Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we need the testing. We are doing testing on the last pennies of the money that we were granted through the leadership, our Speaker and others. They need testing. I will be in a stadium this coming week, trying to get people tested. That is how much we need it. Then, of course, $28 billion in procurement, distribution, education, materials for the vaccine. But I want to focus on the $600 for unemployment, the money for the $1,200, as well as the money for rental and mortgage to prevent mortgage foreclosure. The restaurant money, I want it for the independent pizza shops who hire people, for the workers who are going to be out of work, like airport workers or airline workers. The food insecurity, people are standing on line to get food. What don't my good friends understand? That people are desperate, and they are in need? I wish we were not discussing questions about white supremacy and whether or not someone believed it or not. I wish we would stay focused on getting this bill passed for the desperate people, no matter what backgrounds they are. I want to rise in enthusiastic support for this Heroes bill, H.R. 8406. Let's pass it now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the American people cannot take this anymore. And my good friend from Oklahoma, I know the compassion that he has. We have worked together, as well as my friends from Ohio and Arizona. But yesterday, I stood with the mayor of the city of Houston, and we announced a mental health hotline for people being impacted by COVID- 19. Yes, the stress of COVID-19 is taking a toll on the American people. They need relief. A very proud, brave parent got up to talk about how difficult it is to virtually teach her children while she works and how concerned she was. Why? Because the mandate comes from on high--the White House--that if you are not having your children in school in some form, meaning in the buildings, because that is the decision she was grappling with, then you don't get money. They have no money. They have no money to have expanded buildings or temporary buildings so that they can help parents who work have children safely in school. They have no money for testing. They have no money to be able to provide for sick employees from COVID-19. So I rise today to say: The American people cannot take it anymore. The stress is enormous. What we have done here is a very merciful response to the bill we already passed, that our friends, conflicted with each other and the White House, cannot seem to get a grip on. I support $225 billion for education and childcare, $436 billion in assistance to our State and local governments. I thank Mr. McGovern for making it clear. Those are our municipal workers. Those are police and fire, and we need it because who has gotten sick? Police officers, firefighters. And we need this money.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise because in the last day, I feel compelled to speak about healing the Nation. Through my years of service, I have been able to serve on a number of committees and alliances in my Congressional district, in my city, in my State, that brought people together. I was chairperson of the Interfaith Ministries. I participated in a campaign of No More Hate. I have interacted with Muslims and Jewish communities alike. Where the Nation is now is not where her values are. The Nation is not taking the attention that is being given by the world because of the rise of white supremacy--Boogaloo Boys, Proud Boys. The Nation needs a healer and a unifier. We, as the American people, are much better when we disagree and acknowledge our disagreement, but we are unified around the values of equality and justice in this Nation. Those of us who want to improve police community relationships are not antipolice and should not be seen as that. Black Lives Matter is not a terrorist group. In fact, the terrorist groups have been designated as white supremacists. Let us unify and come together around the truth. I am ready to do so to heal the Nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2468, the ``School-Based Allergies and Asthma Management Program Act,'' which would provide important guidance to schools on how to support students who have asthma. Across the United States nearly 25 million people have been diagnosed with asthma, including almost 7 million children. Childhood asthma is a common, chronic pediatric condition, affecting 6.3 million children. Morbidity from childhood asthma adversely affects school performance, with 1 in 2 children reporting school absences due to asthma each year. These asthma related absences influence academic achievement, leading to decreased levels of reading proficiency and increased risk of learning disabilities. Improving health and school-related outcomes for children with asthma requires the use of school-based partnerships that focus on integrated care coordination amongst families, clinicians, and school nurses. The best defense to asthma attacks is immediate treatment as soon as symptoms present themselves. Instead of contributing to the nearly 2 million asthma-related emergency room visits each year, this bill would provide schools with the necessary guidance on how to treat asthma attacks and support lung health of student while in school and at home. Improving health and school-related outcomes for children with asthma requires the use of school-based partnerships that focus on integrated care coordination amongst families, clinicians and school nurses. Every day in America 30,000 Americans have an asthma attack, and 11 are killed by them. The School-based Asthma Management Program as outlined by H.R. 2468, is supported by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. For asthma care, the School-based Asthma Management Program has four components to integrate schools, and specifically school nurses, within the asthma care team. First, the creation of a Circle of Support amongst the families, clinicians and schools' nurses are centered around the child with asthma. Second, the creation and transmission of Asthma Management Plans to schools, which includes an Asthma Emergency Treatment Plan for emergency management of asthma symptoms and an individualized Asthma Action Plan for each child with asthma. Third, the development of a comprehensive Asthma Education Plan for school personnel. Finally, a comprehensive Environmental Asthma Plan to assess and remediate asthma triggers at home and in school. This bill is supported by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) and the National Association of School Nurses (NASN). I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as the Founding Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and a senior member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2075, the ``School-Based Health Centers Reauthorization Act,'' which reauthorizes school-based health centers through Fiscal Year 2024 as well as make technical changes that allow more health centers, that serve medically underserved children and adolescents, to quality for funding. First and foremost, I would like to thank Representatives Sarbanes, Tonko, Stefanik, and Upton for their leadership on this key piece of legislation. In 2014, the authorization for school-based health centers lapsed. By passing H.R. 2075, Congress would rectify this issue and help deliver primary care, including dental screenings and mental health services, to millions of American students. These health centers are a powerful tool for achieving health equity among children and adolescents who unjustly experience disparities in outcomes because of their race and family income. Improved access to school-based health centers is tied to reducing negative health outcomes, such as asthma morbidity and the rate of hospital admissions as well as increasing positive outcomes like educational outcomes, school performance, and graduation rates. Across the United States, there are over 2,500 school-based health centers and approximately one-third of them are in rural areas, which traditionally suffer from limited access to care. The coronavirus pandemic has shed a light on the current disparities riddled throughout our health care system. As an increasing number of students go back to school, schools are on the front line in terms of managing the pandemic, and school-based health centers will be at the center of that response, making this reauthorization more essential than ever. We must utilize this opportunity to strengthen these programs with additional federal funding. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and pass this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor and senior member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5469, the ``Pursuing Equity in Mental Health Act of 2019,'' which addresses mental health issues for youth, particularly youth of color. According to Mental Health America, Black and African American teenagers are more likely to attempt suicide than White teenagers, and suicidal thoughts, plans, and attempts have been rising in recent years. Furthermore, in the United States, over seven million people who identify as Black or African American reported having a mental illness in the past year. This legislation will combat the issue of suicide and mental health in youth from all communities by focusing on a few key areas: support in schools, scientific research, and increase funding in existing programs. Specifically, the bill provides $250 million to schools across the country, so they can have more culturally and linguistically appropriate mental health services. The bill stipulates that priority will be given to schools with higher levels of poverty, to reducing the ratio of counselors to students and to helping more students of color. These grants will also provide training for teachers and other school staff, so they can better identify the signs of trauma, mental health disorders, and risk of suicide in all students. Additionally, H.R. 5469 provides $20 million to establish interprofessional health care teams that can provide behavioral health care. Madam Speaker, I am particularly supportive of this bill's efforts to develop cultural competency educational curricula so that students who are training to be social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and therapists will be able to properly treat youth of color. This is imperative as we look to improve support for mental health for future generations. Furthermore, the bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a Commission on the Effects of Smartphone and Social Media Usage on Adolescents as well as prohibits federal funds from being used for conversion therapy and prohibits SAMHSA grants from going to states that continue to allow such practices. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman for her leadership on this key piece of legislation. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and pass this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4439, the ``Creating Hope Reauthorization Act,'' which amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue priority review vouchers to encourage treatments for rare pediatric diseases. Under Section 529 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. By definition, rare diseases do not affect much of the population, so there is little financial gain for pharmaceutical companies. The U.S. government has created the Orphan Drug Act and the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher programs to add financial incentives for development of medicines, which is making the development of drugs for rare diseases more common. However, many of the drugs for rare diseases are approved for adults. Physicians sometimes have no choice but to prescribe offlabel use of such drugs for children. Drugs for rare diseases, whether approved for pediatric patients or being used off label, often come in formats that are inappropriate for children. Most young children have trouble swallowing tablets or capsules, and many children are sensitive to bitter-tasting drugs. Sometimes, however, such formats are all that is available, which can lead to difficulty in effectively treating young patients. This is why H.R. 4439, the ``Creating Hope Reauthorization Act'' is needed. Under this program reinstated by this bill, a sponsor who receives an approval for a drug or biologic for a ``rare pediatric disease'' may qualify for a voucher that can be redeemed to receive a priority review of a subsequent marketing application for a different product. Without the passage of this bill, according to the current statutory sunset provisions for the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program, after September 30, 2020, which means the FDA may only award a voucher for an approved rare pediatric disease product application if the sponsor has rare pediatric disease designation for the drug, and that designation was granted by September 30, 2020. Further, without this bill after September 30, 2022, FDA may not award any rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers. Enactment of this bill will mean that requests for rare pediatric disease designation submitted within two weeks of a request for fast track designation or orphan drug designation are entitled to a 60-day review. Requests for rare pediatric disease designation not submitted with a request for fast track designation or orphan drug designation are reviewed in a timely manner, however, the 60-day response time does not apply. It is important for us to act today, because Friday, July 31, 2020, is the last business day that is not less than 60 days prior to September 30, 2020. The Offices of Orphan Products Development and Pediatric. Therapeutics will continue to review all rare pediatric disease designation requests, but they cannot commit to providing a response to requests received after July 31, 2020. Pediatric rare diseases have received increased attention in recent years due to greater public awareness, significantly improved understanding and treatment. Rare diseases can be difficult to diagnose in children, and many physicians do not have the proper training and knowledge to diagnose such diseases. According to a 2014 Medscape Multispecialty article, the average patient with a rare disease sees 7.3 physicians before diagnosis, and 70 percent of physicians believe additional training in rare diseases would be helpful. A rare disease can spread and worsen during the lengthy time before diagnosis and the start of the proper treatment. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8247, the ``Veterans Comprehensive Prevention, Access to Care, and Treatment Act of 2020'', which makes numerous improvements relating to Department of Veterans Affairs services offered during the transition period for veterans, suicide prevention for veterans, in addition to care and services for women veterans. First and foremost, I want to thank all of our armed servicemen and women for their selfless dedication to our protection every day. This country owes you all a great debt for your sacrifice. It is no secret that the transition from active duty to civilian life poses numerous challenges and potential triggers to veterans. We have all heard the saying ``it takes a village''. Providing support to veterans who have mental illnesses is no different. That is why I appreciate this bill's hands-on approach to involve loved ones in providing care to veterans who are struggling with their mental health. For example, this bill creates a pilot program on information sharing of the assistance and benefits available to veterans between the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and designated loved ones. This legislation also stipulates that the VA to carry out an education program for family members and caregivers of veterans with mental health disorders. It is well known that outreach continues to be a major obstacle for VA prevention efforts. H.R. 8247 seeks to address this issue by requiring the VA to contact veterans by mail, telephone, or email to urge them to come in for a VA exam, so that they remain ``actively enrolled'' in the VA health care system. These continuous check-ins are also key to addressing the startling suicide rates among veterans. For instance, veterans are 1.5 times more likely to die by suicide than Americans who never served in the military. For female veterans, the risk factor is 2.2 times more likely to die by suicide. In 2017 alone, 6,100 veterans died by suicide. H.R. 8247 improves upon the status quo of care for veterans with regards to mental health by promoting coordination between the VA and the Suicide Prevention Coordinator at the nearest VA facility. This will help in determining if the individual in crisis is eligible for other VA benefits and make referrals for appropriate follow-on care. Madam Speaker, I also applaud the bill's designation of the VA as the primary payer. With this provision, we are not only removing the out-of-pocket costs for veterans with respect to emergent mental health, but we are also removing a barrier that prevents so many from seeking help. Veterans are truly heroes walking among us. Their sacrifices, and those of their families, allow civilians to enjoy the benefits of our freedom without a second thought. Without the brave efforts of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and Coast Guardsmen and women and their families, our country would not live so freely. I offer my deepest gratitude to our nation's troops and reservists, their families, and the 19.2 million veterans, including 28,227 in my own district. Nine in ten military families believe the public does not understand or appreciate their sacrifices. Today, Congress has the opportunity to show its appreciation for our military personnel by voting for H.R. 8247.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to answer the gentleman's question about ordinary Americans. These are ordinary Americans, some of whom, because of the climate change or the inequity in environmental injustice, have faced the wrong side of energy. I want them to face the good side. So not only does the bill establish a clean energy workforce development program to educate and train the next generation of clean energy researchers, scientists, and professionals, but it also protects domestic manufacturing by requiring that any project funded under the act to construct, alter, maintain, or repair a public building or public work only use iron, steel, and manufactured goods produced in the United States. Madam Speaker, this is a new start, but it brings old friends to the table. It brings Houston with the Greater Houston Partnership with a clean energy director who wants to move toward low carbon. It brings energy companies that I questioned during the BP spill that indicated to me they have a huge environmental section in their corporations. We can all work together. I am a strong supporter of the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act because it is going to bring jobs and re-envision America. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House Judiciary and Homeland Committees, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4447, the ``Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act,'' which makes long-overdue reforms to U.S. energy policy and authorizes major investments in the transition to a low-carbon future. This robust legislation promises to usher in a new era in American innovation, serving as a down-payment on comprehensive climate action. It includes: Programs to develop and deploy renewable and distributed energy resources; improve the efficiency of our homes and businesses; electrify our transportation sector; modernize the grid and enhance its resiliency; prioritize the needs of environmental justice communities; and reduce carbon pollution from industrial and traditional sources. Taken together, these measures provide a path towards modernizing our energy system while also taking an important forward in addressing the current the climate crisis in addition to growing our economy. Specifically, this bill supports the transition to a low-carbon economy by investing in clean energy, distributed energy resources, energy storage systems, and microgrid, all of which build resiliency and are crucial to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, H.R. 4447 sets new energy efficiency standards for buildings, which roughly count towards 30 percent of greenhouse gas pollution, and provides funding for schools, homes, municipal buildings, and manufacturing facilities to improve efficiency and deploy energy-efficient technologies. Reducing our carbon output is crucial in the fight against this current climate crisis, and we are in a crisis. With wildfires raging on the west coast and multiple ``500-year'' floods on the Gulf Coast every few years, there is no room for denials or protestations against the existence of climate change. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey devastated my district. Rainfall from the storm was calculated to be between 50 and 60 inches in some areas, causing roughly $125 billion in damage, displacing over 100,000 people, and leaving approximately 103 people dead. For years, climate scientists have warned that global warming is creating conditions that allow these storms to become more powerful, and perhaps even more frequent. According to the 2014 Climate Assessment, produced by the federal government, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has increased due to human-caused warming, causing extra moisture to be available to storm systems and resulting in heavier rainfalls. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have been a staunch advocate for innovation and increased funding for research and development, and I am proud that this bill prioritizes this too. H.R. 4447 authorizes over $4 billion for research, development demonstration, and commercial application to advance cutting-edge renewable energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, and waterpower. It also drives investment in clean energy innovation by increasing funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, including a path to double its funding by fiscal year 2025. Madam Speaker, it is no secret that climate change disproportionately impacts low-income, communities of color. H.R. 4447 prioritizes clean energy projects located in low-income and marginalized communities and advances the development of technologies and practices that expand access to clean energy, including $25 million for grants to deploy energy storage and microgrids in rural communities and $1 billion for solar installations in low-income communities. In addition, the bill restores private rights of action against recipients of federal funding based on discriminatory disparate impacts. I have seen first-hand the reality of environmental injustice in my own district. The Fifth Ward and the northeast neighborhoods in Houston, Texas, are predominantly comprised of African American residents. They are some of the oldest and poorest communities in Houston. The median income in the area is $26,644, compared to $49,399 for all of Houston. About 35 percent of families here live in poverty, more than double Harris County's 14 percent poverty rate, according to the Census. It is also the location of a cancer cluster due to creosote contamination from the neighboring railroad yard. For decades, a railroad company operated a wood treatment facility, dipping railroad ties in the preservative creosote, a cancer-causing chemical listed as a hazardous substance by the Environmental Protection Agency. The creosote emitted fumes, leached into the soil and ran through ditches when it rained or flooded. At my urging, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), conducted a major study on the incidences of cancer clusters in the Houston and found that ``the numbers of esophagus, lung and bronchus and larynx cancers were statistically significantly greater than is expected based on cancer rates in Texas [writ large].'' This is not a unique occurrence. The prevalence of cancer clusters and other health disparities in low-income, communities of color happens far too often across the nation. This clean energy bill can help many neighborhoods like these. The Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act also includes provisions to improve workforce development and provide labor protections. Not only does the bill establish a clean energy workforce development program to educate and train the next generation of clean energy researchers, scientists, and professionals, but it also protects domestic manufacturing by requiring that any project funded under the Act to construct, alter, maintain, or repair a public building or public work only use iron, steel, and manufactured goods produced in the United States. As we seek to rebuild our economy from the devastation of the coronavirus pandemic, we must look to invest in sectors of the economy that are ripe for growth. Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, clean energy was one of the biggest and fastest-growing employers across the country. In 2019, clean energy's share of the entire energy workforce was 40 percent. In fact, Texas boasted the second-highest number of clean energy jobs with over 233,000 clean energy workers. Furthermore, Texas served as the nation's largest contributor of wind-generated jobs in the nation, with over 25,000 Texas working on wind energy and an additional 192,000 jobs in energy efficient heating and cooling systems, solar power, and electric vehicles. Madam Speaker, investing in clean energy and properly training the workforce for this new economic sector is the key to creating more high-paying jobs in the United States. According to the Brookings Institute, jobs in green energy sectors often pay better. Even for hourly workers in jobs like electricians and carpenters, which require a lower threshold of formal education, around 50 percent of workers have completed only high school or less, and yet they earn higher wages than their counterparts in other industries. I applaud the forethought of this bill and appreciate its dual focus of addressing the factors that contribute to the current climate crisis as well as seizing the economic opportunities that this challenge presents. I urge my colleagues from both parties to join me in voting to pass H.R. 4447.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, you know the ordinary people that this legislation helps in my district are young African-American men unemployed, young African-American women unemployed, LatinX men and women, young African-American men, young LatinX men and women, and as well high school graduates and beyond. That is the ordinary Americans in H.R. 4447, the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act. So I thank Mr. Pallone and Ms. Johnson for their leadership. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, the journey that I have taken. I have been an energy lawyer. I have worked in the arena where we have had fossil fuel. But do you know what, Madam Speaker? The Greater Houston Partnership, our chamber, has just designated a clean energy director to work on low carbon in our community. The transition to a low-carbon society by investing in clean energy this bill provides, distributing energy resources, an energy storage system, and a microgrid, all of which builds resiliency and are crucial to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I introduced legislation dealing with wetlands to be able to ensure that the wetlands would be recaptured when they are being utilized for energy production, and we use that for the environment and for jobs. But here we have a response to the issue of low carbon. My district was devastated by Hurricane Harvey. That is climate change. So it is important to recognize that climate change disproportionately impacts low-income communities of color. H.R. 4447 prioritizes clean energy projects located in low-income, marginalized communities. My constituents are waiting in line for these jobs. It advances the development of technologies and practices that expand access to clean energy. I represent a community where contamination by creosote came, and Superfund, trying to clean that up. In the meantime, people are suffering from cancer clusters. So when we talk about cleaning the environment and creating jobs, we are long overdue for the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of H.R. 8337, a bill that provides funding to continue the operations of the federal government through December 11, 2020, and avoids a wasteful and irresponsible shutdown, and also the underlying bill. The House, led by the Democratic majority, did its job, passing 10 of the 12 appropriations bills earlier this year but Senate Republicans failed to hold a single markup of appropriations bills, making it necessary to pass this Continuing Resolution to avert a shutdown that would only further damage our economy. Throughout the 116th Congress, House Democrats have worked to deliver results for the American people, passing legislation to address each pillar of the ``For The People'' agenda: lower health care costs, higher wages by rebuilding America, and cleaning up corruption and strengthening our Democracy. And over the past two years, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House has passed nearly 600 bills, including legislation to lower health care and prescription drug prices, raise wages, advance economic and retirement security, end gun violence, act on the climate crisis, protect Dreamers, and strengthen voting rights. For example, in this Congress the House has passed and sent to the Senate the following major legislative bills: H.R. 1, For The People Act; H.R. 2, Moving Forward Act; H.R. 3, The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act; H.R. 4, Voting Rights Advancement Act H.R. 5, Equality Act; H.R. 6, The American Dream & Promise Act; H.R. 7, Paycheck Fairness Act; H.R. 8, Bipartisan Background Checks Act; H.R. 9, Climate Action Now Act; H.R. 582, Raise the Wage Act; H.R. 1425, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act; H.R. 1585, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; and H.R. 7120, George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. These along with many, many others are among the 340 bills sitting on Majority Leader McConnell's desk awaiting Senate action. Madam Speaker, in truth the Republican-controlled Senate has been missing in action for much of the 116th Congress. Whether it the urgent need to fortify our election systems from confirmed foreign interference, notably from Vladimir Putin's Russia, or lower prescription drugs prices and expanding and protecting the right of all Americans to affordable, accessible, high quality health care, fixing our broken immigration system, or holding a wayward Executive to account, has failed American people in its basic duty to promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense. Nowhere is this more apparent than its failure to take up and vote on the HEROES Act passed by the House in May of this year to address the devastating budgetary and fiscal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic which the President exacerbated by his incompetent response to the crisis. The numbers are heartbreaking. As of September 21, 2020, the number of lives lost to COVID-19 has passed another grim milestone and now exceeds 200,000. As of September 20, 2020, there were 6,812,470 cases of COVID-19, which along with the number of lives lost leads the world. When President Obama left office on January 20, 2017, unemployment was at 4.7 percent; today, due to the mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic by President Trump and Republicans, unemployment is nearly double at 8.4 percent. When Trump took office in January 2017, there were 241,000 initial unemployment insurance (UI) claims for the week ending January 28, 2017 and at the beginning of the 116th Congress in January 2019: there were 236,000 initial UI claims. Today, due to the mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic by President Trump and Republicans, there were 860,000 initial UI claims for the week ending September 12, 2020. Approximately 30 million Americans have lost the job they had just months ago because of this Administration's ineptitude and cavalier regard for the well-being of the American people. Madam Speaker, during President Obama's last full year in office in 2016, the deficit was $585 billion but under the mismanagement of the current Administration, we have seen the deficit balloon nearly seven- fold to $3.3 trillion. Continuing this Administration's unbroken chain of woe, in 2019, after repeated attempts by Republicans to undermine and sabotage the Affordable Care Act, there were 33.2 million uninsured Americans, 5 million more than when President Obama left office. It has been estimated by reputable experts that from February 2020 through May 2020 alone, an estimated 5.4 million Americans became uninsured because of unprecedented job loss caused by the Republican mismanagement of this pandemic. Given the wreckage to the economy and the damage to the lives and livelihoods of the American people, it is unconscionable that this Administration is pursuing a lawsuit to strike down the Affordable Care Act, which would take health care coverage away from 20 million Americans and take away protections for 132 million persons who have pre-existing conditions. Madam Speaker, this country desperately needs and wants change. While I believe that November 3, will herald that the change we need is coming, we must keep our ship of state afloat before we can right the course. That is why I reluctantly support the Continuing Resolution that will be before us. Madam Speaker, let me briefly list several of the programs vital to Americans that are protected or extended by H.R. 8337. Section 103. Same Terms and Conditions for Continuing Appropriations as FY 2020. Section 103 states that appropriations are under the same terms and conditions, including relevant authorities and prohibitions, as the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills. Section 106. End Date of CR. Section 106 provides that the CR ends at the earlier of the enactment of a full-year appropriations bill or December 11, 2020. Section 112. Restrictions on Furloughs or Termination of Employees. Section 112 restricts furloughs or termination of employees due to lack of funds during the duration of a CR. Section 113. Waiver Language for Intelligence Programs. Section 113 provides waiver language for certain intelligence programs as well as agencies that operate under the State Department Basic Authorities Act and Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Section 117. Summer EBT. Section 117 allows the Food and Nutrition Service to spend at a higher rate during the CR to ensure the Summer EBT program is fully operational by May 2021. Section 118. Commodity Supplemental Food Program. Section 118 allows the Food and Nutrition Service to spend at a higher rate during the CR to provide supplemental USDA foods to low- income seniors (age 60 and over) and to some low-income women, infants and children up to age six. Section 124. Census Bureau Funding. Section 124 specifies the rate of funding during the period of the continuing resolution for the Census Bureau's Periodic Censuses and Programs account and the 2020 Decennial Census Program. Section 129. Extension for District of Columbia Voucher School Accreditation. Section 129 allows District of Columbia voucher schools an additional year to be accredited and therefore remain in the program. The accrediting process requires in-school visits, which are not happening during the coronavirus. Section 130. District of Columbia Local Funds Section 130 allows the District of Columbia to spend FY 2021 funds received from local tax revenues and other non-Federal sources in the amount and for the programs and activities provided in DC's FY 2021 Budget Act. Section 131. Additional Funding for Presidential Inauguration Activities Section 131 provides additional funding to the District of Columbia for activities related to the Presidential Inauguration. Section 132. Increased Flexibility to Process Certain SBA Loans. Section 132 allows the Small Business Administration flexibility to spend at the rate necessary to accommodate potential demand increases for commitments for 7(a) business loans and for the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program. Section 133. Increased Flexibility to Process SBA Disaster Loans. Section 133 allows a higher spending rate for the Small Business Administration to continue to process and service new and existing disaster loans, particularly given the increased demand. Section 134. Additional Funding for Presidential Transition Office Space. Section 134 provides funding for Presidential transition services including the provision of office space suitable for staff to support the ingoing and outgoing administrations. Section 139. Extension of Certain Bankruptcy Judgeships. Section 139 extends the term of certain bankruptcy judgeships. Section 140. Extension of Authority to Provide Paid Leave. Section 140 extends the authority to allow reimbursement to qualifying contractors for the costs of providing paid leave to employees during the pandemic. Section 145. Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). Section 145 allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency to access the entire DRF appropriation for fiscal year 2021 under the continuing resolution as necessary to respond to declared disasters. Section 146. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Section 146 continues the authorization for the NFIP through September 30, 2021. Section 149. Maintaining Funding for the TANF and Child Care Entitlement to States Programs. Section 149 extends funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the Child Care Entitlement to States program during the period of the continuing resolution. The extension will allow HHS to make first-quarter payments to States. Section 152. Extending Availability of Funding for NIH multiyear research grants. Section 152 extends the availability of funding for multiyear research grants supported by the National Institutes of Health that were interrupted in fiscal year 2020 by COVID-19 and would have expired at the end of the fiscal year. Section 161. Technical Correction on Veterans Benefits. Section 161 provides a technical correction to the Fiscal Year 2021 advance appropriation provided in division F of Public Law 116-94 for the Department of Veterans Affairs Compensation and Pensions account, to ensure that funds for veterans' benefits may remain available until expended. Section 162. Increasing Veterans Electronic Health Record Modernization Funding. Section 162 increases the funding available to the Veterans Electronic Health Record Modernization during the period of the continuing resolution to successfully deploy the health record system at planned sites during the first fiscal quarter. Section 163. Providing Funding for the Veterans Canteen Service. Section 163 allows a transfer of funds from the CARES Act to maintain the operations of the Veterans Canteen Service. Section 169. National Infrastructure Investments (BUILD). Section 169 assists state, local, and tribal governments and other applicants who were awarded BUILD grants in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, Section 169 provides increased flexibilities by extending obligation deadlines. Section 172. Housing for the Elderly. Section 172 allows HUD to obligate funding under the CR formula for Housing for the Elderly programs at a rate for operations necessary to maintain project rental assistance for the elderly and to continue the Integrated Wellness in Supportive Housing (IWISH) demonstration program. Section 2101. Community Health Centers, National Health Service Corps, and Teaching health centers that operate graduate medical education. Section 2101 extends funding for Community Health Centers, National Health Service Corps, and the Teaching Health Centers Graduate Medical Education Program through December 11, 2020. Section 2102. Diabetes programs. Section 2102 extends funding for the Special Diabetes Program and the Special Diabetes Program for Indians through December 11, 2020. Section 2203. Extension of funding outreach and assistance for low- income programs. Section 2203 extends funding through December 11, 2020 for low-income Medicare beneficiary outreach, enrollment, and education activities provided through State Health Insurance Assistance Programs, Area Agencies on Aging, Aging and Disability Resource Centers, and the National Center for Benefits and Outreach and Enrollment. Section 2302. Extension of spousal impoverishment protections. Section 2302 extends protections against impoverishment for the spouses of individuals receiving home- and community-based services (HCBS) through December 11, 2020. Section 2303. Delay of DSH reductions. Section 2303 delays implementation of the allotment reductions for Medicaid disproportionate share hospitals through December 11, 2020. Section 2304. Extension of Community Mental Health Services Demonstration Program. Section 2304 extends the authorization for the certified community behavioral health clinics demonstration through December 11, 2020. Finally, Division B of the bill contains provisions in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, including a one-year extension for surface transportation programs at fiscal year 2020 levels and provisions shoring up the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, and the Congressional Black Caucus, and as a cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5309, the ``Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2019'' or the ``CROWN Act of 2019,'' introduced by Congressman Richmond, which explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin in areas of the law where discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is already prohibited. It has long been my position that discrimination based on hair texture and hairstyle is a form of impermissible race discrimination. According to a 2019 report, known as the CROWN Study, which was conducted by the JOY Collective (CROWN Act Coalition, Dove/Unilever, National Urban League, Color of Change), Black people are ``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them out for their natural hair styles--referring to the texture of hair that is not permed, dyed, relaxed, or chemically altered.'' The CROWN Study found that Black women's hair is ``more policed in the workplace, thereby contributing to a climate of group control in the company culture and perceived professional barriers'' compared to non-Black women. The study also found that ``Black women are more likely to have received formal grooming policies in the workplace, and to believe that there is a dissonance from her hair and other race's hair'' and that ``Black women's hairstyles were consistently rated lower or `less ready' for job performance.'' Among the study's other findings are that 80 percent of Black women believed that they had to change their hair from its natural state to ``fit in at the office,'' that they were 83 percent more likely to be judged harshly because of their looks. The study indicated that Black women were 1.5 times more likely to I be sent home from the workplace because of their hair, and that they were 3.4 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional compared to non-African-American women. Three years ago, the United States Army removed a grooming I regulation prohibiting women servicemembers from wearing their hair in dreadlocks, a regulation that had a disproportionately adverse impact on Black women. This decision was the result of a 2014 order by then-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to review the military's policies regarding hairstyles popular with African-American women after complaints from members of Congress, myself included, that the policies unfairly targeted black women. In 2015, the Marine Corps followed suit and issued regulations to permit lock and twist hairstyles. The CROWN Study illustrates the prevalence of hair discrimination but numerous stories across the country put names and faces to the people behind those numbers. In 2017, a Banana Republic employee was told by a manager that she was violating the company's dress code because her box braids were too ``urban'' and ``unkempt.'' A year later, in 2018, Andrew Johnson, a New Jersey high school student, was forced by a white referee to either have his dreadlocks cut or forfeit a wrestling match, leading him to have his hair cut in public by an athletic trainer immediately before the match. That same year, an 11-year-old Black girl in Louisiana was asked to leave class at a private Roman Catholic school near New Orleans because her braided hair extensions violated the school's policies. The next year, two African-American men in Texas alleged being denied employment by Six Flags because of their hairstyles--one had long braids and the other had dreadlocks. And earlier this year, there were news reports of a Texas student who would not be allowed to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were too long. The CROWN Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs and activities based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle if it is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin, including ``a hairstyle in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros.'' The legislation also provides that the prohibition will be enforced as if it was incorporated into Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in federally-funded programs, and that violations of Section 3(a) will be treated as if they were violations of Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mr. Speaker, allow me to give another example of why this legislation is necessary and why I support it so strongly. In July of this year, Barbers Hill Independent School District, just east of my home city of Houston, Texas school district reaffirmed its discriminatory grooming policy that led to the suspension of two Black students earlier this year. The students--cousins Kaden Bradford and De'Andre Arnold--wear their hair in long dreadlocks. But the school district forbids male students from keeping their hair at a length ``below the top of a t-shirt collar, below the eyebrows, or below the ear lobes.'' De'Andre Arnold had complied with the dress code throughout high school by keeping his hair up. But in 2019 the school board made the code more stringent, requiring that students' hair meet the district's length requirement even if not worn let down, which meant that De'Andre Arnold would have been required to cut his dreadlocks and in the process, destroy them, all in contravention of West Indian cultural traditions that specifically prohibit cutting or trimming locs. De'Andre Arnold, a senior who had been in the school district since pre-kindergarten, was told by school officials that he would not be able to go to the senior prom or walk in his high school graduation until he cut his dreadlocks. Mr. Speaker, Black students are and have been disproportionately targeted and penalized for violating facially race-neutral grooming policies that are designed to, and have the effect of, profiling, singling out, and burdening Black children for wearing their hair in its natural state. Students like De'Andre Arnold should not be faced with the impossible choice of either suppressing their cultural heritage and Black identity by cutting their natural hair or forfeiting their right to equal educational and extracurricular opportunities. The CROWN Act says to students like De'Andre Arnold and others similarly situated that the Congress of the United States hears him, sees him, and affirms his beauty and dignity and pride in his culture. I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support H.R. 8337, because we did our job to keep the government open, but it is important for my constituents to know that we have supported the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program because of food insecurity. We are keeping the Census Bureau funding. I just got through working with my constituents: Do your census. Do your census. In addition, we got flexibility for SBA loans for our small businesses, and, of course, the SBA disaster loans because of flooding in my district right now. This is what we are supposed to do. The flood insurance, we finally saved that. We know we need it. Aid to children, we need that as well. And, of course, housing for the elderly; and our community health centers are desperate in the midst of COVID-19. Just a few hours ago, I went to visit the 20,000 flags evidencing 200,000 dead. I stood there. It was overwhelming. The power of our failures in this administration of not doing a job, not testing, not telling people to wear their masks, not socially distancing: 200,000 Americans are dead. Pass the HEROES Act now. Pass it now. Wear your masks to make a difference in the lives of Americans. We must do our job. I support the CR to keep the government alive.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, and the Congressional Black Caucus, and as a cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5053, the ``Justice for Juveniles Act,'' introduced by Congresswoman Scanlon which I am proud to cosponsor. I want to thank Chairman Nadler for his tremendous leadership during this Congress and the past several months of hardship, stress, and disruption not only of the regular normalized operations of this Committee but of the Congress and more importantly, the lives of the American people. It has been said of Americans that we do the difficult immediately, and the impossible takes a little longer. The legislative session today is a testament to the determination of this Committee that despite the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the life of over 200,000 Americans, that legislation to improve the lives of the people we represent and the communities we serve will not be halted. The problems facing ordinary Americans due to flaws and inequities in the criminal justice system, the immigration system, the health care system, the economy, the trademark system and others do not take a time-out because of the pandemic and neither does this Congress, and for that I commend Speaker Pelosi, the House Democratic leadership, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The bipartisan H.R. 5053, the Justice for Juveniles Act protects young people from abuse in institutions by exempting them from the administrative grievance provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) by enabling them to file a lawsuit concerning physical injury, sexual assault or mental abuse without first having to file an administrative grievance. The proposed legislation is supported by a bipartisan coalition of groups including cut5o, Campaign for Youth Justice, Juvenile Law Center, National Legal Aid & Defender Association, and R Street Institute. The administrative grievance procedure, established by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), requires inmates at federal, state, and local facilities to file administrative complaints through the prison in which they are detained. Under the Justice For Juveniles Act, youth could initiate legal action to address prison conditions without first filing administrative complaints. The PLRA was designed to address the problem of the large numbers of pro se prisoner lawsuits that were being filed and inundating the federal courts. Before the enactment of the PLRA, the overwhelming majority of prisoner cases were civil rights cases filed by state prisoners in federal district courts and were filed prose. The vast majority of the pre-PLRA pro se cases were filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; incarcerated juveniles filed very few lawsuits. Generally, to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must show that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Pursuant to the changes brought on by the PLRA, before an incarcerated individual can file a lawsuit, he or she must take the complaint through all levels of a correctional facility's grievance system. If a person fails to comply with these requirements, including missing a filing deadline that can be as short as a few days, he or she may no longer be able to bring a lawsuit. This administrative remedy requirement is a high burden for a juvenile to meet, as it requires a sophisticated understanding of how to navigate technical procedures. Held to an adult standard, minors are unduly prevented from litigating their abuses and thus deprived of a critical tool for improving their conditions of incarceration. Moreover, the problem is made worse because grievance procedures tend to rely on written communication and juveniles in the justice system typically have serious education deficits. Cases from around the country make clear that juveniles facing serious harm are deprived of legal protections because of the PLRA exhaustion requirements. For example, in Hunter v. Corr. Corp., a 17-year-old was sexually assaulted in an adult facility but the case was dismissed because the court ruled he should have exhausted his administrative remedies first. In another case, from Kentucky, a juvenile filed a lawsuit alleging that staff had hit him, shocked him with a stun gun, and then led him down the hall by his testicles to an isolation cell. Although the juvenile's lawyer had discussed the incident with the jail administrator, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Police, and the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice, the court ruled that this did not satisfy the PLRA and the suit was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Mr. Speaker, exempting youth from administrative grievances acknowledges that children do not know how to protect themselves from practices or conduct that is unconstitutional. The Justice For Children Act makes it easier for juveniles who are physically assaulted or abused to seek immediate redress in federal court. In addition, simplifying the legal process and making it more readily available to these juveniles is also in keeping with the Supreme Court's conclusions regarding the developmental needs of adolescents. I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1321) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1321, the Defending the Integrity of Voting Systems Act. We are on the verge of a significant, historic, and, really, life-or- death Presidential Federal election. This is an important legislative initiative. This important and timely legislation would strengthen Federal criminal laws related to interference with voting systems used in a Federal election. All of us want a fair and just election system. Voting is an essential part of our democracy. We must ensure that our citizens have confidence in our electoral systems. As we know too well from the last Presidential election and from evidence that we continue to learn, our adversaries, Russians and others, are conducting cyber operations to interfere with our elections. We are well aware of the Russian bots that interfered with the elections in 2016. We need to do all that we can to protect voting machines and the related infrastructure as we head to November. The integrity and legitimacy of our elections is at stake. That is why this bill was developed: to ensure that our law concerning the unauthorized accessing of computer systems can also be used to prosecute those who hack into computer voting systems. Led by Senator Blumenthal and by our former colleague Mr. Ratcliffe in the House, this bipartisan legislation responds to a concerning report by the Justice Department's Cyber-Digital Task Force in 2018. The report concluded that current law is inadequate, given all the potential threats to our Nation's election security and voting systems. Specifically, the report identified a gap in current Federal criminal law relating to hacking of voting machines, especially when the machines are offline. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a key tool for the prosecution of computer crimes and the protection of property rights and computers, but the law is generally limited to certain devices connected to the internet. However, researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that ballot recording machines and other voting systems are susceptible to tampering based on physical or close access. In order to reduce the risk of attack, more jurisdictions are adopting important and recommended measures to keep these voting systems off the internet. Therefore, S. 1321, this Senate bill, would expand the definition of the term ``protected computer'' under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to include computers, even if offline, that are a part of any voting system used in a Federal election. It is so crucial that the American people know that we have taken this action today to protect them and to ensure the sanctity of the process of voting and democracy. By expanding the definition of computers that are protected under current law, we will enhance the ability of law enforcement and prosecutors to bring appropriate charges in instances in which computer voting systems are hacked. The Senate passed this legislation with unanimous support, and it is now our turn to join our colleagues to adopt this important bill so that it may become law as quickly as possible. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues today to join me in this bipartisan, crucial legislation which upholds democracy and assures the sanctity of one vote, one person. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 1380, the Due Process Protection Act, introduced by Senators Dan Sullivan and Dick Durbin and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate this past May, is a narrowly tailored, bipartisan bill that would reinforce the government's already existing constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence. Sometimes, of course, that evidence can be the difference between innocence and conviction and fairness to both the government and the defendant. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires that prosecutors disclose to the accused all favorable evidence that is material. Unfortunately, at this time, there are inadequate safeguards in Federal law to ensure that this practice is followed across the country. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, from 1989 to 2017, prosecutors concealed exculpatory evidence at trial in half of all murder exonerations. Although this statistic includes State prosecutions, we know that exculpatory evidence is concealed in Federal cases as well. Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in criminal justice reform for a very long time, and I have seen the damage that not exposing or disclosing exculpatory evidence can do and how it is an imbalance as it relates to defendants who happen to be Brown or Black. That is unfair, and I know the America that I have come to know and love understands that justice should be equal for all. Again, one prominent example of the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence was in the 2008 trial of then-Senator Ted Stevens. When it was later revealed that the Justice Department had committed misconduct by failing to turn over exculpatory evidence, the judge in that case concluded that he could not sanction the prosecutors because he had not issued a direct written court order requiring them to abide by their ethical and constitutional obligations to disclose favorable evidence. Many of us who knew that case, who knew Senator Stevens, knew, of course, that he had experienced an injustice. Following the Stevens case, in June 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the case was tried, amended its local rules to require prosecutors to comply with their disclosure obligations. Other Federal districts had already and have since issued specific local rules or standing orders that govern these obligations. A 2011 survey by the Federal Judicial Center indicated that 38 of the 94 Federal districts had a local rule or standing order confirming the government's obligation to disclose exculpatory and/or questioning the credibility of witnesses, which is known as impeachment, material. To address this issue, the Due Process Protections Act would do three things, three very vital things to the scales of justice: One, amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require that a judge issue an order to prosecution and defense counsel that confirms the disclosure obligation of the prosecutors in every criminal case; Two, require each judicial council in which a district court is located to issue a model order that its courts can use at their discretion; and, Three, leave it to the courts in each district to detail the parameters of their order. Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to meet with our Federal judges in our jurisdiction over the years, and I know that our discussions always fall on how we can enhance justice and be fair to all parties in the courthouse. Criminal justice winds up with the defendant, if convicted, to lose their due process rights. Clearly, this is an important and significant legislation that protects all parties, but particularly when someone is subject to losing their due process rights or their freedom. And so I support this legislation because, significantly, the bill would not impose any new requirements on prosecutors. It would simply require them to follow the Constitution or risk being sanctioned by the court. It is a breath of fresh air to see the Constitution being raised over and over again for the good aspects of what American democracy is all about. The pillars upon which it is built are clearly that of justice and equality and fairness in our judicial system. Accordingly, this is a straightforward and bipartisan measure that would help our criminal justice system operate in a more effective and fair manner. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I certainly want to thank all of the sponsors of this bill, and I thank Mr. Schneider for all of the important work that has been done on this legislation. With the consideration of H.R. 5602, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, the House takes affirmative steps in this time to address the rising menace of domestic terrorism and white supremacy. This bill creates three offices, one each within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to monitor, investigate, and prosecute cases of domestic terrorism. These newly created offices would focus their resources based on data collected on the most significant threats with specific emphasis on white supremacist terrorism. Additionally, pursuant to this bill, DOJ and DHS would issue joint biennial reports to Congress assessing the state of domestic terrorism threats. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is not based on a whim. It is not based on someone's taste or distaste; likes or dislikes. This is based on facts. And as we continue to view the modeling of domestic terrorism, we will begin to continue to respond to it legislatively. But now we have a solid base of information dealing with the issues of growing white supremacy. The creation of these offices and congressional reporting are much- needed measures to refocus the Federal Government's domestic terrorism efforts on the greatest threat to the American people: white supremacy and white nationalism. In April of last year, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: ``Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism.'' Sadly, since then there have been countless domestic terrorism attacks. The shooting spree at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, in August of 2019 was the deadliest attack in modern times against the Latino community in the United States and the third deadliest act of violence by domestic terrorism extremists in more than 50 years. I joined my colleagues who represented that area, and the pain that they experienced was without comparison. I went to a funeral. I went to the memorial. I went to where the place was that had been set up as a temporary place of honor. The pain was unceasing in that community. And just a few months ago, they had to commemorate the bitterness of 1 year. I also went to the hospital and visited individuals who had put themselves in the line of fire to protect others. I think since that time one person, in particular, has passed away. This was a painful experience, and I can imagine that it will be painful for a very long time. In the last decade, places of worship, a Sikh temple in Milwaukee, the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, Mother Emanuel, where the victims who remained alive actually forgave the perpetrator who came and sat down and prayed; sat among people who were praying, who welcomed him. They lost a distinguished pastor and people who were so kind. People could not understand why they lost their lives. Thousands came to the memorial, and, of course, our President at that time, President Obama. That is how painful it was for this Nation. Then, of course, Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue. I visited Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and met individuals who had been impacted by this horrific tragedy. In the midst of Rosh Hashanah, to our friends who are in the midst of their holiday, it is more than fitting that we acknowledge how domestic terrorism can divide so many communities, so many innocent communities, whether they happen to be of a particular faith, a particular ethnicity, or a particular status. We have seen all of this become tragic symbols of deadly threats a white supremacist poses even to the faith community. Just last Thursday in a committee that I participated in, FBI Director Christopher Wray--the Homeland Security Committee--once again stated that white supremacists constitute the largest portion of racially motivated violent extremists. In the same vein, before the House Homeland Security Committee, Director Wray testified that antigovernment and antiauthority groups have been responsible for the most lethal attacks this year. We know that. So we want to be sure that we are protecting the American people. None of us adhere to extremism or violence. We understand peaceful protests, but we stand for the principles of democracy of this Nation that has kept us a democracy for all of these many years. Just a few weeks ago our Nation was reminded how dangerous violent extremism can be. A rightwing militia boasting 3,000 members promoted an event on Facebook calling for patriots willing to take up arms and travel to Kenosha, Wisconsin, to confront protesters. Tragically, hours later, a 17-year-old youth heeded the call, traveled across State lines, and is alleged to have murdered two protesters and injured a third. He has yet to be brought to justice because he is still waiting on an extradition procedure. Yet, local police allowed this young man to safely pass through their lines and go home, despite the fact that bystanders had identified him as the shooter. That was one incident. We have seen law enforcement take up the issues of protecting our neighbors across the Nation and in those instances, of course, we recognize good policing and we thank them for it. The tragic events in Kenosha are yet another example of how rightwing militia groups continue to pose a present threat. Indeed, over the last decade, rightwing extremists have been responsible for 76 percent of all domestic extremist-related murders. The time for Congress to act is now. The key elements of the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act seek to address fundamental deficiencies highlighted at the April 2019 Judiciary Committee hearing in the Federal Government's response to domestic terrorism and specifically white supremacy. Let me be very clear. We want a comprehensive response to terrorism. We want to rely upon our intelligence communities as it relates to international terrorism. We have done so because I have been on the Homeland Security Committee for a very long time and, as well, have seen the work of the Judiciary Committee. But we must be comprehensive in looking at terrorism; we must be responsive; and we must secure and make sure the American people are safe. Currently, the Federal Government has a number of statutory authorities to bring charges against domestic terrorists, including those who are white supremacists. Yet, it is clear that the Department of Justice has not initiated a sufficient number of these prosecutions. H.R. 5602 creates offices within the DOJ and DHS aimed at pooling the resources from all parts of each respective Department to focus them on the greatest threat of white supremacy. The reporting elements of this bill aim to keep Congress better informed of the domestic terrorism threats presented so that Congress can more readily assess what resources and authorities are necessary to protect the country against domestic terrorist activities. I am well aware of the work that was done in the last administration of trying to neutralize the idea of radicalizing individuals who were dealing with ISIS, al-Qaida, and others. Unfortunately, even that has been taken away from the work that we have been doing. This may be a time that that work begins to rise up as it relates to white supremacy and white nationalism. This legislation is a necessary and measured response to the real threats this country faces. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a long time in coming. And I extend a general thank you for all of the legislative bills on the Committee of the Judiciary that have come before us today, and the staff, and the excellent work they have done. And let me particularly thank the Subcommittee on Crime for the great work they have done on this legislation, strengthening the opposition to Female Genital Mutilation Act, or STOP FGM Act, to amend current law to ensure that the horrific practice of female genital mutilation is Federally prohibited consistent with constitutional restraints. Let me indicate that we have been asked to engage. It is always good to know that the Congress can do things to fix a skewed system that harms individuals every single day, and in this instance, it is many young people. Mr. Speaker, the bill would ensure that it is a Federal crime to knowingly: One, perform, attempt to perform, or conspire to perform female genital mutilation or FGM on a minor; Two, while being a parent, guardian, or caretaker of a minor, facilitate or consent to the female genital mutilation of the minor; or Three, transport a minor for the purpose of the performance of female genital mutilation on the minor. The bill would also increase the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for a violation of the statute from 5 years to 10 years, though these are not mandatory minimums. The bill is necessary because a district court in Michigan recently dismissed the first Federal prosecution under the existing FGM statute, finding that the acts prohibited did not have a significant nexus to interstate commerce. We had to engage in fixing this issue. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6100 addresses this issue by explicitly requiring that one or more of the following circumstances must exist. The defendant or victim's travel in interstate or foreign commerce, the defendant's use of a means of interstate or foreign commerce, payment of any kind made using any means, channel, facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, and the defendant's use of a means of communication affecting interstate or foreign commerce. We are therefore confident that this updated prohibition will pass constitutional muster and it is critical that we take these steps to update this statute. Mr. Speaker, the one thing I will say is, we cannot let what is a technical, legal act by the court to continue to provide no protection for young, innocent victims. In the United States, approximately 500,000 women and girls were at risk for FGM or its consequences, and more than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk for FGM annually, worldwide. The U.S. Government has acknowledged the international implications of FGM. For instance, in 2018 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiated Operation Limelight USA, an outreach program designed by ICE's Homeland Security Investigations Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Unit, and I thank them for their work to educate travelers on the dangers and consequences of FGM. Yes, it is being done here in the United States, in pockets around the Nation, where these women are mutilated for life. These girls, at a very young age, are mutilated for life in the United States, where we have been discussing on this floor your due process, the sanctity of your own body, your privacy rights under the Ninth Amendment. In addition, both the FBI and the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice work domestically to prosecute and investigate cases involving FGM. We want to give them the tools that they can use to get it right. Federal law enforcement agencies acknowledge that FGM is a global issue and they work with international partners to eliminate this horrific practice. FGM, therefore, is considered to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce because, although illegal, there is an established interstate and international market for the practice. I include in the Record an article about female genital mutilation. [From CNN Health, May 11, 2017] 3 US Women Share the Horrors of Female Genital Mutilation (By Sonia Moghe) East Lansing, Michigan (CNN)--Rahel Musa Aron was just 7 days old when the elders of her community in the African nation of Eritrea performed a centuries-old ritual on her tiny body, cutting off her clitoris and burying it. Nearly six decades later, the Christian church leader and mother of three daughters sits at home in this Midwestern city and wonders. What would the small sliver of skin have meant for her life? Would childbirth have been different? Has she been missing out on a deeper level of intimacy with her husband of 40 years? ``I'm sure that it has affected my feeling,'' Aron, 58, told CNN. ``If it was not cut, maybe I would have enjoyed whatever I would have enjoyed. It's a very sensitive area. So if that's cut, imagine--imagine what I miss.'' Often discussed in whispers, the issue of female genital mutilation grabbed headlines last month when, for the first time, US prosecutors used a decades-old law that bans the practice to charge two Detroit-area doctors and a medical office manager in a case involving two 7-year-old girls. Now, several women in the United States who endured the procedure when they were young are sharing their stories--all with elements that mirror the Michigan case--in hopes of ending it for good. When her own daughters were born, Aron decided the custom endured by her mother and her grandmother would die with her. ``What I believe is, if (the clitoris) wasn't necessary, God wouldn't have put it there,'' said Aron, a deaconess at St. Luke Lutheran in Lansing, Michigan. ``If it was not important, it would have not been there. It's part of our body. It is there for a reason.'' Aron's scars aren't as severe as those borne by many of the 200 million women and girls around the globe--nearly a quarter of them younger than 15--who have undergone the practice, dubbed FGM or, to some survivors who dislike that phrase, female ritual cutting. The procedure, in which genital organs are altered or injured for non-medical reasons to suppress sexuality, long has been deemed a human rights violation. It's practiced at all educational levels and social classes and among people of many faiths, including Muslims and Christians, though no religious text calls for it. Though often undertaken as a cleansing custom, experts roundly agree it has no medical benefits--and carries myriad health risks, from childbirth and menstrual complications to severe infections, post-traumatic stress, even death. Still, the practice persists, mostly in African and Middle Eastern nations--and in the United States, where the estimated number of girls and women who have undergone it or are at risk has tripled since 1990 to more than 500,000. The increase reflects rapid growth in immigration from countries where FGM is common. While anti-cutting advocates hail efforts to hold offenders accountable, this case also raises questions about whether the accused--all members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Shia Islam--are being targeted because of their faith. Meanwhile, some worry that high-profile prosecutions could drive the practice deeper underground, further endangering the very girls and women the law aims to protect. As the issue has gained attention, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the FBI opened national tip lines where anyone can report their experience or suspicions. But as several advocates told CNN, the most important conversations may be happening in homes and places of worship, as survivors share their stories and work to end FGM. ``This thing,'' Aron said, ``needs to be talked about.'' `Special girls' trip' The FBI started looking into the Detroit-area case in October, when investigators learned that female genital mutilation was being performed at the Burhani Medical Clinic. Investigators in February learned that two 7-year-old girls from Minnesota went to the clinic with their mothers for a ``special girls' trip'' that they weren't to tell anyone about, documents show. One girl told the FBI their mothers took them to the clinic because ``our tummies hurt'' and a doctor would ``get the germs out.'' There were three people in the office, ``one to clean up and two to hold (the child's) hands,'' the girl later told investigators. The FBI says they were local emergency room physician Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, clinic director Dr. Fakhruddin Attar and his wife, Farida Attar, who managed the office in Livonia, Michigan, court records show. The girl said she took off her pants and underwear and laid on an exam table with her knees near her chest and legs spread apart, documents show. Nagarwala then gave her a ``little pinch'' in the area ``where we go pee.'' She said the doctor told her and her friend ``no bikes and no splits for three days,'' and the day after the procedure, the area ``hurted a lot.'' The girl said she and her friend got cake afterward because ``they were doing good,'' documents show. An exam found the girl's labia minora removed or altered, her clitoral hood looking abnormal, plus scar tissue and small healing cuts, court records show. The Attars and Nagarwala each face two counts of female genital mutilation, one count of conspiracy to commit female genital mutilation, and one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. The physicians could face life in prison if convicted. ``This brutal practice is conducted on girls for one reason: to control them as women,'' Daniel Lemisch, acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said in a statement. ``FGM will not be tolerated in the United States.'' But attorneys for the accused say their clients are being persecuted for practicing their religion. Nagarwala has pleaded not guilty on all counts; the Attars have not entered pleas, but their attorneys argue they are not guilty of all the charges. Cleansing ritual not illegal, lawyer says Nagarwala acknowledges performing a procedure on both girls, her lawyer, Shannon Smith, said. But it wasn't female genital mutilation, she said, according to court documents; it was a non-invasive, religious cleansing ritual in the Dawoodi Bohra tradition, rooted in India. Nagarwala, who has been terminated from her job at Henry Ford Health System in light of this case, claims she used a long scraper-like tool to wipe a small portion of mucus membrane from the girls' clitorises, then put the membrane onto gauze for their parents to bury, Smith said, adding that her client denies removing tissue and says there was no blood, documents show. The political environment surrounding the federal prosecution concerns Dina Francesca Haynes, a human rights attorney who has worked on hundreds of FGM cases. ``During a time when vigilantism and xenophobia (are) high, the likelihood that doctors of particular national origins would be targeted seems to also be an additional risk,'' Haynes told CNN. ``It makes me uncomfortable that the first prosecution here looks like it's focusing on a particular community of people.'' Haynes doesn't like when ``my human rights issues are used for a bigger agenda,'' she said. Leaders of the Dawoodi Bohra mosque in Michigan, one of several hubs of the sect in the United States, said in a statement that they offered to help investigators. ``Any violation of US law is counter to instructions to our community members,'' they said. ``It is an important rule of the Dawoodi Bohras that we respect the laws of the land, wherever we live. This is precisely what we have done for several generations in America. We remind our members regularly of their obligations.'' CNN's calls to mosques attended by the girls' parents and the defendants were not returned. `Never talk about it' This case has caught the attention of FGM survivors across the country, who share a common story: They were cut at a young age and told not to speak of it. In 1947, Renee Bergstrom was 3, living with her white, fundamentalist Christian family in rural Minnesota. When her mother saw her toddler touching herself, she worried. ``So, she took me to a doctor who said, `I can fix that,' and removed my clitoris,'' Bergstrom told CNN. Bergstrom remembers seeing her mother at the end of the table. She remembers the pain. And she remembers feeling betrayed. ``Later the day it happened, . . . she carried me around until I quit crying,'' Bergstrom said. ``Even when I was very little, she told me it was a mistake, but I was to never talk about it.'' Now, nearly 70 years later, Bergstrom said the procedure affected her entire life. Severe scarring fused part of her labia; the skin wouldn't stretch when it came time to deliver her three children. Now Bergstrom has teamed up with another survivor in Minnesota, a Somali woman, to spread awareness in the area's large Somali community. They give pamphlets to expectant mothers who survived the procedure so they can help their doctors understand birthing options. As she works to help immigrants from a country where FGM is almost universal and where Islam is the law, Bergstrom said she is concerned about Muslims being targeted in the United States over the practice. ``This was done (to me) in white America by a fundamentalist Christian doctor who practiced his religion with a scalpel,'' she said. ``I am disturbed by the anti- Muslim sentiment throughout the United States. I didn't want this to be another form of discrimination against Muslims.'' `Complicated form of violence' The father of one girl in the federal case told investigators, ``If they knew what would come of it, this would never have happened,'' documents show. None of the parents in this case faces charges--and it's possible they never will. ``The reality is, if you want children to report this . . . some people would argue that it would deter young girls and young women from seeking health care,'' Haynes said. ``Children tend to rally around their parents and other adults in their life that they trust and wouldn't think to report any kind of abuse until later.'' For many survivors, coming to terms with their mothers' decisions to promote the practice is complex. Mariya Taher was 7 when she went on vacation to Mumbai, India, with her parents. She remembers walking into an apartment with her mother. The atmosphere felt relaxed, with older aunties there, too. She even laughed. She was the only little girl there. ``Then, I remember, I was on the floor and my dress was pushed in,'' Taher recalled. ``I remember feeling something sharp and crying afterwards. One of the older women gave me a soda. That's all I remember of it.'' Taher, now 34, said it wasn't until she was a teenager that she read about FGM in Africa and realized what had happened to her. Her scarring was minimal. All the same, she said, it was a violation. ``I honestly had a great childhood, so it's really hard for me to talk about this,'' she said. ``I feel that people paint me as the picture of a victim, and I hate that. Yes, that was a violent thing that was done to me, but it's also such a complicated form of violence.'' Taher, whose mother and grandmother also endured cutting, lives in Massachusetts and co-founded Sahiyo, an organization that works to end the practice in the Dawoodi Bohra community. She helps women tell their stories--of being cut, of deciding not to cut, of pretending to have been cut in order to fit in--through social media. Years later, she also has realized perhaps the most personal achievement of her work: She convinced her mother to oppose FGM. ``We've had continual conversations,'' Taher said. ``I've never blamed her.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit FGM, and that is why I was very glad to be the author and sponsor of this legislation by introducing this--what the cosponsors and I believe--is an important bipartisan bill. My former colleague, Congressman Crowley of New York, worked with me on this for many, many years. Our goal is to protect all women and girls from the practice of FGM and to provide the Justice Department with an effective means of prosecuting those who commit this terrible act. That is why I support this legislation and authored this legislation at the same time. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, and the Congressional Black Caucus, and as the bill sponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6100, the ``Strengthening the Opposition to Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2020,'' which I introduced with the Congressman Bacon of Nebraska, the lead cosponsor. I want thank Chairman Nadler for his tremendous leadership during this Congress and the past several months of hardship, stress, and disruption not only of the regular normalized operations of this Committee but of the Congress and more importantly, the lives of the American people. It has been said of Americans that we do the difficult immediately, and the impossible takes a little longer. The legislative session today is a testament to the determination of this Committee that despite the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the life of over 200,000 Americans, that legislation to improve the lives of the people we represent and the communities we serve will not be halted. The problems facing ordinary Americans due to flaws and inequities in the criminal justice system, the immigration system, the health care system, the economy, the trademark system and others do not take a time-out because of the pandemic and neither does this Congress, and for that I commend Speaker Pelosi, the House Democratic leadership, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, female genital mutilation (FGM) is an abhorrent practice and a recognizable international human rights violation. H.R. 6100, the STOP FGM Act is necessary remedial legislative modifying current law to aid women in several important respects. Specifically, the legislation would: 1. Amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 116 by setting forth three groups of persons who can be prosecuted under the statute: (1) anyone who performs, attempts to perform, or conspires to perform, female genital mutilation on a minor; (2) a parent, guardian, or caretaker of a minor who facilitates or consents to the female genital mutilation of the minor; and (3) anyone who transports a minor for the purpose of performance of female genital mutilation on the minor; 2. Increase the statutory maximum for a violation of the statute, from 5 years to 10 years; 3. Prohibit a defendant charged with this offense from using as a defense the argument that they were compelled to commit the offense because of religion, custom, tradition, ritual, or standard practice; and 4. Amend the existing statute to more explicitly define what types of procedures constitute female genital mutilation. Most significantly, the STOP FGM Act enables us to better address FGM more comprehensively in the United States by requiring the Attorney General, in consultation with other federal agencies, to submit an annual report to Congress, to include the number of women and girls in the United States at risk of FGM; the protections available and actions taken; and the education and assistance provided to communities about FGM. Mr. Speaker, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) there are no positive health benefits from practice of FGM and the procedure can have severe long-term impacts on the physical, psychological, sexual, and reproductive health of girls and women. Earlier this year, on Sunday, March 8, we celebrated International Women's Day, which is designed to help nations worldwide eliminate discrimination against women. International Women's Day focuses on helping women gain full and equal participation in global development. The practice of FGM violates girls' and women's rights to sexual and reproductive health, security and physical integrity, their right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and their right to life when the procedure results in death. In order for little girls to live their best lives as strong, empowered women, we must protect them now as girls, to give them a fighting chance. The bipartisan STOP FGM Act takes a big and positive step in that direction. Mr. Speaker, in 2017, Dr. Nagarwala, a Michigan doctor performed this brutal act on several minors. The U.S. Department of Justice then prosecuted her and others for violating the law. It was the first federal case of its kind brought under the existing statute. Nagarwala challenged the law, and the district court agreed and found that the statute was unconstitutional and that FGM is a `purely local crime.' However, according to the World Health Organization, it is estimated that more than 200 million girls and women alive today have undergone female genital mutilation. Further, there are an estimated 3 million girls at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation every year. Because of the manner in which female genital mutilation is being practiced in the United States, it affects interstate and foreign commerce, the regulation of which the Constitution entrusts to the Congress in Article I, section 8, clause 3. Therefore, Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause, as well as Necessary and Proper Clause contained in Article I, section 8, clause 17, to regulate, restrict, and even prohibit the practice of FGM. H.R. 6100 is a comprehensive response to addressing FGM more effectively, and it includes input from a wide array of stakeholders, including DOJ, anti-FGM advocates, clinicians, and CDC experts. I strongly support this bipartisan legislation and ask my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary, as a direct beneficiary of her advancement of women's rights, and as a longtime admirer of her vigorous defense of the constitution, I am honored but heartbroken to pay tribute to an American hero, a feminist icon, and role model to millions, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last Friday, September 18, 2020 at the age of 87 years old. Today, tomorrow, and forever, the American people mourn the loss of a true titan, an American legend, and an inspiration. Our thoughts and prayers are with Ruth's family, friends, and loved ones. Ruth Bader Ginsburg dedicated her life to defending the Constitution and protecting the sanctity of America's democratic ideals, and we will forever be indebted to her service to this country. Joan Ruth Bader, fondly nicknamed Kiki, was born on March 15, 1933 to an immigrant family and grew up in Brooklyn's Flatbush neighborhood. Ruth Bader Ginsburg often spoke of her mother's large ambitions for her, and how the devastating loss of her mother's death at an early age instilled in her the determination to live a life that her mother would have been proud of. And so, she did. Ruth Bader attended Cornell University where she met Martin D. Ginsburg, her future husband and love of her life to whom she was married for 54 years. In 1954, at the age of 21, Ruth Bader graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government on June 23, 1954 and was the highest-ranking female student in her graduating class. A month after graduating from Cornell, Ruth and Martin were married and moved to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where Martin was stationed as a Reserve Officers' Training Corps officer in the U.S. Army Reserve after his call-up to active duty. To help support the family, Ruth Bader Ginsburg worked for the Social Security Administration office in Oklahoma, where she was demoted after becoming pregnant with her first child, Jane, who was born in 1955. In the fall of 1956, Ruth Bader Ginsburg enrolled at Harvard Law School, where she was one of only 9 women in a class of about 500 men. Harvard Law Dean Erwin Griswold reportedly invited all the female law students to dinner at his family home and asked the female law students, including Ginsburg, ``Why are you at Harvard Law School, taking the place of a man?'' When her husband took a job in New York City, Ruth Bader Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School and became the first woman to be on two major law reviews: Harvard Law Review and Columbia Law Review. In 1959, she earned her law degree at Columbia and tied for first in her class but despite these enviable credentials and distinguished record of excellence, no law firm in New York City would hire as a lawyer because she was a woman. Ruth Bader Ginsburg became a crusader for women's rights and an unstoppable force who transformed the law and defied social convention. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, later affectionately known as the `Notorious RBG,' was as instrumental and historically significant to the cause of women's rights as was Thurgood Marshall to the cause of civil rights for African Americans. As a young lawyer and Director of the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, Ruth Bader Ginsburg litigated six landmark cases before the Supreme Court, winning five out of the six cases. Like Justice Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's uncanny strategic instincts and careful selection of cases were vital in her persuasion of the all-male Supreme Court to start dismantling the legal institution of sex discrimination one case at a time. In 1975, Ruth Bader Ginsburg litigated and won Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, which would become a landmark case in antidiscrimination jurisprudence. In this case, the widower had been denied survivor benefits, which would allow him to stay at home and raise his son, based on a Social Security provision that assumed only women were secondary providers with unimportant incomes. While some questioned Ginsburg's choice to challenge instances of sex discrimination by representing a male plaintiff, Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw it as an opportunity to show the court that childcare was not a sex-determined role to be performed only by women. As with many of her cases, her goal was to free both sexes, men as well as women, from the roles that society had assigned them and to harness the Constitution to break down the structures by which the state maintained and enforced those separate spheres. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg continued to challenge the stereotypical assumptions of what was considered to be women's work and men's work, she was able to persuade the Court and the nation that discriminating on the basis of sex was not only wrong but violative of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection to all citizens under the law. As the courts began to recognize the changing roles of men and women, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was able to advance gender equality with the understanding that women are capable of being heads of households or sole providers for their family. In 1993, President Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, making her the second woman to fill this position. This historic appointment further symbolized the principle that women were equal to men in every respect, that they could have successful careers and also could, if they chose, be devoted wives or mothers, thereby breaking barriers for generations of women to follow in her footsteps. In fact, many of Ginsburg's opinions helped solidify the constitutional protections she had fought so hard to establish decades earlier. While we commemorate Justice Ginsburg's work for advancing the women's movement both as a Justice and as a lawyer, all are in her debt who cherish the progress made in the areas of LGBTQ+ equality, immigration reform, environmental justice, voting rights, protections for people with disabilities, and so much more. Throughout her life, Ruth Bader Ginsburg worked to make the law work so that America would be more just, equitable, fairer, and better for all. Whether it be in her legendary dissenting opinions or as leader when in the majority, Justice Ginsburg continued to advocate for the marginalized and most vulnerable. In recent years, she may not have been able to control the outcome of the rulings, but she grew bolder in her dissents, often stating what should have been the outcome. Throughout her tenure on the bench, Ruth Bader Ginsburg displayed her rigorous and incisive legal mind and employed her formidable skills as a consensus builder, but she could be tough and forceful when the moment demanded. Nothing illustrates this better than her famous dissent in Shelby County v. Holder, in which the 5-to-4 majority negated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by invalidating section 4 of the law, which neutralized section 5, the provision of the act that required jurisdictions with a history of racial and ethnic discrimination in voting to obtain preclearance from the federal government before any changes in voting procedures, from polling stations to voter photo IDs could go into effect. It was in her scathing dissent Justice Ginsburg stated, ``Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the VRA'' and that the majority's logic was akin to ``throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' Unlike the others, Justice Ginsburg was able to see the ramifications of the ruling and its allowances for reinvigorated efforts of voter suppression. Today, I join millions of individuals who are mourning the loss of this legal giant, feminist, and trailblazer. Justice Ginsburg loved this country, so much so that she served the nation while enduring illnesses and undergoing treatments that would have incapacitated lesser mortals. She inspired generations of women then and now to shatter glass ceilings, and her legacy will inspire new generations of women in the years to come. As the news of her passing continues to reverberate across the country and around the world, it is important that we remember and honor what she stood for and continue fighting to realize the goal of equal justice under law. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence to honor the memory of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the `Notorious RBG,' one the greatest jurists in our nation's history, a tireless and unyielding champion for equal justice, and a fierce defender of the Constitution.