our children.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership. I also thank my fellow Texan, Mac Thornberry, for his service to the Nation as he continues his journey. Let me say how important this legislation is as it relates to basic pay, incentive pay, and hazard pay for our military families, many of whom are in my congressional district; the work that has been done on the maternity uniform pilot program; and also the work on reenforcing NATO; the sexual assault prevention and response that is so important, particularly in our community in Texas, for the horrible acts at Fort Hood against Vanessa Guillen, causing her to lose her life along with many others. This is a legislation that focuses on the personnel and that focuses on the security of our Nation. I am very grateful to Congressman Brown for his leadership on joining with other Members to ensure with Chairman Smith that we remove these Confederate names from the names of military bases that represent all people. I am very grateful that my language indicates that profound, dignified, qualified, and heroic African-American soldiers have the right to have their names listed on these particular bases. I ask America to send in the names of your relatives. Call my office. Send it to the Armed Services Committee. Let us have a base where soldiers go that reflects everyone. I am thankful that my language was put in to name bases after African- American soldiers and other diverse persons. Mr. Speaker, I ask support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of all the Jackson Lee Amendments made in order for consideration of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. I thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry and their staffs for working with me and my staff in consideration of several Jackson Lee Amendments. I am particularly thankful to Chairman Smith for taking up the challenge of removing the stain of confederate traitors being honored by the naming of bases and military installations in their name. It has been too long that African Americans guarded their communities from the hidden racism that existed under the guise of the confederate flag and knowing through oral history the brutality of those who served voluntarily in the confederate army and whose names were on bases and military installations. This bill is ushering in a new era where the names of confederates who served voluntarily to take up arms against the United States will have their names removed from places of honor such as military bases or installations and these individuals be placed in historical context where historians and scholars may study ad understand their place in American history. It is also time that African Americans and Native Americans be recognized for their contributions in defense of our nation. The history of African Americans and Native Americans serving in the military date back to the colonial period of our nation to the present day. In every war waged from the Battle of Lexington to the Battle for Fallujah, African Americans and Native Americans have honorably answered the call to duty, and served with great valor and distinction in America's armed forces. At decisive moments in our nation's history, the United States military and its citizens warriors, were there and made the difference: The Revolutionary War (1776-1783), The War of 1812 (1812-1814), The Mexican-American War (1836), The Civil War (1861-1865), The Spanish-American War (1898), World War I (1914-1918), World War II (1941-1945), The Korean War (1950-1953), The Vietnam War (1965-1975), The Gulf War (1991), and The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as conflicts in other theaters of war. The military is there defending our nation when attacked by hostile nations or adversaries. But it is also there when needed to respond to attack from natural elements like floods and Hurricanes like Hurricanes Irma, Harvey and Katrina. The military was there doing a job no other branch of our nation's government could do--in the face of overwhelming calamity when the lives of thousands of American citizens were on the line--they came. Our thanks to the military for being always ready to answer the call of duty--whether that call comes in the dead of night or the light of day--we know that we can count on you. The names and faces of millions of African Americans who have served our nation in uniform may fade from memory, but this evening we have the opportunity to remember and see them in the faces of the young people who have answered the call to duty by becoming members of the armed forces. I offered several amendments to H.R. 6395 to improve the bill. I thank my colleagues: Representatives Bennie Thompson, William Lacy Clay, Gregory Meeks, A. Donald McEachin, Marc Veasey, Stanford Bishop, Andre Carson, and Jahana Hayes for joining as cosponsors of this Amendment. The fact that military bases have been named after Confederate military leaders or soldiers is hard to imagine given that they were fighting to end the United States. The Confederacy was not something that should be held up for honor by the United States or our nation's military. There is no shortage of honorable replacement candidates to receive the honor of having a military base, installation or facility named in their honor. United States Army 1. Gen. Roscoe Robinson Jr. General Robinson was a 1951 graduate of West Point who attended the service academy before the Army was desegregated. Robinson served in Korea and Vietnam, with valor decorations in both conflicts, and as a training officer as part of the U.S. military support mission in Liberia. He went on to become the first black commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, deputy chief of staff for operations in U.S. Army Europe, commander of U.S. Forces Japan, the U.S. representative on the NATO Military Committee, and the first black four-star general in the Army. 2. William Harvey Carney William Carney was the first African American recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, which he received for his actions on July 18, 1863 at Fort Wagner, SC while a member of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment in the Civil War--the state's first all-black regiment. The 54th Massachusetts was the subject of the film, ``Glory,'' starring Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. 3. Lieutenant Colonel Charity Edna Adams Lieutenant Colonel Charity Edna Adams was appointed to lead the African American Women's Army Corps unit designated as the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion, which became known as the ``Six Triple Eight.'' This unit was instrumental in establishing and maintaining morale because it assured that mail from the battlefront and the home-front flowed efficiently and timely. 4. Lt. Col. Margaret E. Bailey In 1964, Margaret E. Bailey, Army Nurse Corps, was the first nurse to be promoted to lieutenant colonel. United States Navy 5. Dorie Miller Messman First Class and Admiral Michelle Howard. Dorie Miller, Messman First Class was serving in a noncombat role in the Navy, Dorie Miller responded heroically when the battleship West Virginia was attacked at Pearl Harbor. He was the first African American to be awarded the Navy Cross, the third highest honor awarded by the US Navy at the time. 6. Admiral Michelle Howard Admiral Michelle Howard is a four-star Admiral and one of the highest-ranking African American women ever to serve in any branch of the military. Admiral Howard is also the first African American woman to command a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Rushmore. She is the Navy's second highest ranking officer and is currently serving as the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Africa, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and commander of Allied Joint Force Command Naples. The Air Force 7. Lt. Col Shawna Rochelle-Kimbrell In 2012, Lieutenant Colonel Kimbrell became the first female African American fighter pilot in the Air Force history. Her flights in Northern Watch marked her as the first female pilot to fly combat missions for Misawa's 35th Fighter Wing, and the first African American woman to employ ordinance in combat. She has more than 1,110 hours in the F-16, including 176 hours of combat time. 8. Colonel Ruth A. Lucas Colonel Lucas was the first African American woman in the Air Force to be promoted to the rank of colonel. At the time of her retirement in 1970, she was the highest-ranking African American woman in the Air Force. 9. Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr In 1959 General Benjamin O. Davis became the first African American Major General in the United States Air Force. In 1943, he organized and commanded the 332nd Fighter Group known as the Tuskegee Airmen. General Davis received many decorations during his career, including two Distinguished Service Medals and a Silver Star. On December 9, 1998, General Davis was awarded his fourth general's star by President Bill Clinton. The Coast Guard 10. Alex Haley Chief Petty Officer Haley is best known for writing letters for his shipmates and his short stories and articles, which got him promoted to Chief Journalist of the Coast Guard in 1959. Haley ultimately received a number of military honors, including the American Defense Service Medal, World War II Victory Medal and an honorary degree from the Coast Guard Academy. And most of you know him also as the author of ``Roots.'' 11. Bobby C. Wilks In 1957, Captain Bobby Wilks became the first African American Coast Guard aviator. He later became the first African American to reach the rank of Captain and the first to command a Coast Guard air station. He accumulated over 6,000 flight hours in 18 different types of aircrafts. Twenty-five percent of the today's military is comprised of persons of color, of which 17.8% are African American. In 2017, blacks made up 17% of the DOD active-duty military--somewhat higher than their share of the U.S. population ages 18 to 44 (13%). Blacks have consistently been represented in greater shares among enlisted personnel (19% in 2015) than among the commissioned officers (9%). Native Americans The amendment I offered during House consideration of the NDAA was expanded to include Native Americans. It is without doubt that the military has a storied history of Native American contributions to the securing our nation since colonial times to the present. One famous example of their contributions occurred during World War II when the U.S. military developed a specific policy to recruit and train Navajo speakers to become code talkers. A code talker is the name given to 29 Navajo Natives who used their tribal language to send secret communications on the battlefield. The Marines formed the Navajo Code Talkers, who created a code based on the complex, unwritten Navajo language. The code primarily used word association by assigning a Navajo word to key phrases and military tactics. This system enabled the Code Talkers to translate three lines of English in 20 seconds, not 30 minutes as was common with existing code- breaking machines. The Code Talkers participated in every major Marine operation in the Pacific theater, giving the Marines a critical advantage throughout the war. During the nearly month-long battle for Iwo Jima, for example, six Navajo Code Talker Marines successfully transmitted more than 800 messages without error. Marine leadership noted after the battle that the Code Talkers were critical to the victory at Iwo Jima. At the end of the war, the Navajo Code remained unbroken. Our Native American brothers and sisters are more than worthy to be so honored by having their names considered for military bases and installations. Boogaloo and Proud Boys A Jackson Lee Amendment included in the House version of the NDAA directed the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress the extent, if any, of the threat to national security posed by domestic terrorist groups and organizations motivated by a belief system of white supremacy, such as the Boogaloo and Proud Boys extremists is reflected in the Conference bill. The NDAA conference identified that the FBI is under statutory obligation, established by Section 5602 of the NDAA FY 2020 (Public Law 116-92), to complete a report that would better characterize the domestic terrorist threat by requiring the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security in consultation with the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), to produce a set of comprehensive reports over 5 years. The report is to include: a strategic intelligence threat internal to the United States; metrics on the number and type of incidents, coupled with resulting investigations, arrests, prosecutions, and analytic products, copies of the execution of domestic terrorism investigations; detailed explanations of how the FBI, DHS and NCTC prioritize the domestic terrorism threats and incident; and descriptions regarding the type and regularity of training provided by the FBI, DHS, or NCTC to other Federal, State, and local law enforcement. The conferees note that the report has not been delivered to the appropriate committees and they urge the FBI Director to deliver the report without delay. The Jackson Lee Amendment to the NDAA FY 2021 sought the same information that is required under the NDAA FY 2020 because of the threat posed by accelerationists and militia extremists who comprise a range of violent anti-government actors, movements, and organizations, some of which branch out of decades-old ideologies and others of which are relatively new has led to violent engagement of law enforcement. My concern is that in the aftermath of a historic national election, the activity of violence influencers like Boogaloo Boys or Proud Boys will increase and lead to attacks becoming more frequent. In 2018, we saw too many instances of violent extremists searching for opportunities to sow violence and disrupt democratic processes. Boogaloo and Proud Boys are targeting constitutionally protected activity for cooption or to provide cover for attacks. Jackson Lee Amendment 179 implements a recommendation made by the Cyberspace Solarium Commission to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a strategy to implement Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) standard across U.S.-based email providers to increase the security of email. I thank my colleagues Congressmen Langevin, Gallagher, Katko, and Joyce for joining this bipartisan amendment to the FY 2021 NDAA. The security of email has grown in importance as it has become in many ways the primary way that businesses, consumers, government communicate. The Senate bill also addressed this important issue and the language of the final Conference concurs. I urge my colleagues to support the Conference for the NDAA FY 2021.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Committee, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8161, the ``One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act of 2020,'' which creates a new grant program that will provide money to States, Tribes, local governments, and community-based non-profits to create one-stop reentry centers to assist people who were recently released from jail or prison. The bill would also create a grant program for a toll-free hotline for returning individuals to access reentry services. As one who has worked on community reentry and recidivism reduction for most of tenure on this Committee, I am proud to join Crime Subcommittee Chair Karen Bass (D-CA) as a cosponsor of this legislation. There are currently over 2.1 million people incarcerated in local, state, and federal correctional facilities, a number that represents a more than 500 percent increase in the incarcerated population over the last 40 years. Over 95 percent of people currently incarcerated will eventually be released back to their communities. In fact, approximately 600,000 people are released from custody every year and at the end of 2016, an estimated 4.5 million adults were under community supervision, which includes probation or parole. Reentry services are essential for this population, to ensure that these individuals transition smoothly out of jail and prison and to keep recidivism to a minimum. The recidivism rates for individuals leaving prisons remain high, and a large number of those released from prison will ultimately find themselves back in the criminal legal system. A 2018 study found that 83 percent of people released from prisons in 2005 were arrested at least once during the nine years following their release, and of those released from state prisons, 44 percent were arrested at least once in the year immediately following their release. Lack of access to resources upon release leads to a cycle of rearrest and reincarceration that some scholars call the ``revolving door'' to prison. This cycle of recidivism has tremendous financial consequences--the United States spends over $80 billion dollars a year on incarceration-- not to mention the human toll it takes on families and communities. The cycle of release, rearrest, and reincarceration, also costs state and local communities over $100 million in policing and judicial administration costs. While some returning individuals have a release plan, many people are released from custody with only their personal property, little money, and no place to go. The result of not having a reentry plan can be ruinous. In the last decade, policymakers have begun to measure the effects of reentry on returning individuals, their families, and their communities. Studies show that most people enter the prison system with low levels of education, limited work experience, substance abuse issues, and mental health infirmities, and that these same issues are still present when a person is released from prison. Without appropriate reentry services to assist them, many returning citizens find themselves back in the criminal justice system. H.R. 8161 provides grants to community-based organizations for the creation of one-stop reentry centers, which would combine the provision of various reentry services in one location, thus making it easier for returning citizens to access them. The one-stop shop model that this legislation promotes would aim to provide complete reentry services to address the critical elements of the reentry process that promote long-term reentry success. The one-stop centers would include support personnel, who themselves are formerly incarcerated individuals, to provide direct support for recently released individuals. In addition, where reentry services may not logistically be able to be placed in a single geographic location, this legislation authorizes the Attorney General to fund States and local jurisdictions to establish 24/7 reentry service assistance hotlines that direct recently released individuals to appropriate reentry resources. I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 8161, the ``One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act of 2020.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Committee, I rise in strong support of H.R. 683, the ``Puerto Rico Recovery Accuracy in Disclosures Act of 2019'' or ``PRRADA Act,'' which conditions compensation of professional persons retained under the congressionally passed ``Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act'' (``PROMESA'') upon the applicant providing certain disclosures similar to those required under Bankruptcy Code section 327. In response to dire fiscal issues facing Puerto Rico at the time, Congress passed Pub. L. 114-187, the ``Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act'' or ``PROMESA'' in 2016, legislation I strongly supported and cosponsored. The Act established the Financial Oversight and Management Board (Board), a fiscal control board comprised of seven members that would have control over Puerto Rico's budget, laws, financial plans, and regulations. It empowered the board to propose a budget for Puerto Rico and restructure its obligations owed to bondholders, estimated to be $6.5 billion, and other creditors. Although largely patterned on chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, PROMESA did not incorporate all facets of chapter 11 and other relevant provisions of the Code. For example, although the Board is authorized to retain and compensate professional persons in connection with its efforts to reorganize Puerto Rico, PROMESA does not include certain restrictions that the Bankruptcy Code requires for such purposes. For example, Section 327 of the Bankruptcy Code, unlike PROMESA, authorizes professional persons, such as attorneys, financial advisors, appraisers, and others, to be retained in connection with the administration of a bankruptcy case provided they meet the following conditions: first, such a person must not hold or represent an interest adverse to the bankruptcy estate; and second, the professional must be a ``disinterested person.'' As I indicated at the outset, H.R. 683, the ``Puerto Rico Recovery Accuracy in Disclosures Act of 2019'' or ``PRRADA,'' conditions compensation of professional persons retained under PROMESA upon the applicant providing certain disclosures similar to those required under Bankruptcy Code section 327. In addition, it would require the United States Trustee to review such I disclosures and submit comments in response to the court as well as authorize the United States trustee to object to compensation requested by professionals. Further, the measure would apply retroactively to professionals who have previously been awarded compensation. Finally, H.R. 683 would authorize the court to deny allowance of compensation for services and reimbursement of expenses accruing after the bill's enactment date if the professional person did not comply with the disclosure requirement, was not a disinterested person, or represented or held an interest adverse to the bankruptcy estate. I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 683, the ``Puerto Rico Recovery Accuracy in Disclosures Act of 2019.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Committee, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8354, the ``Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative Act of 2020,'' which would permanently establish the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative (SVI) within the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division. I thank my colleague from Texas, Congresswoman Escobar (TX-16), for introducing this important legislation, which I am proud to be a cosponsor. The Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative Act details SVI's responsibilities to promote the legal interests of servicemembers, veterans, and their families within the Department of Justice. Among the responsibilities of the SVI would be to make policy on behalf of the Attorney General on legal issues that impact servicemembers, veterans, and their families and appoint a liaison to the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division to coordinate Federal prosecutions involving cases of fraud against servicemembers. SVI currently has no formal statutory authorization so assigning a liaison in SVI to coordinate criminal fraud prosecutions is critical to protecting servicemembers. Civil actions initiated by DOJ have not, thus far, stemmed the rising number of fraud schemes, in housing in particular, that target servicemembers. Criminal prosecutions, available under the current fraud statutes, would provide a strong deterrent to widespread efforts to defraud servicemembers. By giving SVI a permanent home in DOJ's Civil Rights Division, this bill would ensure that DOJ will continue to provide outreach to servicemembers, will provide the Attorney General with policy recommendations on servicemember-related matters, and will enforce the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, among other laws. Mr. Speaker, fraud schemes that target servicemembers and their families are especially pernicious. Within just the preceding five years, the FTC received over 163,000 reports of fraud targeting military retirees and veterans, and nearly 13,000 fraud reports from active duty service members. More shamefully, the FTC ascertained that the median loss in these cases was significantly higher for servicemembers and veterans than for their civilian counterparts. Establishing this direct link to the Criminal Division will enable the Justice Department to be more effective in addressing civil and criminal frauds against servicemembers and their families. A significant number of military veterans live in Houston, Texas. They are business owners, laborers and community servants who continue to contribute to the local economy. It is estimated that 18.5 million veterans live in the United States, of which 282,511 call Houston home. In fact, the Houston metropolitan area is home to nearly one-fifth of Texas' veterans. Houston-area servicemen and women have served in the Gulf wars, the Korean War and World War II. But the largest percentage of the Houston veteran population served in the Vietnam War. Most of them are between 35 and 54 years old. I call on my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of H.R. 8354 to provide much needed support for our nation's veterans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Committee, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8235, the ``Open Courts Act of 2020,'' which would centralize and modernize the federal judiciary's court records systems (called CM/ECF) and would eliminate the paywall (called PACER) that currently forces the public to pay to access these records. The new system will provide a centralized, easily searchable site to file and read court records and monitor docket activity, and equally important, make all public court records on the site available free of charge. Every year, the public pays the federal judiciary more than $100 million in fees so they can read the motions, briefs, orders, exhibits, calendar entries, and other court filings that make up the overwhelming majority of federal litigation and bankruptcy practice. These fees are used to maintain and operate the judiciary's electronic court records systems (called ``case management and electronic court filing systems'' or ``CM/ECF'') that judges, court employees, and the parties before the court use to file documents, issue decisions, and generally manage proceedings. Although many parties before the court pay a fee to initiate a proceeding or otherwise file a document (generally called ``filing fees''), these fees do not support the electronic courts records systems they rely on. Instead, those systems are subsidized by the public. The fees the public pays to view federal court records are officially called ``electronic public access'' or ``EPA'' fees. More commonly, they are called ``PACER'' fees, after the paywall system the public must use to pay for and access those records. The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system charges users 10 cents per page to view, download, or search for public court records. The per-document fee is capped at $3.00; audio files of court hearings, if they exist, cost $2,40. Judicial opinions are free, as are the first $30 of charges per quarter. As several retired judges have argued, ``openness serves a structural role in our republican system of self-government'' and that ``opening up judicial records by removing the PACER paywall would be consistent with the best traditions of judicial transparency.'' PACER functions as a paywall that the public must pass through to access the judiciary's electronic court records systems. These systems are highly decentralized--every one of the 94 district courts, 13 courts of appeals, and 90 bankruptcy courts have their own CM/ECF system. Until recently, for example, a user was required to have a separate username and password for every CM/ECF system--today, some, but not all, courts allow a user to have the same password and username. Seamus Hughes, the Deputy Director of George Washington University's Program on Extremism, has spent years researching terrorism cases in the United States, Europe, and in the Middle East. As he researches individuals and entities charged with providing material support to foreign and domestic terrorist organizations. As part of those investigations, he developed expertise in searching the federal court records system and in testimony last year, described the consequences of this set up: Quite simply, it is not easy to access public court records on PACER. PACER provides access to federal criminal records and is organized by federal districts in each state . . . To use the system you need to apply for a PACER account, get a password, and know what district in each state you want to search. Each search requires the user to know what they are looking for and where. Even then the cost is not always tied to a result. For example, if you are a terrorism researcher and want to review every case that charges material support to a terrorist organization, you would have to go to 94 different individual court websites and conduct a new and separate search on each website. Mr. Speaker, in addition, some public court records, including trial exhibits and unsealed documents, are routinely unavailable because they are not posted on a court's CM/ECF system, and documents are difficult to find because there are no uniform tags or naming conventions. Mr. Speaker, the Open Courts Act of 2020 addresses these problems and helps ensure that the public and free access to the American judicial system remains available. Section 2(a) of the bill requires the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to, in coordination with the Administrator of General Services, consolidate all federal court records into one system within 2-3 years. Section 3(a) requires the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to, in coordination with the Administrator of General Services, make all court records on the system established by section 2 freely available to the public. Section 3(b) grants authority to the Judicial Conference to designate, after notice and comment, certain categories of records that will be subject to up to a 5-day delay before they are made publicly accessible. Any such designation must be no broader than necessary and be based on a determination of a specific and substantial interest in restricting the public right of access to court records. Any designation expires after 3 years unless renewed via notice and comment. Section 3(c) requires the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in coordination with the Administrator of General Services, to ensure that the public can search for and access court records, similar to the requirements under Section 2 of this act. Finally, section 3(d) establishes the dates when all PACER fees must be eliminated and court records are made freely available to the public within two years from enactment unless the Director of General Services certifies that an additional year is needed. This is needed legislation and I support it. I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 8235, the ``Open Courts Act of 2020.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior Member of the House of Representatives and the founding chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan resolution, H. Res. 189, ``Recognizing the importance of sustained United States leadership to accelerating global progress against maternal and child malnutrition and supporting United States Agency for International Development's commitment to global nutrition through its multisectoral nutrition strategy.'' First and foremost, I would like to recognize and thank Congressmen Roger Marshall and Jim McGovern for their leadership on this vital resolution. By passing H. Res. 189 today, we are committing ourselves to improving the health of women and children in impoverished areas, helping prevent illness, and improving economic conditions in poorer countries. With that in mind, I wish to commend the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) maternal and child nutrition programs that seek to improve health outcomes by implementing nutrition-specific interventions, or those that address the immediate, health-related determinants of undernutrition. These critical investments are closely coordinated with USAID's nutrition-sensitive interventions that address underlying or systemic causes of inadequate nutrition, such as education, water, sanitation, and hygiene, agriculture, as well as the healthy timing and spacing of pregnancy. It is no secret that poverty amplifies the risk of, and risks from, malnutrition. People who are poor are more likely to be affected by different forms of malnutrition. Furthermore, malnutrition increases health care costs, reduces productivity, and slows economic growth, which can perpetuate a cycle of poverty and ill-health. Malnutrition can have several negative and deadly effects such as decreased cognitive development in newborns, greater vulnerability to disease and other issues. Women, infants, children, and adolescents are at particular risk of malnutrition. Optimizing nutrition early in life, especially from the 1,000 days from conception to a child's second birthday ensures the best possible start in life, with long-term benefits. For example, adults who were not malnourished as children earn nearly 46 percent more than their counterparts, as stated in the resolution. According to UNICEF, nearly half of all deaths in children under 5 are attributable to undernutrition. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I stood here today without addressing the global impact of COVID-19 on malnutrition. Today, the significant and life-altering shocks created by the pandemic and the necessary containment measures have meant that more vulnerable children are facing malnourishment, as efforts to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19 have resulted in the disruption of food systems, thereby upending health and nutrition services, devastating livelihoods, as well as threatening food security. As of July 2020, an estimated 370 million children were missing school meals, which have been directly tied to improving students' health and nutrition while also helping them develop good eating habits. Recent estimates from UNICEF indicate that in addition to the 690 million undernourished people in 2019, at least another 83 million people, and possibly as many as 132 million, may go hungry in 2020. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is needed now more than ever, and I am proud to be here and voice my support for it. I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting for H. Res. 189, ``Recognizing the importance of sustained United States leadership to accelerating global progress against maternal and child malnutrition and supporting United States Agency for International Development's commitment to global nutrition through its multi-sectoral nutrition strategy.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as an original sponsor and a senior Member of the House of Representatives, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan bill, H.R. 1380, the ``Big Cat Public Safety Act'', which ends the ownership of dangerous big cats as pets as well as prohibits exhibitors from allowing public contact with cubs. First and foremost, I would like to thank Congressman Mike Quigley for his leadership on this legislation. Across the country, thousands of big cats like tigers, lions, leopards, and pumas are kept in miserable, insecure, and unsafe conditions by irresponsible owners. These animals often come from a vicious cycle of breeding perpetuated by unscrupulous facilities looking to make a profit off of ``cub petting'' or photo opportunities. It is an issue that causes immeasurable animal suffering and introduces inexcusable threats to human safety. Big cats are wild animals and undoubtedly suffer when kept as pets. They are often purchased as babies, and private owners are typically unable to manage them once they are fully grown. As a result, the animals are frequently left to languish in grossly inadequate conditions, often being deprived of sufficient space, adequate veterinary care, a nutritious diet, and enrichment. Furthermore, it is common procedure for some roadside zoos to inhumanely separate babies from their mothers, so that they can charge the public to pet and play with the cubs. This is a cruel and unhealthy practice that can cause not only lifelong psychological problems but also premature death for the cubs. These young cats quickly outgrow their usefulness in the cub handling industry and most often end up being sent to substandard ``zoos,'' sold into the exotic pet trade, or possibly even killed and sold for parts. This vicious cycle of exploitation and constant breeding must be stopped. Currently, state laws regarding private ownership of big cats are inconsistent, and some states have few or no laws regarding the keeping of big cats. Madam Speaker, a uniform federal law is necessary to end this dangerous industry once and for all. The ``Big Cat Public Safety Act'' is a simple and straightforward solution to the devastating and growing crisis of negligent big cat breeding and ownership. According to Big Cat Rescue, there have been more than 700 dangerous incidents in the U.S. involving big cats since 1990. These incidents include hundreds of human injuries, maulings, and deaths. In many of these cases, the animals were shot and killed, often by first responders who are not equipped to deal with these situations, thereby also putting them in harm's way. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have been a staunch advocate for protecting endangered species. Most recently, I introduced H.R. 4804, ``the ProTECT Act'', which amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 in order to prohibit the taking for a trophy of any endangered or threatened species of fish or wildlife in the United States and the importation of endangered and threatened species trophies into the United States. H.R. 4804 is an updated version of my bill from the 114th Congress, H.R. 3448, the ``Cecil the Lion Endangered and Threatened Species Act of 2015''. I was in Africa when the iconic Cecil the Lion, was murdered for sport. It was a disgraceful act that showcased a complete lack of respect for these wondrous animals, and it compelled me to fiercely advocate for the preservation of our wildlife across the world. Madam Speaker, today we have an important opportunity to once again come together and protect endangered species by passing H.R. 1380, the ``Big Cat Public Safety Act''. For the safety of our first responders, of our community, and for these majestic animals, we need this vital piece of legislation. I am honored to be a leader on this issue, and so I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting for H.R. 1380.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor and a senior Member of the House of Representatives, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan resolution, H. Res. 512, ``Calling for the global repeal of blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy laws''. First and foremost, I would like to recognize and thank Congressman Jamie Raskin for his leadership on this vital resolution. Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls upon the President and the Department of State to prioritize the repeal of blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy laws in bilateral relationships between the United States and countries that have such laws. It also designates countries that enforce such laws as ``countries of particular concern'' with respect to religious freedom. Furthermore, H. Res. 512 opposes efforts by the United Nations to implement an international anti-blasphemy norm. Lastly, the resolution calls on the governments of countries that enforce such laws to either amend or repeal them as well as to release anyone imprisoned pursuant to them. Blasphemy laws, as is noted in the resolution, lead to religious intolerance, discrimination and violence. Moreover, these laws are often weaponized to target marginalized religious communities. Charges can be based on false accusations and are commonly brought forth for sectarian or political purposes. In 2019, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom released its 20th Annual Report, recommending that the U.S. Department of State designate sixteen nations as ``countries of particular concern'' due to their severe suppression of religious freedom. For example: In Burma, a predominantly Buddhist nation, the Rohingya Muslim people have been subject to what the U.N. high commissioner for human rights has called ``a textbook example of ethnic cleansing''; In China, over 1 million ethnic Uyghur and Kazakh Muslims have been arbitrarily detained in concentration camps styled as ``political education'' camps, where they are subject to torture and inhumane conditions; In Iran, the Baha'i community is treated by the government as a band of heretics, and, as of February 2017, at least 90 Baha'i were held in prison solely for their religious beliefs; In Russia, Jehovah's Witnesses have been banned as an extremist group, and their properties have been seized and liquidated by order of the government. Dozens of individuals have been arrested on extremism charges and remain in custody or under house arrest; and The right to worship freely is one of the founding and most essential principles of the United States. As the world's oldest democracy, America has a responsibility to protect the freedoms of speech, expression, and religion against official persecution around the world. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have been a fierce defender of human rights, and this resolution is a small but important step in safeguarding the individual freedoms of choosing one's religion, or no religion at all, as well as worshipping and thinking freely no matter where you live. With this in mind, I am proud to be a leader on this resolution, and I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting for H. Res. 512, ``Calling for the global repeal of blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy laws.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Homeland, and Budget Committees, I rise in strong support of S. 1153, the ``Stop Student Debt Relief Scams Act,'' which helps protect borrowers from deceptive student debt relief scams by enhancing law enforcement and administrative abilities to identify and shut down such student debt relief scams. With ordinary Americans facing nearly $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, borrowers are looking for relief wherever they can find it but unfortunately many borrowers do not receive the right information about how to find out and qualify for opportunities to get help with lowering or postponing their payments or applying for relief, nearly all of which is available for free. These include income-driven repayment, deferment, forbearance, consolidation, rehabilitation, and even some programs for loan forgiveness. Debt relief scams falsely promise borrowers a quick fix with little hassle and their business model is to robocall student loan borrowers until they agree to pay thousands of dollars in unnecessary and exorbitant fees for services that are already available for free. They claim to reduce or forgive borrowers' student debt and take care of all the paperwork. Some even purport to be associated with the federal government. Most victims of these deceptive debt relief scams are not only defrauded by the companies that promised to help them, but unknowingly become delinquent on their payments and default on their loans, miss communications with their servicers, and fall even deeper into debt. S. 1153, the Stop Student Debt Relief Scams Act of 2019 would accelerate the end to this rampant misconduct. Specifically, the Stop Student Debt Relief Scams Act of 2019 will enhance law enforcement and administrative abilities to identify and shut down student debt relief scams by: Clarifying that it is a federal crime to access U.S. Department of Education information technology systems for fraud, commercial advantage, or private financial gain, and fines scammers up to $20,000, up to 5 years imprisonment, or both, for violations of the law; Directing the U.S. Department of Education to create a new form of third-party access, akin to the current ``preparer'' function on the Free Application for Student Aid (FAFSA) for those applying on behalf of a student and their family, in order to protect legitimate organizations--such as legal aid groups--that help borrowers navigate repayment; Requiring the U.S. Department of Education to maintain commonsense reporting, detection, and prevention activities to stop potential or known debt relief scams; and Requiring student loan exit counseling to warn federal loan borrowers about debt relief scams, in recognition of the fact that borrowers may fall prey to false promises because they lack sufficient information on legitimate programs to help them manage repayment. This is needed legislation and I am pleased it has been endorsed by Education Finance Council, Generation Progress, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), National Council of Higher Education Resources, Student Loan Servicing Alliance, The Institute for College Access and Success, and Young Invincibles. I urge all Members to join me in voting for S. 1153, the ``Stop Student Debt Relief Scams Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, there are 14.8 million cases of COVID- 19, now some 282,000 deaths. In the State of Texas, there are 1.3 million, an increase of 10,000 cases and 23,000-plus deaths. The numbers keep going up. The scientists predict that we may have as many as 500,000 deaths by March 2021. There has to be a national protocol of wearing masks, socially distancing, and washing your hands. But as we begin to do the vaccines, there must be a public understanding of, one, the safety of those vaccines; but, number two, the vaccines should be distributed in our small and local hospitals that our communities are familiar with along with local health facilities. We will be working to ensure that populations--people of color and indigenous people who are impacted--have access to vaccines where they are familiar with medical professionals. That should be the route of the United States Congress and pass the COVID-19 package not next week, but this week. Our constituents are desperate.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank the gentleman for bringing us together on such an important moment, and of course, as he reflected on the fact that I think we were together just a few years ago in the National Archives commemorating the importance of these amendments, but also the Emancipation Proclamation. And for those of us in Texas or in places past the Mississippi, if I might start with the question of freedom, we did not get the full impact of freedom until 1865. Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the slaves free with his pronouncement in 1863, and then it took General Granger 2 years to come and present that to those of us west of the Mississippi. This is why I think this moment on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Butterfield, is a sacred and somber moment. We can declare this a normal course of business, Mr. Mfume, that we are on the floor debating, as we usually do, but I really call this a sacred moment because it is a moment to educate the American people. It is a moment to go full circle, if you will, to all of the social justice advocacies that we have done, all of the issues that pretended to divide us. I think the reason is that, does anyone understand the legacy of those who are descendants of enslaved Africans? That we had to wait for an amendment to give us the fullness of a human being. We were not counted as human beings fully when the Constitution was written. Just imagine coming from a legacy where you were not counted as one, you were counted less than one. And until this amendment, the idea of slavery of which we had been property, counted as property. So I think it is important to read the 13th Amendment: ``Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been fully convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' Think of that. Even indentured servants had a different status than anyone who was a descendent of enslaved Africans who came to this country in 1619 and a little bit before. That is what we discuss today. That is the issue of the 13th Amendment. And it is important to realize that the Framers never used the words slave, shareholder, master, or slavery anywhere in the Constitution. That is almost to say that we had no valid space even in a negative connotation. So to actually realize why this is so sacred, let me give you some of history. By 1861, when the Civil War broke out, more than four million people--nearly all of them African decent--were enslaved in 15 Southern and border States. By 1862, President Abraham Lincoln came to believe firmly that emancipating enslaved people in the South would help the Union crush the Confederate rebellion and win the Civil War. We became a practical part of saving the Union. We became the cornerstone, the descendents of enslaved Africans. The question of slavery was not based upon the brutality of the separation of families, the beating that was suffered, the sheer brutality of it. No, it was not that. I do not find fault for that era, but people need to understand that it was not because someone bowed their heads--they were the abolitionists--and said, Oh, how sad it is that human beings are being held in bondage. We became a calculating force. But look at the numbers. Four million enslaved. One would wonder why this is a sacred moment on the floor of the House. So Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which took effect in 1863, announced that all enslaved people held in the States--then in rebellion against the United States--shall be then there forward and forever free. But the Emancipation Proclamation itself did not end slavery in the United States, as it only applied to the 11 Confederate States then at war against the Union. Remember, we became the practical cornerstone of trying to end the war, to stop the rebellion, and to preserve the Union. I am glad the Union was preserved. I am glad we are the United States of America. Yet it is so crucial in the understanding of even this year of 2020, even understanding the horrors of George Floyd's death, what his family still suffers, and why there was such a rage of young people and why the words ``Black Lives Matter'' came because of the brutality of our history, and here, in the 21st century, we are still suffering from the inequities of those that did not understand not only the question of justice, but also the question of the brutality and the history of slavery. Maybe there would have been a better understanding if a little history was woven into where we are today. As I indicated, the Emancipation Proclamation did not do it because, as it said, it did not deal with States like Massachusetts and Ohio, to my understanding. It did not deal with those States. In April 1864, the United States Senate passed a proposed amendment banning slavery with the necessary two-thirds majority, but it faulted in the House of Representatives as more and more Democrats refused to support it. So it was not an easy journey. When Congress reconvened in December 1864, the emboldened Republicans put the proposed amendment up for a vote again, and Lincoln threw himself in the legislative process, something that gives leadership and substance to the idea of freeing slaves, freeing human beings. The Constitution now is a stronger document because, as he put himself into this, Lincoln and his allies see what is before you to focus on the most important thing that this amendment protects the slaves now born and in the United States, but also the millions yet to be born. He was committed to the passage of the 13th Amendment. He authorizes allies to entice House members with plum positions and other inducements, reportedly telling them: I leave it to you to determine how it shall be done, but remember that I am President of the United States, cloaked with immense power, and I expect you to procure the votes. The whip is on the floor, Mr. Clyburn. I am all the sudden elevated in my capacity as a whip because this President Lincoln was determined to have his agents on the floor use that authority to get what needed to be done. On January 31, 1865, the House of Representatives passed the proposed amendment with a vote of 119-56, with the required two- thirds majority. Mr. Speaker, I started out by saying this is a sacred moment. I hope the people at home and our colleagues can see what slavery represented, the brutality of the back of this slave. It didn't take much to be whipped, whipped, and whipped. So scarred, so brutalized that you were almost to death. Or to see a family so like chattel, so like property, so demeaned. Families separated, babies separated. Children becoming more valuable than mom and dad; dad becoming more valuable. And I remember reading the Slave Narratives, and they said that a woman told her slave husband to come home quick from where he was working in another plantation because they are getting ready to sell their children in one place and her in another. We need you home, she said. Who would imagine that human beings would have collars around their necks, slavery so brutal that it was unspeakable and could not be heard? So today, as we commemorate the 155th anniversary of this important step, realizing that it had to go through as an amendment to all of the States, what a journey it was. I think the words of Sojourner Truth are telling, and that is why we fought to have her busts, her statue here when she was at an abolitionist meeting and someone said, Yes, sir, what do you want? And she said, Ain't I a woman? I born 13 children and I have seen most all of them sold into slavery. That is why we are on the floor today. We are on the floor today because of the continued misunderstanding of race in this Nation. We are on the floor today because more of us need to understand what H.R. 40 is all about. It is a magnificent piece of legislation that deals with the questions of the commission to study and develop reparation proposals. It is a reflection of the history of African Americans in this country. It is a simple process of getting a commission that dignifies what happened to us and looks for reconciliation and restoration and proposal to deal systemically with the ongoing disasters that we see in our respective communities, from disparities in healthcare, COVID-19, housing, the criminal justice system, education. That is why we stand here today. So I thank Mr. Butterfield for yielding, and I thank this body for understanding this is a sacred moment. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of this body and the Committee on the Judiciary, I am pleased to join my colleagues in this Special Order marking the anniversary of the passage on December 6, 1865 of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and celebrating the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments, known as the Civil Rights Amendments. I thank my colleague, Congressman Butterfield, for anchoring this important Special Order and am remembering our late colleague, John Lewis, a great and beloved man, who risked and gave his life to make real the promise of those amendments. The 13th Amendment, the first of the three great Civil War Amendments, was passed in 1865 and abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment conferred citizenship on the newly emancipated slaves, and the 1st Amendment prohibited abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Taken together, these amendments were intended and have the effect of making former slaves, and their descendants, full and equal members of the political community known as the United States of America. By 1861, when the Civil War broke out, more than 4 million people (nearly all of them of African descent) were enslaved in 15 southern and border states. By 1862, President Abraham Lincoln came to believe firmly that emancipating enslaved people in the South would help the Union crush the Confederate rebellion and win the Civil War. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which took effect in 1863, announced that all enslaved people held in the states ``then in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.'' But the Emancipation Proclamation itself did not end slavery in the United States, as it only applied to the 11 Confederate states then at war against the Union, and only to the portion of those states not already under Union control. To make emancipation permanent would take a constitutional amendment abolishing the institution of slavery itself. In April 1864, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed amendment banning slavery with the necessary two-thirds majority but it faltered in the House of Representatives, as more and more Democrats refused to support it. When Congress reconvened in December 1864, the emboldened Republicans put the proposed amendment up for vote again and Lincoln threw himself in the legislative process, inviting individual representatives to his office to discuss the amendment and putting pressure on border-state Unionists (who had previously opposed it) to change their position. Lincoln was committed to the passage of the 13th Amendment, telling his allies to ``see what is before you, to focus on the most important thing; that this Amendment protects the slaves now born and in the United States, but settles the question for all time for the millions yet to be born.'' He authorized his allies to entice House members with plum positions and other inducements, reportedly telling them: ``I leave it to you to determine how it shall be done; but remember that I am President of the United States, clothed with immense power, and I expect you to procure those votes.'' On January 31, 1865, the House of Representatives passed the proposed amendment with a vote of 119-56, just over the required two-thirds majority, and the following day, Lincoln approved a joint resolution of Congress submitting it to the state legislatures for ratification. Mr. Speaker, the United States is the world's only superpower and boasts the largest economy in the history of the world and for many years was the world's indispensable nation and the example that all aspiring democracies wished to emulate. But at the same time, this nation has also been home to many searing instances of social unrest resulting from racial injustices, as we witnessed this year on the streets of big cities and small towns in urban and rural communities. We saw Americans, by the millions across the country, coming from all races and ages, engaging in what the late John Lewis called ``good trouble'' by protesting and demanding an end to the systemic racial inequality in our criminal justice system that too often victimizes and disproportionately treats black Americans worse, ceteris paribus, when it comes to suspicion, apprehension, arrest, detention, trial, sentencing, and incarceration. While the brutal deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breanna Taylor in Louisville shocked the conscience of the nation, most black Americans will tell you what they experienced is not new, but has been occurring for generations, if not centuries. What is critically important to understand is that the instances of brutal and unfair treatment the nation has witnessed this year cannot be attributed to the proverbial few ``bad apples in the bushel'' but is instead the foreseeable consequence of systemic racism and racial inequality in the system. Not just the criminal justice system, but the health care system, the economic system, and the educational system to name the most glaring examples. To find our way out of this dark time, we need to understand how it came to be. That is why in January 2019, I introduced H.R. 40, which establishes a commission to examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies. Among other requirements, the commission shall identify (1) the role of federal and state governments in supporting the institution of slavery; (2) forms of discrimination in the public and private sectors against freed slaves and their descendants; and (3) lingering negative effects of slavery on living African-Americans and society. Official slavery ended with the Civil War and ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. But unofficial slavery was continued with the new institution of sharecrop farming, a criminal justice system that would press convicts into work once done by slaves, and labor policies that dictated income for work done based upon skin color. And, of course, all of this was reinforced by the systematic disenfranchisement of black Americans, the ``discrete and insular minority'' excluded from ``those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect'' them, to quote Chief Justice Hughes' famous Carolene Products Footnote 4. For these reasons, the history of the United States is intertwined with the history of enslaved Africans in the Americas. There is blood and there are tears, but there is also redemption and reconciliation. But to get there, we must have the complete truth and lay our history bare. It is the light that sheds the way to the more perfect union all Americans want . The Commission created and empowered by H.R. 40 is a necessary first step in that effort to get to truth and reconciliation about the Original Sin of American Slavery that is necessary to light the way to the beloved community we all seek. Finally, I join all my colleagues in pointing out that the most fitting and proper means of paying tribute to the beloved John Lewis's extraordinary life is for the Senate to immediately take up and pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, landmark legislation to protect the precious right to vote for all persons and to ensure that our democracy has the tools needed to remain strong. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of this body and the Committee on the Judiciary, I am pleased to join my colleagues in this Special Order marking the anniversary of the passage on December 6, 1865 of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and celebrating the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments, known as the Civil Rights Amendments. I thank my colleague, Congressman Butterfield, for anchoring this important Special Order and am remembering our late colleague, John Lewis, a great and beloved man, who risked and gave his life to make real the promise of those amendments. The 13th Amendment, the first of the three great Civil War Amendments, was passed in 1865 and abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment conferred citizenship on the newly emancipated slaves, and the 15th Amendment prohibited abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Taken together, these amendments were intended and have the effect of making former slaves, and their descendants, full and equal members of the political community known as the United States of America. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment is noteworthy because it did two important things. First, it repealed Article I, Section 2, which counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of taxation and apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. Second, it punished states that denied the right to vote to any male citizen over the age of 21 (who was neither a felon nor had fought on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War) by reducing their population for purposes of representation in Congress. The Framers knew then, and everyone knows now, that the male citizens over the age of 21 who were being denied the right to vote were the former slaves. The Framers of the 14th Amendment also knew which states were denying these citizens the right to vote. The Framers could have identified those states by name but elected not to do so. They chose not to do so because that would have required them to despoil the sanctity and revolutionary character of the Constitution by having to acknowledge explicitly that slavery had existed legally in a country founded on the ``self-evident truth'' that ``all men are created equal.'' It is for this reason that the Framers never used the words ``slave,'' ``slaveholder,'' ``master,'' or ``slavery'' anywhere in the original Constitution. The single reference in the Amendments is the declaration in the 13th Amendment that ``Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.'' The reason this is important is because it shows that when it comes to matters of race and politics in America, the Framers and Congress have always been masters of writing in code so as not to bruise the feelings or upset the tender sensibilities of their fellow citizens in the Southern states. The Framers and Congress were practiced in the art of expressing their true views and achieving their objectives without enshrining in the Constitution or laws the fact that certain of their countrymen trafficked in racism. By 1861, when the Civil War broke out, more than 4 million people (nearly all of them of African descent) were enslaved in 15 southern and border states. By 1862, President Abraham Lincoln came to believe firmly that emancipating enslaved people in the South would help the Union crush the Confederate rebellion and win the Civil War. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which took effect in 1863, announced that all enslaved people held in the states ``then in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.'' But the Emancipation Proclamation itself did not end slavery in the United States, as it only applied to the 11 Confederate states then at war against the Union, and only to the portion of those states not already under Union control. To make emancipation permanent would take a constitutional amendment abolishing the institution of slavery itself. In April 1864, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed amendment banning slavery with the necessary two-thirds majority but it faltered in the House of Representatives, as more and more Democrats refused to support it. When Congress reconvened in December 1864, the emboldened Republicans put the proposed amendment up for vote again and Lincoln threw himself in the legislative process, inviting individual representatives to his office to discuss the amendment and putting pressure on border-state Unionists (who had previously opposed it) to change their position. Lincoln was committed to the passage of the 13th Amendment, telling his allies to ``see what is before you, to focus on the most important thing; that this Amendment protects the slaves now born and in the United States, but also the millions yet to be born.'' He authorized his allies to entice House members with plum positions and other inducements, reportedly telling them: ``I leave it to you to determine how it shall be done; but remember that I am President of the United States, clothed with immense power, and I expect you to procure those votes.'' On January 31, 1865, the House of Representatives passed the proposed amendment with a vote of 119-56, just over the required two-thirds majority, and the following day, Lincoln approved a joint resolution of Congress submitting it to the state legislatures for ratification. Mr. Speaker, let me recite the opening sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'' This text was and is a clear repudiation of the infamous Supreme Court's 1857 decision in Dred Scott, in which Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that a black man, was so inferior to the white man that he had no rights the white man was bound to respect, and could never, even if born free, claim rights of citizenship under the federal constitution. The next clause in Section 1 states: ``No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.'' This greatly expanded the civil and legal rights of all American citizens by protecting them from infringement by the states as well as by the federal government. The third clause, ``nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,'' expanded the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to apply to the states as well as the federal government. Over time, this clause has been interpreted to guarantee a wide array of rights against infringement by the states, including those enumerated in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, right to bear arms, etc.) as well as the right to privacy and other fundamental rights not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. Finally, the ``equal protection clause'' (``nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'') was clearly intended to stop state governments from discriminating against black Americans, and over the years would play a key role in many landmark civil rights cases. It should be noted also, Mr. Speaker, that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment authorized the federal government to punish states that violated or abridged their citizens' right to vote by proportionally reducing the states' representation in Congress, and mandated that anyone who ``engaged in insurrection'' against the United States could not hold civil, military, or elected office (without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate). And Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress ``the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.'' In giving Congress power to pass laws to safeguard the sweeping provisions of Section 1, in particular, the 14th Amendment effectively altered the balance of power between the federal and state governments in the United States. Nearly a century later, Congress would use this authority to pass landmark civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The 15th Amendment granting African-American men the right to vote was adopted into the U.S. Constitution in 1870. The 15th Amendment states: ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' Despite the amendment, by the late 1870s discriminatory practices were used to prevent blacks from exercising their right to vote, especially in the South. It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that legal barriers were outlawed at the state and local levels if they denied African- Americans their right to vote under the 15th Amendment. Mr. Speaker, the United States is the world's only superpower and boasts the largest economy in the history of the world and for many years was the world's indispensable nation and the example that all aspiring democracies wished to emulate. But at the same time, this nation has also been home to many searing instances of social unrest resulting from racial injustices, as we witnessed this year on the streets of big cities and small towns in urban and rural communities. We saw Americans, by the millions across the country, coming from all races and ages, engaging in what the late John Lewis called ``good trouble'' by protesting and demanding an end to the systemic racial inequality in our criminal justice system that too often victimizes and disproportionately treats black Americans worse, ceteris paribus, when it comes to suspicion, apprehension, arrest, detention, trial, sentencing, and incarceration. While the brutal deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breanna Taylor in Louisville shocked the conscience of the nation, most black Americans will tell you what they experienced is not new, but has been occurring for generations, if not centuries. What is critically important to understand is that the instances of brutal and unfair treatment the nation has witnessed this year cannot be attributed to the proverbial few ``bad apples in the bushel'' but is instead the foreseeable consequence of systemic racism and racial inequality in the system. Not just the criminal justice system, but the health care system, the economic system, and the educational system to name the most glaring examples. To find our way out of this dark time, we need to understand how it came to be. That is why in January 2019, I introduced H.R. 40, which establishes a commission to examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies. Among other requirements, the commission shall identify (1) the role of federal and state governments in supporting the institution of slavery; (2) forms of discrimination in the public and private sectors against freed slaves and their descendants; and (3) lingering negative effects of slavery on living African-Americans and society. Official slavery ended with the Civil War and ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. But unofficial slavery was continued with the new institution of sharecrop farming, a criminal justice system that would press convicts into work once done by slaves, and labor policies that dictated income for work done based upon skin color. And, of course, all of this was reinforced by the systematic disenfranchisement of black Americans, the ``discrete and insular minority'' excluded from ``those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect'' them, to quote Chief Justice Hughes' famous Carolene Products Footnote 4. For these reasons, the history of the United States is intertwined with the history of enslaved Africans in the Americas. There is blood and there are tears, but there is also redemption and reconciliation. But to get there, we must have the complete truth and lay our history bare. It is the light that sheds the way to the more perfect union all Americans want. The Commission created and empowered by H.R. 40 is a necessary first step in that effort to get to truth and reconciliation about the Original Sin of American Slavery that is necessary to light the way to the beloved community we all seek. Finally, I join all my colleagues in pointing out that the most fitting and proper means of paying tribute to the beloved John Lewis's extraordinary life is for the Senate to immediately take up and pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, landmark legislation to protect the precious right to vote for all persons and to ensure that our democracy has the tools needed to remain strong.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1244, I call up the bill (H.R. 3884) to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate and find relief in the opportunity to speak on behalf of H.R. 3884, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2020, or the MORE Act of 2020. I have great determination for the American people who, with a majority of Democrats and Republicans, understand the importance of the MORE Act, and I believe it is important to pass a long overdue measure, and I encourage the rest of my colleagues to do so as well. I don't rise today to promote drug use. I don't rise today to harm those young people who are in the beginning of their life. I do not rise today to undermine law enforcement. In fact, in speaking to a representative of the law enforcement community, detailing this legislation, there was a great relief and understanding of the fairness and the justice that would be rendered with the passage of the MORE Act. It has taken us a long time to get here, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of those who have made it possible for us to consider this bill today; in particular, my colleague, our chairman on the House Judiciary Committee, the author of this bill, Chairman Jerry Nadler. He has worked without ceasing on this legislation, as well as two very determined colleagues who have continued their advocacy, and they were particularly instrumental in getting us here, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Earl Blumenauer. To summarize the provisions of the MORE Act, they fall into two categories: First, simply, it would remove marijuana or cannabis from the list or schedule of Federally controlled substances. This means that, going forward, individuals could no longer be prosecuted federally for marijuana offenses. This does not mean that marijuana would now be legal in the entire United States, as some have tried to argue. It would simply remove the Federal Government from interfering with State laws and State structures in the business of prosecuting marijuana cases and would leave the question of legality to the individual States. Those States choosing to decriminalize can do so without ongoing interference from the Federal Government; and those States that choose to continue to make marijuana illegal can continue to do so as well. Second, the bill would establish a taxation structured to collect a sales tax on marijuana which, over the course of 5 years, could increase from 5 to 8 percent. The funds collected through this tax will be used to establish a trust to do good, to reinvest in communities ravaged by the war on drugs. I know it firsthand, by living and growing up in those communities, those communities of color and those communities beyond. What I would also say is it would bring banking a relief. Businesses who ultimately will come from this legislation, legally, will have the legal right and opportunity to secure legal banking relationships. The trust fund will be used for rehabilitation and re-entry programs in the Department of Justice and for programs in the Small Business Administration to ensure that the growing marijuana market is diverse and opens up opportunities for entrepreneurship in communities that have been adversely impacted by the war on drugs. In the last week, in my community, a bright, young individual was killed because of marijuana, marijuana sales. A bright light, yes, was extinguished in a minute with violence. This is what we want to see eliminated. We want a government structure that saves lives. Finally, the bill would expunge and seal Federal marijuana arrests and convictions and resentence offenders as appropriate, a much-needed measure to try to undo the damage that has been done to our communities since marijuana was arbitrarily placed on the list of controlled substances back in 1970. The numbers are staggering but, most of all, the numbers are staggering with the imbalance of prosecution of African Americans and people of Latinx heritage, Hispanic heritage. What an imbalance. What a massive infusion of incarceration across this Nation. Thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the Federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in communities of color, and have born the burden of collateral consequences for those ensnared in the criminal legal system that have damaged our society across generations. This is unacceptable, and we must change our laws. It is time for Congress to catch up with the reforms that States have enacted. It is time for Congress to catch up with Americans. Thirty-six States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam have adopted laws allowing legal access to cannabis. Fifteen States, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have adopted laws legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use. A total of 47 States have reformed their laws in one form or another pertaining to cannabis, despite its Federal criminalization. The State legal cannabis industry already employs almost a quarter of a million people, and the Federal Government needs to get out of the way of State-level decisionmaking for their citizens. We need to open the door to research, better banking, and tax laws. We need to help fuel economic growth in this industry. We need to save lives. We need to help young people. We need to bring our Nation together. And we need to do this without continuing to spend Federal resources on criminalization and unjust incarceration for marijuana offenses. We need to pass the MORE Act. That is why I support it, and that is why I believe it is important for us to unify and support this bill today. And I ask my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the legislation and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, and its Subcommittee on Crime, Homeland Security, and Terrorism, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3884, the ``Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2020,'' or ``MORE Act of 2020.'' I support this legislation because it accomplishes three very important things. First, it removes marijuana, or cannabis, from the list--or the schedule--of Federally controlled substances. This means that, going forward, individuals could no longer be prosecuted, federally, for marijuana offenses. To be clear, this does not mean that marijuana would now be legal in the entire United States--it would simply remove the Federal government from the business of prosecuting marijuana cases and would leave the question of legality to the individual States. States choosing to decriminalize can do so, without ongoing interference from the Federal government, and those states that choose to continue to make marijuana illegal can continue to do so, as well. Second, the bill sets up a taxation structure to collect a sales tax on marijuana, which, over the course of five years would increase from five to eight percent. The funds collected through this tax will be used to establish a trust fund to reinvest in communities ravaged by the War on Drugs and in communities of color. The trust fund will be used for rehabilitation and reentry programs in the Department of Justice and for programs in the Small Business Administration to ensure that the burgeoning marijuana market is diverse and opens up opportunities for entrepreneurship in communities that have been adversely impacted by the War on Drugs. Finally, the bill would expunge and seal Federal marijuana convictions and resentence offenders, as appropriate--a much-needed measure to try to undo the damage that has been done to our communities since marijuana was arbitrarily placed on the list of controlled substances, back in 1970. Mr. Speaker, thousands of men and women have suffered needlessly from the federal criminalization of marijuana, particularly in communities of color, and have born the burden of the collateral consequences for those ensnared in the criminal legal system that have damaged our society across generations. The racially disproportionate prosecution of marijuana offenses is, in fact, a real problem at the federal level, and is not just a problem at the state and local level. Data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission proves the prosecution of cannabis offenses at the federal level disproportionately affects minority communities. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, about 84 percent of the more than 2,000 marijuana offenders who were federally sentenced in 2018 were people of color. Only 11 percent were white, even though more than 60 percent of the U.S. population is white. This is unacceptable and we much change our laws. It is time for Congress to catch up with the times and the reforms that states are enacting. Thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam have adopted laws allowing legal access to cannabis. Fifteen states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands have adopted laws for legalizing cannabis for adult recreational use. A total of 47 States have reformed their laws in one form or another pertaining to cannabis, despite its Federal criminalization. Mr. Speaker, the State legal-cannabis industry already employs almost a quarter of a million people and the federal government needs to get out of the way of state-level decision making for their citizens. We need to open the door to research, better banking and tax laws, and we need to help fuel economic growth in this industry. And we need to do this without continuing to spend federal resources on criminalization and unjust incarceration for marijuana offenses. In short, Congress needs to pass the MORE Act. Mr. Speaker, I will address briefly why certain objections raised against the bill lack merit and should be disregarded. Some opponents propose merely re-scheduling marijuana (instead of descheduling it completely). I oppose rescheduling marijuana to a lower schedule, such as Schedule III, because that would only benefit industry, as cannabis-related businesses could start receiving tax breaks that would be prohibited if cannabis remained scheduled under Schedules I or II. Rescheduling marijuana would do absolutely nothing to address the problem of enforcement of marijuana laws. The Controlled Substances Act does not distinguish among the different schedules for purposes of enforcement and this amendment does not even touch the penalties associated with marijuana--including draconian mandatory minimums. Keeping marijuana on the schedule of controlled substances at all will only continue to exacerbate disparities in the criminal justice system and further entrench the issues currently presented by federal marijuana prohibition, VA doctors will continue to be prohibited from prescribing medical marijuana for suffering veterans, and federal employees will still be subjected to random workplace drug testing for off-the-job marijuana consumption. Next, let me address the misconception that decriminalization of marijuana at the federal level will lead to an increase in crime. In fact, there is every reason to believe it would be the exact opposite. Studies show that: 1. Laws allowing adult use of marijuana are not associated with an uptick in overall criminal activity. 2. Medical cannabis regulatory laws are not associated with an uptick in overall criminal activity. 3. Retail cannabis facilities are not positively associated with increased criminality and may play a role in the prevention of certain crimes such as larceny. There is no need to anticipate that federal descheduling of marijuana will lead to more crime; states will still be allowed to leave in place their criminal laws and regulations related to marijuana, if they desire. Mr. Speaker, what is now largely a cash business will finally have access to banking, which will reduce the potential that lawfully compliant businesses become targets for crime. In fact, for this very reason, decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level will enhance public safety. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, veterans consume marijuana at rates far higher than the general population, and many vets report substituting alcohol and prescription drugs with medicinal marijuana. Veterans often report using cannabis to treat symptoms of chronic pain and mood disorders, like post-traumatic stress. In fact, marijuana used for medical purposes can help veterans ease their reliance on prescription and non-prescription opioids for pain relief. And the clinical data support the use of cannabis treatment for these indications. Descheduling will allow VA doctors to prescribe marijuana without fear of punishment, and it will allow the choice to be with doctors and patients, where it belongs. Descheduling marijuana, as this bill would do, will greatly benefit our veterans. Let me discuss briefly the expungement provisions in the legislation. The expungement provisions relate only to marijuana offenses, which are not per se violent offenses. Punishment for other offenses committed simultaneously (or, for that matter, at any other time) would remain in place. In the past several years, Congress has undertaken significant efforts to address the injustices inherent in our system of criminal justice. Criminal justice reform has been a bipartisan pursuit. Expungement is a critical component of any legislation seeking to address the disparities in our criminal justice system. This is especially true in the context of marijuana arrests, prosecutions, and convictions, which disproportionately affect overcriminalized communities of color. These are the communities that today continue to suffer most from the consequences of our failed drug policies. There are two different kinds of expungement processes established by the MORE Act. For those individuals who are in prison on a marijuana conviction or still under some form of federal court supervision, expungement takes place by way of resentencing, under the watch of a federal judge who will reevaluate whether, based on the person's conviction or convictions, it is appropriate to expunge or recalculate his or her sentence. For those individuals who have completely finished serving their sentences and are no longer under court supervision, expungement would help give them a fresh start--again, consistent with the principles of criminal justice reform we have espoused in a bipartisan manner. The collateral consequences suffered by those with marijuana convictions are numerous and vast and they are the direct result of the unfair and unwise placement of marijuana on Schedule I. We can help undo the harm by expunging federal marijuana convictions in the manner set forth in the MORE Act. Mr. Speaker, in voting to pass the MORE Act, this body will promoting public health and safety and delivering restorative justice. I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 3884, the ``Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2020.' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC, February 19, 2020. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Nadler: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 3884, the ``Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2019.'' Thank you for consulting with the Committee on Small Business regarding the matters in H.R. 3884 that fall within the Committee's jurisdiction. As a result of your consultation with us on this measure and in order to expeditiously move the bill to the floor, I forego further consideration of H.R. 3884. The Committee on Small Business takes this action with our mutual understanding that we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and the Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues that fall within our jurisdiction. Further, I request your support for the appointment of an appropriate number of conferees from the Committee on Small Business during any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming our understanding regarding H.R. 3884 and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Committee Report and the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the measure. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, Nydia M. Velazquez, Chairwoman.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from Florida for making this a bipartisan bill. I thank him for his insight, and I know that we will have many opportunities to work together. I might add, if we pass the MORE Act, we will allow veterans, hospitals, and doctors to be engaged in research to help our returning soldiers and veterans who are suffering from a variety of diseases that may be impacted by marijuana use. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3884.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, marijuana is not a gateway drug. There is ample scientific evidence demonstrating that the use of marijuana does not cause the use of other illicit substances. And according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the majority of people who are marijuana users do not go on to use other, harder substances. The bill does not have any provision to sell marijuana to children. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting my good friend has been in different places than we have been in the House Judiciary Committee, but he remains my good friend. Obviously, our hearing this week was on the devastation of COVID-19 in the Nation's Federal prisons, lives that are lost and lives that could be lost if strong structures are not put in place. That is our job. I think the other point that should be made is that we will be made safer by this legislation. I can't explain to him the life that I have led, the neighborhood that I lived in, the amazing loss of young lives over marijuana because it was illegal. As we watched not only the life lost in bloodshed, but the life lost in incarceration--imbalanced incarceration, huge sentences--the loss of opportunity, of college, of housing, and of jobs. We are crying out for relief. Interestingly enough, two out of three Americans say marijuana should be legal, including a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. Finally, the taxation is on those who use marijuana. It is not on the small business person, it is on those who use and buy marijuana. So I hope that we can move forward on what the American people want us to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), who is a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that this legislation does not take away any of the responsibilities of the Department of Transportation in its regulatory authority, and the facts belie any worries regarding road safety. According to a 2018 study of the National Bureau of Economic Research, States that have legalized marijuana have not experienced significantly different rates of marijuana- or alcohol-related traffic fatalities. All of the State laws dealing with driving under the influence remain. Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana is still illegal in every State--we insist on that--and even in these States that have legalized the substance, and the MORE Act leaves these in place. Mr. Speaker, we need to talk about the many deaths that have occurred because of the violence over illegal marijuana. I have seen it. We have seen it. We have lost lives in their future, and we have lost them to their families. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I would hope my good friend would not be in opposition to the ability for there to be research on the use of marijuana, as well substance abuse, and as well to provide a healing and a restoration of these broken communities that have suffered the plague of marijuana arrests, incarceration, and prosecution. That is what we are doing in the MORE Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as an original sponsor and a senior Member of the House of Representatives, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan bill, H.R. 1380, the ``Big Cat Public Safety Act'', which ends the ownership of dangerous big cats as pets as well as prohibits exhibitors from allowing public contact with cubs. First and foremost, I would like to thank Congressman Mike Quigley for his leadership on this legislation. Across the country, thousands of big cats like tigers, lions, leopards, and pumas are kept in miserable, insecure, and unsafe conditions by irresponsible owners. These animals often come from a vicious cycle of breeding perpetuated by unscrupulous facilities looking to make a profit off of ``cub petting'' or photo opportunities. It is an issue that causes immeasurable animal suffering and introduces inexcusable threats to human safety. Big cats are wild animals and undoubtedly suffer when kept as pets. They are often purchased as babies, and private owners are typically unable to manage them once they are fully grown. As a result, the animals are frequently left to languish in grossly inadequate conditions, often being deprived of sufficient space, adequate veterinary care, a nutritious diet, and enrichment. Furthermore, it is common procedure for some roadside zoos to inhumanely separate babies from their mothers, so that they can charge the public to pet and play with the cubs. This is a cruel and unhealthy practice that can cause not only lifelong psychological problems but also premature death for the cubs. These young cats quickly outgrow their usefulness in the cub handling industry and most often end up being sent to substandard ``zoos,'' sold into the exotic pet trade, or possibly even killed and sold for parts. This vicious cycle of exploitation and constant breeding must be stopped. Currently, state laws regarding private ownership of big cats are inconsistent, and some states have few or no laws regarding the keeping of big cats. Madam Speaker, a uniform federal law is necessary to end this dangerous industry once and for all. The ``Big Cat Public Safety Act'' is a simple and straightforward solution to the devastating and growing crisis of negligent big cat breeding and ownership. According to Big Cat Rescue, there have been more than 700 dangerous incidents in the U.S. involving big cats since 1990. These incidents include hundreds of human injuries, maulings, and deaths. In many of these cases, the animals were shot and killed, often by first responders who are not equipped to deal with these situations, thereby also putting them in harm's way. Madam Speaker, throughout my tenure in Congress, I have been a staunch advocate for protecting endangered species, and this bill does that and much more. For the safety of our first responders, of our community, and for these majestic animals, we need this vital piece of legislation. I am honored to be a leader on this issue and on this bill, and so I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting for H.R. 1380, the ``Big Cat Safety Act.''