Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, this past Monday and Tuesday, I was unavoidably detained in my congressional district and was not present for Roll Call Votes 91 and 92. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On Roll Call 91, I would have voted AYE, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H. Res. 410, Encouraging reunions of divided Korean-American families; and on Roll Call 92, I would have voted AYE. On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1771, Divided Families Reunification Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, fifty-five years ago, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery. Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to bring it even closer to its founding ideals. More than a half century has passed since that day of horror and carnage on the bridge, a day so terrible that it was immediately named and will be forever known as ``Bloody Sunday.'' But we will always remember. Madam Speaker, people come from all over the world to stand on the bridge, ground sanctified and consecrated by the blood and courage and sacrifice of nameless, innocent, ordinary persons whose commitment to justice changed America for the better. People come to Selma and remember Bloody Sunday with reverence and awe for the same reasons they visit the beaches of Normandy and the cornfields of Gettysburg. We remember them because we know in our hearts that President Lyndon Johnson was right when he addressed the Congress and the nation the evening of March 15, 1965, stating: ``At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. ``So it was at Lexington and Concord. ``So it was a century ago at Appomattox. ``So it was last week in Selma, Alabama.'' On Bloody Sunday, John Lewis and Reverend Hosea Williams led 600 courageous, unarmed men, women, and children in a peaceful march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge from Selma to Montgomery to dramatize to the nation the aspiration of African Americans to become full citizens and to participate in the political process. As they crossed the highest part of the bridge, the marchers were viciously attacked by Alabama state troopers, who ridiculed, tear-gassed, clubbed, spat on, whipped and trampled them with their horses. In the end, John Lewis's skull was fractured by a state trooper's nightstick, and 17 other marchers were hospitalized. In direct response to Bloody Sunday, Congress passed, and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the greatest victory of the Civil Rights Movement, and the most significant advance in the field of civil rights and democratic governance since the Civil War Amendments of the 1860s. Selma marked a turning point in history because it was the place where moral courage met and overcame entrenched power. The Edmund Pettus Bridge is more than a bridge; it was the portal through which America left the dark days of its past and marched into a better and brighter future. And the trail of that journey is marked by the blood of the foot soldiers who led the way. Despite, or perhaps because of its proven effectiveness in breaking down voting barriers, on June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court, issued the shameful decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, which struck down Section 4(b) of the VRA, which immobilized the heart of the Act, the preclearance provisions of Section 5. The Supreme Court did this even though a bipartisan Congress in 2006 voted nearly unanimously to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. After hearing from more than 90 witnesses with a diverse range of views, holding 20 hearings, and evaluating a 15,000-page record, 98 Senators and 390 House members voted to re-authorize Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Within hours of the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision, the State of Texas, where in 2012 alone Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act blocked the state's discriminatory photo ID law and intentionally discriminatory redistricting plans, announced its intention to implement those measures immediately. This is only one of many examples of formerly covered states taking advantage of the gap in Section 5 protection by reverting back to laws that the Voting Rights Act previously blocked. The struggle to ensure that all Americans can participate equally in the political process continues. And that is why I was proud to cosponsor and support H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which corrects the damage done to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and commits the national government to protecting the right of all Americans to vote free from discrimination and without injustices that previously prevented them from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I am delighted to be able to join our Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues and those of us who have advocated for a progressive mindset as it relates to civil liberties in this country in support of the reauthorization of the USA FREEDOM Act. With that backdrop, however, I want to say to my good friend, he knows that the inspector general's report indicated that there was no political motive to the beginning of the investigation. And even though referrals have been made, none of the individuals he mentioned have been criminally prosecuted. That is behind us, to a certain extent, but it is a good backdrop to make sure that anything we do, no matter who the individuals are, that we do it with the impeccable credentials of the Constitution, civil liberties, civil justice, and equality. That is why I rise to support this legislation, although I know that a more detailed review might have warranted some additional fixes. But I think it is important to take note that we do have the prohibition of the government from using section 215 to collect any records that would require a warrant if the information being assessed was for law enforcement purposes. We are trying to contain and constrain. The bill requires the government to provide notice to individuals whose information is collected pursuant to 215, and it strengthens First Amendment protections by requiring the FISA court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review to appoint an amicus curiae in any instance where an application by the government presents significant concerns about impinging on the First Amendment. The bill also strengthens the amicus curiae's ability to protect privacy in civil liberties cases. As well, it directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to conduct a study of the way the government's use of FISA authorities may be premised. The bill improves transparency. The bill strengthens reporting requirements. It strengthens, as I said, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. In further debates right after 9/11, I worked on a number of legislative initiatives, including one bill in 2013, the FISA Court and Sunshine Act, bipartisan legislation that provided much-needed transparency without compromising national security to the decisions, orders, and opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That language is in this bill, the opportunity to review those decisions and for those decisions to be able to be reviewed as well. I am a longstanding supporter of the USA FREEDOM Act, particularly because section 301 of that bill, which is not in this bill, has protections against reversed targeting. Each moment that we have an opportunity to provide security for this Nation we also have the equal opportunity of infringing on the civil liberties of our fellow citizens. It is important today to stand on this floor and say to the American people that we do believe in their constitutional rights and the Bill of Rights. This legislation is to further contain those infringements and to protect the rights of our citizens. Madam Speaker, I want my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and as an original co-sponsor of the USA Freedom Act, which stands for ``Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring Act'', I rise in support of the ``USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020.'' I support the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020 for several reasons: 1. The bill continues to prohibit the NSA from collecting bulk phone records. By doing so, the government no longer has the authority to collect large amounts of call detail records on an ongoing basis. The Call Detail Records program not only resulted in the over-collection of records that the NSA did not have authority to receive but also resulted in several technical problems. 2. The USA Freedom Reauthorization Act prohibits the government from using Section 215 to collect any records that would require a warrant if the information being accessed were for law enforcement purposes. This provision ensures that Section 215 can keep pace with future developments in the law as courts interpret Carpenter v. United States and apply it to other contexts. 3. The bill requires the government to provide notice to individuals whose information is collected pursuant to Section 215 if the government plans to use that information, or any information derived from it, in a criminal case or other legal proceeding. 4. The USA Freedom Reauthorization Act strengthens First Amendment Protections by requiring the FISC and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review to appoint an amicus curia in any instance where an application by the government presents significant concerns about impinging on the First Amendment activities of Americans. 5. The bill contains other measures to strengthen amici curiae's ability to protect privacy in civil liberties in cases to which they are appointed. 6. The USA Freedom Reauthorization Act directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to conduct a study of the way the government's use of FISA authorities may be premised on or may impact protected classes, including based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or sex. 7. The bill improves transparency by requiring the declassification of significant FISC and FISC-R opinions within 180 days. 8. The USA Freedom Reauthorization Act strengthens the reporting requirement for Section 702 queries by eliminating an existing exemption for the FBI. 9. The bill strengthens the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) by allowing members to be reappointed to consecutive terms and to continue serving after their terms have expired, should they so choose. The USA Freedom Act was first passed in 2015 as the House's unified response to the unauthorized disclosures and subsequent publication in the media in June 2013, regarding the National Security Agency's collection from Verizon of the phone records of all of its American customers, which was authorized by the FISA Court pursuant to Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Public reaction to the news of this massive and secret data gathering operation was swift and negative. There was justifiable concern on the part of the public and a large percentage of the Members of this body that the extent and scale of this NSA data collection operation, which exceeded by orders of magnitude anything previously authorized or contemplated, may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and threat to the civil liberties of American citizens. To quell the growing controversy, the Director of National Intelligence declassified and released limited information about this program. According to the DNI, the information acquired under this program did not include the content of any communications or the identity of any subscriber. The DNI stated that ``the only type of information acquired under the Court's order is telephony meta data, such as telephone numbers dialed and length of calls.'' The assurance given by the DNI, to put it mildly, was not very reassuring. In response, many Members of Congress, including then Ranking Member Conyers, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and myself, introduced legislation in response to the disclosures to ensure that the law and the practices of the executive branch reflect the intent of Congress in passing the USA Patriot Act and subsequent amendments. For example, I introduced H.R. 2440, the ``FISA Court in the Sunshine Act of 2013,'' bipartisan legislation, that provided much needed transparency without compromising national security to the decisions, orders, and opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or ``FISA Court.'' Specifically, my bill required the Attorney General to disclose each decision, order, or opinion of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), allowing Americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming under the PATRIOT ACT and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to conduct the surveillance needed to keep Americans safe. These requirements were then incorporated in substantial fl part in the USA Freedom Act, which required the Attorney General to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion of the FISA court that included a significant construction or interpretation of law and to submit a report to Congress within 45 days. As I indicated, perhaps the most important reasons for supporting passage of the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act is the prohibition on domestic bulk collection, as well as its enhanced First Amendment protections, both of which seek to protect American citizens from the NSA' s abuse of power through unlawful collection of personal data. I was also a longstanding supporter of the USA Freedom Act, particularly because Section 301 of the bill contained protections against ``reverse targeting,'' which became law when an earlier Jackson Lee Amendment was included in H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act of 2007. ``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons. One of the main concerns of libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, in giving expanded authority to the executive branch was the temptation for national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards to prevent it. The Jackson Lee Amendment, preserved in Section 301 of the USA Freedom Act, reduced even further any such temptation to resort to reverse targeting by making any information concerning a United States person obtained improperly inadmissible in any federal, state, or local judicial, legal, executive, or administrative proceeding. Madam Speaker, I noted in an op-ed published way back in October 2007, that as Alexis DeTocqueville, the most astute student of American democracy, observed nearly two centuries ago, the reason democracies invariably prevail in any military conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to success: initiative, innovation, courage, and a love of justice. I support the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020 because it will help keep us true to the Bill of Rights and strikes the proper balance between cherished liberties and smart security. I urge my colleagues to support the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have always said that the role of the Federal Government is an umbrella on a rainy or stormy day. The Nation now faces the storm of coronavirus, and we should be the umbrella and be prepared and not panic. It is imperative that we provide widespread information on just the basics of how Americans can care for themselves. I have organized a bipartisan task force on the coronavirus that includes an emergency doctor with experience, Dr. Ruiz from California, and our colleague, Congressman Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania. We want to emphasize an opportunity for Members to talk about the issues within their congressional districts and try to ensure that the American people are well taken care of. Unfortunately, the administration got a very slow start. In a hearing that we just had, one State had the ability to test only 472 people; another State had the ability to test only 350. Obviously, we need to be able to ramp up the number of test kits to help the American people, and we need the equipment to protect our medical professionals. Madam Speaker, I end by saying, as hospitals face a crisis and clinics face a crisis, the American people must look to the Federal Government to do their job correctly.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Lawrence of Michigan for anchoring this very important Special Order to affirm our unequivocal opposition to any effort to turn the clock back or to limit or undermine women's right to make their own choices regarding their reproductive healthcare. The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion. Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted pregnancies. Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade. In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's health and safety. Fights here in Congress have been no different. In my state of Texas, a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015. On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the full range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements. This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women. Texas has 268,580 square miles only second in size to the state of California. The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state. In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas. The Supreme Court once again intervened on behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics in my state. It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms. If opponents were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being. Instead, they are continuing their assault on women's constitutional rights and their campaign to outlaw abortion. That is their number one priority; it is certainly not about protecting women's health, it is about politics. The consequences of these efforts are often felt most acutely by people who already face barriers to care, including communities of color, young people, LGBTQ people, and people with low incomes. For the first time since Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch were seated on the Supreme Court, and this morning the Court heard oral arguments in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, a case that could render the protections of Roe v. Wade virtually meaningless, paving the way for states to effectively ban abortion for over 25 million people of reproductive age. During 2019 state legislative sessions alone, more than 300 anti- abortion bills were introduced, and 58 restrictions were enacted-- nearly half of which were abortion bans. Right now, six states are pushing for anti-abortion constitutional amendments. There are five states in the nation that already have only one abortion provider. This President has packed the courts in unprecedented and extraordinary ways. Nearly 200 Trump-appointed judges now occupy lifetime positions on the federal bench, many with extreme records hostile to reproductive health and rights, and are poised to make decisions about our reproductive rights and health for a generation. And these fights go beyond abortion. The administration's domestic gag rule forced Planned Parenthood and other health care providers out of Title X, the nation's only program dedicated to affordable birth control and other reproductive health care. The move jeopardized health care for Title X's four million patients, 40 percent of whom received care at Planned Parenthood health centers prior to the rule. Last month, the administration approved Texas' request to implement a Medicaid family planning program that bars patients from accessing care at Planned Parenthood. When Texas first barred Planned Parenthood from serving patients, nearly 40 percent fewer women got the health care they needed. This sets a dangerous precedent for other states, which could now pursue similar state-level measures with grim consequences for health care access nationwide. Madam Speaker, this is not what the American people want. Support for abortion access is at an all-time high; nearly 80 percent of Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. There is no state in the nation where making abortion illegal is popular. The American people want more access to health care, not less, and it is more critical than ever to see through this inflammatory misinformation campaign. Madam Speaker, the right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion, is central to individual equality. The right enables a person to decide if, when, and how to start and grow their family. It enables people to pursue and advance in their education and employment, and to be full and equal participants in society. Laws that restrict reproductive freedom, including restrictions on abortion and birth control, perpetuate harmful stereotypes about gender roles and undermine gender equality. Courts, federal law, and the public have long connected reproductive freedom with equality. Reproductive freedom is central to women's equality, for as the Supreme Court said in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ``The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'' Americans understand this connection and it is reflected in a January 2019 national poll showing 71 percent of voters agree--48 percent agree strongly--that equal rights for women includes access to reproductive health care.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 1140, the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020, which will create civil service protections for TSA employees that are long overdue. H.R. 1140, mandates the conversion of all covered employees and positions within the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to the provisions of title 5, United State Code. The bill represents a longstanding priority for Chairman Thompson, the bill's author, and my own as a former chair of the Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation Security to extend the rights and protections afford to all federal government employees to TSA personnel. Several versions of the bill have been introduced over the past decade, but this Congress is the first time the bill has received overwhelming, bipartisan support, with 236 cosponsors including 10 Republicans. The legislation curtails TSA's broad authorities to create and control its personnel systems, instead requiring TSA to abide by the provisions of title 5 which regulate personnel systems for most Federal agencies. The bill would provide TSA employees with the workforce protections and benefits available to most other Federal workers. The bill sets forth transition rules to protect the rate of pay and other rights of TSA employees during a transition to title 5. The bill also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to consult with the appropriate labor organizations to carry out the transition. This bill does not affect prohibitions against disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the federal government. The bill also extends the timeline for the transition from 60 days to a more realistic 180 days, and it contains language to protect employees with grievances or disciplinary actions pending during the transition. On the morning of September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 people were killed in a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The attacks resulted in the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, which was designed to prevent similar attacks in the future by removing the responsibility for transportation security from private entities. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, passed by the 107th Congress and signed on November 19, 2001, established TSA just 2 months following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The urgent need to provide a response to the available security threat was facing meant that much of the work to provide administrative structure and integration measures that would have woven in the civil service protections now be added did not occur at that time. The TSA's mission is to protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. The work of the TSA is a frontline Department of Homeland Security and it is not easy--it can in fact be very dangerous. Like many of my colleagues, I recall the shooting incident at LAX that killed Gerardo Hernandez, who became the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty; and the machete attack at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport that resulted in injuries to Senior Transportation Security Officer Carol Richel. These incidents only highlight the difficult work that the men and women of the TSA must perform each day to keep our nation's airports and flights safe. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) supports several key parts of the U.S. coronavirus response. The TSA is responsible for: enforcing the travel restrictions for all flights that are carrying individuals who have recently traveled from China; notifying passengers and travelers of risks of contracting the virus; and coordinating with air carriers and airports to discuss government actions and seek input (TSA). Allegations about mismanagement, wasteful procedures, retaliation against whistleblowers, low morale, and security gaps within the Agency are causes for concern. TSA has consistently struggled with low morale across the workforce, ranking 303 out of 305 government agencies in 2016. Low morale has a nexus to the high turnover rate within the ranks of Transportation Security Officers (TSOs). TSOs represent 70 percent of the TSA workforce, yet have been denied full collective bargaining rights, whistleblower protections, and opportunities to effectively raise issues in dispute to an independent third party, such as the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, TSOs are subject to a pay and performance system that does not track with the General Services (GS) wage system, the primary wage system for Federal workers. It is past time to make the changes provided by H.R. 1140, so the TSA workforce is treated equally to other federal employees with the power to advance and expand their opportunities as government employees. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1140.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of the H.R. 6074, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020, which will provide $8.3 billion in funding to combat the novel coronavirus. The legislation includes $950 million for state and local health agencies to conduct vital public health activities, including surveillance, laboratory testing, infection control, contact tracing, and mitigation. My thoughts and prayers are with the 9 families who lost a loved one to the coronavirus, and the many others who have contracted the disease. We owe a special debt to First Responders who will be the lifeline for many who will need medical care to overcome this coronavirus designed as COVID-19. Earlier this year, when I saw news reports in early January on the novel Coronavirus's rapid spread and the numbers of infected expanding so quickly, I knew this was not something to be taken lightly and that time was not on our side to mount an effective defense. On February 10, 2020, I held the first press conference on the issue of the novel coronavirus at Houston Intercontinental Airport. I was joined by public health officials, local unions, and advocates to raise awareness regarding the virus and the implications it might have for travel to the United States from China and to combat early signs of discrimination targeting Asian businesses in the United States. On February 24, 2020, I held a second press conference on the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization declaration of a ``public health emergency from the outbreak of the Coronavirus.'' At that time, I formally requested the President of the United States by letter to immediately suspend any health-related cuts that impact efforts to contain and treat the coronavirus, including the $3.3 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the discretionary budget cuts for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of nearly 19 percent at $678 million, severely threatening the CDC's ability to respond to this and other epidemics in the future. Additionally, I requested the President to suspend cuts in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. On February 26, 2020, I sent a letter to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security seeking a meeting with Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf to gain insight into the Preparedness of the Agency to address a possible pandemic. On February 28, 2020, I spoke on the Floor of the House and Announced plans to form a Congressional Coronavirus Task Force. I thank Congressmen Brian Fitzpatrick, Dr. Raul Ruiz, and Congresswoman Lauren Underwood for joining me as co-chairs of the Congressional Coronavirus Task Force. Today, March 4, 2020, the House of Representatives is giving a full- throated response to coronavirus by introducing an $8.3 billion of new funding to help federal, state, and local public health departments meet the challenge of preparing communities for COVID-19. Among its provisions, the emergency supplemental introduced by Chairwoman Lowey includes: More than $3 billion for research and development of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics; $2.2 billion in public health funding for prevention, preparedness, and response, $950 million of which is to support state & local health agencies; Nearly $1 billion for procurement of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, to support healthcare preparedness and Community Health Centers, and to improve medical surge capacity; $435 million to support health systems overseas to prevent, prepare, and respond to the coronavirus; $300 million to respond to humanitarian needs; $61 million to facilitate the development and review of medical countermeasures, devices, therapies, and vaccines, and to help mitigate potential supply chain interruptions; and Allows for an estimated $7 billion in low-interest loans to affected small businesses. The emergency supplemental also contains other strong provisions to ensure a full response and keep Americans safe. The bill: Requires that funds are only used to fight the coronavirus and other infectious diseases; Allows seniors to access telemedicine services for coronavirus treatment; Helps ensure that vaccines and treatments for coronavirus are affordable; and Ensures that state and local governments are reimbursed for costs incurred while assisting the federal response. Additionally, the bill includes a requirement to reimburse $136 million to important health accounts, including mental health and substance abuse treatment and prevention and heating and cooling assistance for low-income families, that was transferred by the Trump administration to support its response. On Tuesday, March 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 60 cases of COVID-19 from 12 states. Twenty-two of these cases are travel-related; 11 are believed to be person-to-person spread; and for the remaining 27 the source of exposure is still under investigation. Noteworthy developments in recent days include: Florida announced its first and second presumptive positive cases of COVID-19, one in a person with recent travel history (to Italy), the other with no currently known travel or contact history. Georgia announced its first and second confirmed cases of COVID-19, one is a person with recent travel history (to Italy), the other in a close contact of the first patient. New Hampshire also reported its first presumptive positive case of COVID-19 in a person with recent travel history (to Italy). New York state announced its first case of COVID-19 in a person with recent travel history (to Iran). Rhode Island announced its first presumptive positive case of COVID- 19 in a person with recent travel history (to Italy). Washington state announced more cases of COVID-19 associated with an outbreak in a long-term care facility. Washington has announced it now has 14 cases of COVID-19, including 6 COVID-19 deaths. The 12 states that have reported cases include: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. Today, the World Health Organization reports a 3.4-percent mortality rate for COVID-19. The challenge with this new coronavirus is that it is highly contagious, and of those infected, 15-20-percent contract pneumonia. And 5 percent of these cases may develop Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), which is a rapidly progressive disease occurring in critically ill patients. The main complication in ARDS is that fluid leaks into the lungs making breathing difficult or impossible. This virus is a potentially serious public health threat, but this does not mean that we should have a public health panic. There are knowledgeable and trained virologists, public health experts, and physicians who are who need the funding provided by this bill. I also organized a bi-partisan task force on the COVID-19 to help Congressional Members during this crisis to better serve their constituents. I ask that my colleagues join me in voting in support of H.R. 6074.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 1140, the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020, which will create civil service protections for TSA employees that are long overdue. H.R. 1140, mandates the conversion of all covered employees and positions within the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to the provisions of title 5, United State Code. The bill represents a longstanding priority for Chairman Thompson, the bill's author, and my own as a former chair of the Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation Security to extend the rights and protections afford to all federal government employees to TSA personnel. Several versions of the bill have been introduced over the past decade, but this Congress is the first time the bill has received overwhelming, bipartisan support, with 236 cosponsors including 10 Republicans. The legislation curtails TSA's broad authorities to create and control its personnel systems, instead requiring TSA to abide by the provisions of title 5 which regulate personnel systems for most Federal agencies. The bill would provide TSA employees with the workforce protections and benefits available to most other Federal workers. The bill sets forth transition rules to protect the rate of pay and other rights of TSA employees during a transition to title 5. The bill also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to consult with the appropriate labor organizations to carry out the transition. This bill does not affect prohibitions against disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the federal government. The bill also extends the timeline for the transition from 60 days to a more realistic 180 days, and it contains language to protect employees with grievances or disciplinary actions pending during the transition. On the morning of September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 people were killed in a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The attacks resulted in the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, which was designed to prevent similar attacks in the future by removing the responsibility for transportation security from private entities. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, passed by the 107th Congress and signed on November 19, 2001, established TSA just 2 months following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The urgent need to provide a response to the available security threat was facing meant that much of the work to provide administrative structure and integration measures that would have woven in the civil service protections now be added did not occur at that time. The TSA's mission is to protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. The work of the TSA is a frontline Department of Homeland Security and it is not easy--it can in fact be very dangerous. Like many of my colleagues, I recall the shooting incident at LAX that killed Gerardo Hernandez, who became the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty; and the machete attack at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport that resulted in injuries to Senior Transportation Security Officer Carol Richel. These incidents only highlight the difficult work that the men and women of the TSA must perform each day to keep our nation's airports and flights safe. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) supports several key parts of the U.S. coronavirus response. The TSA is responsible for: enforcing the travel restrictions for all flights that are carrying individuals who have recently traveled from China, notifying passengers and travelers of risks of contracting the virus, and coordinating with air carriers and airports to discuss government actions and seek input (TSA). Allegations about mismanagement, wasteful procedures, retaliation against whistleblowers, low morale, and security gaps within the Agency are causes for concern. TSA has consistently struggled with low morale across the workforce, ranking 303 out of 305 government agencies in 2016. Low morale has a nexus to the high turnover rate within the ranks of Transportation Security Officers (TSOs). TSOs represent 70 percent of the TSA workforce, yet have been denied full collective bargaining rights, whistleblower protections, and opportunities to effectively raise issues in dispute to an independent third party, such as the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, TSOs are subject to a pay and performance system that does not track with the General Services (GS) wage system, the primary wage system for Federal workers. It is past time to make the changes provided by H.R. 1140, so the TSA workforce is treated equally to other federal employees with the power to advance and expand their opportunities as government employees. Finally I am excited to support the Mucarsel-Powell amendment regarding infectious disease preparation and protection for TSOs, and the Cisneros Amendment that is very important which requires the DHS to prioritize hiring veterans including disabled veterans and others associated with veterans. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1140.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate I was unavoidably detained in a committee hearing and unable to register my vote for the Cisneros amendment protecting veterans and having a focus of hiring veterans under the legislation H.R. 1140, Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020, I ask that my vote of ``aye'' be placed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, just returning from my district, I am well aware of the sense of concern of our constituents regarding the coronavirus, having been the first Member to present this to her community after unclassified briefings left me with many more answers. I believe it is imperative that we not panic, but prepare. In San Antonio, this headline reads: ``San Antonio declares emergency after CDC released a woman infected with the coronavirus: `Totally unacceptable.' '' ``Coronavirus: You may need to take a 2-week break from your life,'' CDC says. I am intending to introduce legislation that deals with hourly wage makers in order to protect them if such happens. But I think it is important, as well, to determine what equipment we have in the United States, to explain to the American people that there are now two strains--one more deadly than the other--and to be as forthright as you possibly can. Information provides opportunity to prepare, and it embraces all of the community. Finally, it is important that local health departments have test kits and that we explain to the Nation that a vaccine is not easily done. It has to be researched, tested, and vetted, and there will be a period of time. So our actions should be preparation and prevention, not panic; but the reality is that we are dealing with something enormously serious, and I intend to continue to do that on behalf of my constituents.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the Rules Committee, for her leadership. I thank the minority's representative, as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enthusiastically support H.R. 1140. I am very proud to be an enthusiastic cosponsor of this legislation and to explain to my colleagues and the American people how we started the Committee on Homeland Security, as a founding member, if you will, being here during the heinous terrorist acts of 9/ 11 and knowing that the Nation needed to put together quickly a Homeland Security Department, second in size to the Department of Defense, I believe. We organized the Transportation Security Administration fast and in a way that the Administrator would, really, have all powers--all powers. In doing so, we failed to give them Federal civil service protection. So, this legislation is legislation that is crucial because the TSA workforce is among the lowest paid in the Federal Government and lacks basic workplace protection afforded to most other government workers. As a result, TSA struggles with low morale and high attrition. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1140, the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020, is nothing that has been previously described-- nothing like that. It is an opportunity to maintain a professional force of individuals who every day protect Americans. It is unfortunate that, as we go through our normal life and we see TSO officers, and we see them in their blue shirts and their dark pants, we take them for granted, quite frankly. As a former chair of the Transportation Security Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, I was intimately engaged in knowing just what the work was that they did. Do we understand the numbers of weapons that are found every day? I am saying it generically because some of this is classified. The number of incidences that are thwarted, if you will, by TSO officers--do we realize that one of our great officers lost his life in Los Angeles, and his family suffers? This bill would provide reasonable protection. It would give gradations of salaries. It will allow us to keep a professional staff. We attempted to put a Band-Aid on this by providing for professional development training in Georgia, where other Federal law enforcement academies were. That was not enough. In fact, they had to change it for these individuals who work for a period of time before they went to the academy because they were losing people after they went to the academy because they were not earning the compensation that they should. There was no promotion. Just the other day, a very fine young woman, excellent, who was respected and had come up to headquarters, she left us for another Federal agency because there was no advancement or opportunity.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, these are fine Americans. Many of them are former military, and they support their families. To give them the opportunity to, first of all, have a right to grievance, to ensure that they have nonreduction on pay and compensation, that they have preservation of their civil rights--there is no right to strike. But it is a right to have the ability to engage their employer and to be able to be respected. Mr. Speaker, I am enthusiastic about this. Names like Bill and Patrick and Alfred, other men and women of the Transportation Security Administration, the TSOs' names, I am sure, that we could call in our respective airports, the people we know every day, our neighbors. They do a great and fine job. We must pass this bill, and I hope we pass it in a bipartisan way. Think about not paying those who are saving your lives every single day in the Nation's airports. Think about how you are treating them. Think about the low pay. Think about the compensation that does not allow them to have high morale. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the show of support for passing this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his wisdom in putting forward a bill that is long overdue, and that is H.R. 1140, which is the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020. Let me congratulate the storied organization AFGE. They have a stellar reputation for fairly representing government workers in a way that provides them a better quality of life. I am not sure why they have become the issue on this floor, and our chairman has just indicated that there is no such language that limits any actions by our TSO officers. Let me be very clear: Starting with the TSO and Homeland Security from the very beginning, this organizing was done for purposes of emergency. So now you have denied, for over 20 years, the rights of these individuals to live a decent life. I take issue with this one example of an individual who, obviously, was not managed, because we all know that a man does not examine a female passenger, period, or traveler. We know that doesn't happen. So a bad apple does not reflect on the fact that these workers need better rights, grievances, higher pay, professional development, and to be treated in the civil system such that we will develop a professional workforce that stays, that has a high morale and not a low morale. Are we doing this to the FBI, the Defense Department, and ATF? Are we telling them that at any moment they can be fired without due process? This doesn't make sense. These people have put their life on the line. They have stopped so much that you do not even know protecting the traveling public. Mr. Chairman, if you take a moment to talk with them, you will find out the massive number of weapons and other types of items that they have to be astute enough and keen enough to know what to do with. I support the TSA. I support TSOs because I see them every day as the front line for this Nation in providing a safe and secure aviation system. Yes, their job is difficult and deadly. We lost a gentleman in Los Angeles, and we all surrounded his family, he died in the line of duty. I believe this is an important legislative initiative. Let us take this and finally give to these workers the decency that they deserve. Let us not make excuses. Let us make it right, and let us stand with them as American workers and defenders of the security and freedom of this Nation. Support H.R. 1140.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I am not here to target people of color. I am here to save lives. I support this legislation because it closes an effective tax loophole for e-cigarettes and taxes them just accordingly as tobacco. It prohibits the manufacture of flavored tobacco and, more importantly, actually prohibits companies from marketing or promoting e-cigarettes to youth under the age of 21. That is an important element. It makes sure that the grants that are gotten from those dollars are utilized for outreach and education, for evidence-based smoking- cessation programs. It awards grants to make tobacco-cessation therapies and counseling available to community health centers. We have to save lives. People of color die disproportionately through tobacco products, including these flavored cigarettes. The NAACP says flavored cigarettes, e-cigarettes, have driven the youth epidemic and more than half of youth smokers. Organizations like the National Black Nurses Association, African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, Black Women's Health Imperative, and National Hispanic Medical Association all support this. Madam Speaker, I am here to save lives. That is why I am supporting this legislation. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2339, the ``Protecting American Lungs and Reversing Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act.'' I support this important lifesaving and life-extending legislation because it: 1. Closes a tax loophole for e-cigarettes by establishing tax parity with current tobacco taxes, which is a highly effective way to reduce youth smoking. 2. Prohibits the manufacture and sale of all flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes, within one year, and removes all flavored e-cigarettes from the market within 30 days. 3. Prohibits companies from marketing or promoting e-cigarettes to youth under age 21. 4. Directs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prohibit non- face-to-face (online) sales of most tobacco products, including e- cigarettes, thereby blocking a key path for high schoolers to obtain tobacco products, many of which are sold online with limited or no age verification requirements. 5. Provides FDA with the authority to collect user fees from all classes of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, and increases the annual user fees collected for tobacco products by $100 million. 6. Requires the Federal Trade Commission to issue an annual report to Congress on the domestic sales, advertising, and promotional activities of cigarette, cigar, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarette manufacturers. 7. Invests in grants for outreach and education for evidence-based smoking cessation programs for individuals in medically underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities. 8. Awards grants to make tobacco cessation therapies and counseling available at Community Health Centers. This critical legislation provides a comprehensive approach to address the youth tobacco epidemic, which has surged in recent years with the introduction of such new tobacco products as e-cigarettes. I support H.R. 2339 because it will help prevent the loss of an entirely new generation to a lifetime of nicotine addiction. Madam Speaker, one of the most effective ways to reduce youth use of a tobacco product is to increase taxes on that product. This legislation closes the tax loophole for e-cigarettes by establishing tax parity with current tobacco taxes--significantly increasing the cost of e-cigarettes. Currently, there is no federal excise tax on the nicotine contained in e-cigarettes, which could result, for example, in up to a 75 percent increase in the cost of some brands of e-cigarettes. As the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids points out, ``The Surgeon General has called raising prices on cigarettes `one of the most effective tobacco control interventions.' The tobacco industry has targeted kids through social media advertisements, glossy marketing campaigns, and other kid-friendly platforms. Banning the marketing and promotion of e-cigarettes to young people will have a salutary effect because about 95 percent of adult smokers start before age 21 and young people who do not begin smoking by their early 20s are unlikely to ever start. The legislation also includes numerous other provisions to address the youth tobacco epidemic, including prohibiting the manufacturer and sale of all flavored tobacco products, prohibiting companies from marketing or promoting e-cigarettes to youth under age 21, and directing the FDA to prohibit non-face-to-face (online) sales of most tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Madam Speaker, it is gratifying to know that this legislation is supported by nearly 100 groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Academy of Pediatrics, African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council, Black Women's Health Imperative, National Black Nurses Association, National Hispanic Medical Association, Catholic Health Association of the United States, American Public Health Association, National Education Association, Parents Against Vaping e-cigarettes (PAVe), First Focus, Children's Defense Fund, and American College of Physicians. In support this legislation, the NAACP, the nation's oldest civil rights organization, has stated that: ``Flavored e-cigarettes have driven the youth epidemic, and more than half of youth smokers-- including seven out of ten African American youth smokers--smoke menthol cigarettes, so it's time to take these products off the market once and for all.'' Madam Speaker, over the last few years, the use of e-cigarettes has skyrocketed among American middle school and high school students. More than 5.3 million middle school and high school students used e- cigarettes in 2019, an alarming increase of more than 3 million in two years. The recent dramatic rise in the number of middle and high school students using e-cigarettes has reversed the progress that had been made in previous years in the use of tobacco by kids and teenagers. The U.S. Surgeon General has labeled the skyrocketing growth in youth use of e-cigarettes an ``epidemic.'' The Surgeon General has also concluded that youth use of nicotine in any form, including e-cigarettes, is unsafe, causes addiction, and can harm brain development, which impacts attention, memory, and learning. The Surgeon General also found that using nicotine in adolescence increases the risk of future addiction to other drugs. E-cigarettes have very high levels of nicotine, placing young people at significant risk for developing nicotine addiction. Studies have shown that one brand of e-cigarette cartridge can contain as much nicotine as a full pack of traditional cigarettes. In 2009, Congress enacted a federal law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of traditional cigarettes that had flavors (other than the flavors of menthol or tobacco), since the tobacco industry had begun targeting young people by offering flavored cigarettes, including candy and fruit flavors. However, that 2009 flavor prohibition has not applied to tobacco products other than traditional cigarettes. Now, the legislation being considered this week would broaden that 2009 prohibition--blocking the manufacture and sale of all flavored tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and menthol cigarettes. In recent years, tobacco companies have significantly stepped up the introduction and marketing of flavored tobacco products, especially e- cigarettes, with more than 15,000 flavors now available on the market. The widespread availability and appeal of kid-friendly flavors has significantly contributed to the rapid rise in e-cigarette use by young people--with the tobacco industry targeting and addicting kids with enticing flavors such as gummy bear and cotton candy. Flavors mask the harsh taste of tobacco and make it easier for kids to start to use a tobacco product and to become addicted. More than 9 out 10 young persons using e-cigarettes use flavored the e-cigarettes, with 7 out of 10 current youth e-cigarette users saying they used them ``because they come in flavors I like.'' The bill's prohibition on menthol cigarettes will also help protect kids. More than half of youth smokers--and seven in ten African American youth smokers--smoke menthol cigarettes. A 2013 FDA analysis concluded that menthol cigarettes soothe the harshness of tobacco, increase youth initiation, increase nicotine addiction, and make it harder for smokers to quit. Madam Speaker, the National Medical Association, the voice of America's African American physicians, supports this legislation, stating: As the collective voice of African American physicians, we know that banning menthol cigarettes will save lives in our community. Smoking-related illnesses are the number one cause of death in the African American community and approximately 45,000 African Americans die each year from smoking-related diseases. Further, more than 85 percent of African American smokers use menthols cigarettes. . . . For years, the tobacco industry has aggressively promoted menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco products in African American communities. Taking action to ban menthol cigarettes is long overdue and the NMA requests that Congress move swiftly to take up this bill and save lives. Madam Speaker, I do not agree with opponents of the legislation who assert that because 85% of African American smokers use menthol products, that it would disproportionally harm communities of color. H.R. 2339 is not intended to disproportionately impact people and communities of color; instead it treats all tobacco products the same by prohibiting flavoring in all tobacco products. Further, the legislation prohibits the sale, but not the possession, of the banned products and expressly prohibits law enforcement from using abusive practices, such as stop and frisk, to enforce the ban. In 2009, President Obama signed into law the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act which prohibited all flavored cigarettes, other than menthol, after the tobacco industry used these products to target kids. H.R. 2339 merely extends the same enforcement authorities enacted under the Tobacco Control Act to prohibit all flavored tobacco products and ensure that the tobacco industry is no longer manufacturing or importing any flavored products. Finally, instead of imposing criminal penalties, should the U.S. Food and Drug Administration find a manufacturer or retailer in violation of the law, the FDA most commonly utilizes warning letters, no-tobacco sale orders, and civil monetary penalties. Thus, it is simply untrue that H.R. 2339 increases criminal penalties or ``criminalizes tobacco.'' Before concluding, it is noteworthy that H.R. 2339 makes critical investments to medically underserved communities to enhance smoking cessation, particularly among racial and ethnic minority populations. In order to ensure there are necessary resources for current smokers to quit and transition off flavored tobacco products, the bill provides significant resources to Community Health Centers to provide for the availability of counseling and tobacco cessation therapies, as well as other grant programs to enhance the availability of smoking cessation, in particular for menthol products, in medically underserved communities. In sum, H.R. 2339 will help ensure the tobacco industry can no longer target minority communities to the detriment of public health. 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, recent news has indicated that an individual in the United States has been designated with the coronavirus who has not been assessed to have traveled in any of the countries that have been listed for travel advisories and has not been listed as having had any of the normal processes or patterns of getting this particular virus. With that in mind, I think it is extremely important that Congress plays a major role, in addition to its role of discerning the kind of funding. With that in mind, we will be organizing a coronavirus task force that is bipartisan and that will assess how we reach effectively, as Members of Congress, all of our constituents who are dependent on information that we receive: the waiters and waitresses, the traveling public, the aviation persons, the public hospital providers, all of those persons in our districts. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join the task force. Let us work together because it is a crisis. We are in a position to help the American people in the best way that we can, and that is with information.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to support further the bill today on the floor of the House, H.R. 35, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, and I thank my colleague from Illinois for his astuteness. Lynching was the most heinous act of intimidation and violence against slaves and those who came after in the 1800s and the early 1900s. Ida B. Wells, a renowned educator and investigative journalist, fought from 1886 to 1931 for the passage of antilynching legislation, the Emmett Till bill, which recounts the violence that a 14-year-old boy experienced until his death when he simply walked on a street and may have looked at a White woman. This is an important standard and statement that also hopes to bring about the debate and passage of H.R. 40 on the floor of the House, which is the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. Let me also acknowledge H.R. 2819, to extend the authority for the establishment of a commemorative work in honor of Gold Star Families, and for other purposes. I am a strong supporter of those families who, obviously, lost their loved ones. I want to finally say that this administration did not tell the truth on the coronavirus. It is absolutely imperative that they address the American people and address the next steps for protecting the American people, as I have done.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, allow me to thank the gentleman from New York for his friendship and for the recognition that the clarion call has to be called. Let me thank my colleague and friend from New York as well, from the great borough of the Bronx, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for her clarion call. I want to take this from a perspective of civil rights and the idea that, most often, civil rights are defined by the movement of the 1960s, framed around the marches of poor people led by Dr. King and many others who saw the inequities dealing with the treatment of African Americans and others in the social justice system. One might not think that that movement ties directly to where we are today. As a cosponsor of the Green New Deal, I see this as a question of social justice. When the foot soldiers marched, many did not understand why they were attempting to change the way people had lived for decades and, yes, centuries. They didn't fully understand that the unequal treatment under the law was oppressive and denied families, children, regions of the country the ability to reach their highest dream. I represent, still, the many communities that are experiencing inequities. When I held a meeting some weeks ago to deal with what we call cancer clusters, I had a thousand people at a townhall meeting. A chemical, creosote, had gotten into the soil of neighborhoods, which, in Texas, with your patches of land, front yard or back yard, you plant your fruit trees and other garden vegetables. I asked: ``If you have cancer or your relatives have cancer, would you stand up?'' Two-thirds of that audience stood. Today, I am still getting calls from people in surrounding neighborhoods, talking about that chemical. When you begin to look at purifying and cleaning, making sure the air quality is clean, making sure the soil quality is clean, it is looking at ways not to diminish people who are working in industries, who are in hardworking, blue-collar jobs, but to expand their vision of what can happen if you commit to the reasonable policies of the Green New Deal that speak to bringing everyone to the table and addressing this as a civil rights moment, not judging it on the inequities of race but on the inequities of the quality of your neighborhood and the quality of your life. As I listened to the reading of the legislation, there is room at the table for everyone. There is room at the table for scientists. I was a member of the Science Committee for a good number of years. I believe in good science. There is room at the table for technicians, people who are embracing technology. There is room at the table for primary and secondary students who can learn what climate change has done and what the impact is, and how science is connected to a green economy. There is room at the table for elected officials. There is room at the table for large industries that have in their companies huge departments dealing with the environment. The sadness is that that information is not given to all of those who look at these companies and see a particular purpose, but they don't know that they are working on environmental issues. My argument would be about education and information, and understanding that there is so much about quality of life that is tied to the quality of the air and water. Now, just one moment of deviation, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, as one of the first Members who went to her district to speak about the coronavirus, asking why the administration had done nothing and had not given information to the American public, who said that it was urgent that they give this information. Unfortunately, in a presentation which we have seen when we deal with climate change or the Green New Deal, it was reported to us, Members of Congress, that there was nothing to worry about; it wouldn't get here to the United States. Well, I dealt with H1N1 as a Member of Congress, and the Ebola virus, which hit Dallas, Texas. I am in Houston, and before we understood what it was, various providers had treated the individual but had already left the State. Information can save lives. Just recently, before I left Houston, I had a press conference to at least share with the community the various documents and handouts about how one should react to any signs of a flu-like symptom, not to diagnose yourself, but to get to a health provider. In the Green New Deal, it talks about access to healthcare. Many of my constituents died from creosote because they had no access to healthcare. When I say creosote, the ramifications--cancer, respiratory illnesses. I rise today to join my colleagues in a clarion call. I am supposed to be at the Homeland Security Committee right now, but I really wanted to join in this commitment that we need to inform, educate, and activate so that we can begin to be on the journey in America, the greatest Nation in the world. In fact, the United States of America is the Nation now that is being looked on to bring relief on the coronavirus. And we are still missing a team or a plan. But the greatest Nation in the world can now be at the forefront of leading the idea that green is real and right, and it is good for the American people, good for our families, good for our children, good for the leadership that we must give to developing nations and other nations around the world. I rise to join my colleagues and thank them again for their leadership.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, February 5, 2020, the United States Senate determined not to convict and remove from office Donald John Trump, President of the United States, who was impeached by the House for high crimes and misdemeanors, a decision I firmly believe will be judged harshly by history for all time. I voted for the two articles of impeachment contained in H. Res. 755, the resolution of the House of Representatives and I rise to discuss in detail the overwhelming evidence assembled by the Committee on the Judiciary and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which clearly warranted the conclusion that the President abused the powers placed in him in trust by the Constitution and the American people by endeavoring to coerce a foreign government to announce a phony corruption investigation of his perceived chief election rival so he could remain in office and continue his misconduct. The President clearly abused his power by putting his personal interests above the national interest and jeopardizing the national security of the United States and, making it a perfect trifecta, enlisting the aid of a foreign power to sabotage the 2020 presidential election. When this scheme was discovered and made public, the President launched an all-out campaign to impede the ability of Congress to learn all the facts and hold the persons responsible accountable by dishonoring lawful subpoenas, refusing to provide requested information, and directing his subordinates in the Executive Branch not to testify or cooperate with Congress. The House impeachment managers proved these actions to the country and the world beyond dispute and clearly showed how the evidence warranted the President's conviction and removal by the Senate. Madam Speaker, it is beneficial to the public and for history to review the material facts that have led to where we are. In February 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, a stunning display of military aggression unseen since the end of World War II when the maps of post-war Europe were drawn. Five months later, on July 17, 2014, the Russia-backed Donbass People's Militia (DPM), an organization consisting of pro-Russian separatists who have taken up arms against the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Government of Ukraine, shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, killing all 298 persons on board, including 80 children and 15 crew members. Presidential candidate Donald Trump would later dispute Russia's incursion into Ukraine in a nationally televised interview on July 31, 2016, when he said of Russian President Vladimir Putin: He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want. In contrast, the United States, the European Union, and the international community, standing in solidarity with Ukraine, strongly condemned Russia's act of aggression and expelled it from membership in the G-8, the organization of the nation's eight richest, industrialized countries. In June 2016, at the Republican National Convention held in Cleveland, Ohio to nominate Donald Trump as its presidential candidate, the Platform Committee of the Republican Party made but a single change in the party's 2016 platform and that was to water down the platform to make the Republican Party more amenable and sympathetic to Russia and its interests in reestablishing dominance over Ukraine. In November 2016, Donald Trump was narrowly elected the 45th President of the United States, surprisingly winning the Electoral College 306-224, despite losing the national popular vote by a record 2,833,220 votes to the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former U.S. Secretary of State and U.S. Senator from New York. On January 6, 2017, President-elect Donald John Trump was provided the unanimous assessment of the United States that concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election in which Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the determined and resolute foe of Vladimir Putin, and facilitate the election of Vladimir Putin's preferred candidate, Donald John Trump. Russia's interference in the election processes of democratic countries is not new but a continuation of the ``Translator Project,'' an ongoing information warfare effort launched by Vladimir Putin in 2014 to use social media to manipulate public opinion and voters in western democracies. Instead of supporting the unanimous assessment of the United States Intelligence Community, the President consistently attacked and sought to discredit and undermine the agencies and officials responsible for detecting and assessing Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election as well as those responsible for investigating and bringing to justice the conspirators who committed crimes against the United States. Between March 23, 2018 and February 15, 2019, the Congress appropriated $391 million in security assistance and foreign military financing support to Ukraine as follows: $26.5 million FMF funding on March 23, 2018; $250 million on September 28, 2018; and $115 million on February 15, 2019. As documented in the March 2019 Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election submitted by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, the Trump presidential campaign benefited from Russia's ``sweeping and systematic'' interference in the 2016 election through a sophisticated social media campaign coordinated by Russian intelligence officers and by releasing documents stolen from Democratic National Committee computers and the Clinton campaign. While the Special Counsel's report could not conclusively find evidence of a criminal conspiracy between entities or persons aligned with Russia and the Trump campaign, the report noted that the Special Counsel identified ten instances of unlawful conduct by the President that could constitute obstruction of justice but as an employee of the Justice Department the Special Counsel was bound to abide by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel 1974 Memorandum which prohibits charging a President with a crime while he is in office. On April 21, 2019, presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine, winning nearly 70 percent of the vote in the runoff election. On April 25, 2019, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., a distinguished former U.S. Senator and Vice-President of the United States under President Barack Obama, announced his candidacy for President of the United States. On May 6, 2019, the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Louise Yovanovitch, was removed from her duty station and recalled to the United States, culminating a months-long smear campaign conceived and coordinated by Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of the City of New York, acting in his capacity as the current President's personal attorney. On May 9, 2019, the New York Times reported that Rudy Giuliani was planning to travel to Ukraine to prevail upon the new president of that country to launch an investigation into alleged corruption by former Vice-President Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and to ignore the widely debunked and discredited conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election in ``sweeping and systematic fashion.'' Four days later, on May 13, 2019, U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr announced that the U.S. Department of Justice was undertaking an investigation into the origins of interference in the 2016 election. Madam Speaker, it should be noted that the Trump Administration decision to shift responsibility for 2016 election interference from Russia to Ukraine is contrary to the assessment rendered unanimously by the U.S. Intelligence Community and furthers the `active measures' conspiracy theory hatched in Moscow by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the oligarchic regime governing the Russia Federation. In fact, a story published December 19, 2019 in the Washington Post, reports that senior advisors to the President believe he was influenced to perpetuate this crackpot conspiracy theory by Vladimir Putin. On May 20, 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky was inaugurated as only the sixth democratically elected President of Ukraine but it was noteworthy that the American delegation attending the inauguration was not headed by Vice-President Mike Pence as originally scheduled but by U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who replaced the Vice-President at the President's direction and included lower-level functionaries Kurt Volker, Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations; Gordon Sondland, Ambassador to the European Union and a large donor to the Trump Inauguration Committee; and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, Director of European Affairs at the National Security Council. Two weeks later, in a nationally televised interview broadcast June 13, 2019 on ABC News, the President stated that he would accept damaging information against an electoral rival from a foreign government, a position disowned in a public statement issued later that day by the Chair of the U.S. Federal Elections Commission, which reemphasized to all candidates and voters that accepting political help from a foreign government would be illegal and a violation of federal election law. On July 24, 2019, in testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, on which I sit as the third senior member of the majority, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III affirmed the findings and conclusions in his voluminous report, including that the ``Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.'' The very next day, on July 25, 2019, the President spoke with President Zelensky by telephone in a much-anticipated telephone conversation. In that call, President Zelensky advised the President that Ukraine was ready to purchase needed Javelin missiles from the United States to defend itself from ongoing armed aggression by Russia. In his immediate response to President Zelensky's request for military assistance, the President replied: ``I would like for you to do us a favor, though'' and announce the launch of a corruption investigation against his most feared and formidable electoral rival, former Vice-President Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and the alleged involvement of Ukraine in the 2016 election for President of the United States. The `favor' the President wished of the Ukraine President was to be performed not to further United States national security policy since the national security community was unanimous in its collective support of Ukraine in its struggle against Russian military encroachment but to benefit the President personally and politically in his capacity as a candidate for reelection to the office he currently occupies. On August 12, 2019, a whistleblower complaint was filed with the Inspector General of the Intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, who after receiving the complaint followed applicable procedure and notified in writing the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee that the whistleblower's complaint was `deemed credible' and ``related to one of the most important and significant of the [Director of National Intelligence]'s responsibilities to the American people.'' On September 11, 2019, after many months, the White House's hold on needed military aid desperately needed by Ukraine was lifted as inexplicably and as swiftly as it was imposed. Indeed, the only material change in circumstances that had occurred between the imposition and lifting of the hold was the fact that the President and his Administration was now aware that Congress and the public had learned that congressionally appropriated security assistance to an ally under attack by our adversary was being withheld by the President for no apparent national security reason and that Congress had not been notified of the withholding by the Administration. In September 2019, Members of the House of Representatives were alerted to a complaint filed by a whistleblower within the Intelligence Community. The complaint alleged that on a July 25, 2019 call with the President of Ukraine, the President of the United States sought to withhold $391 million in desperately needed foreign military aid to Ukraine unless and until it--either through procurement or manufacture--produced political dirt against former Vice-President Biden, who was perceived to pose the greatest threat to the current President's reelection in 2020. On September 24, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the commencement of an impeachment inquiry. A key witness was Ambassador William Taylor, one of West Point's most distinguished alumna, a Vietnam combat veteran, and the former Ambassador and then charge d'affaires of the United States Embassy in Ukraine, who testified under oath that he told Gordon Sondland, our Ambassador to the European Union that it was ``crazy'' to withhold security assistance to Ukraine for a political campaign. Ambassador Taylor also testified that one of his staff members in the Embassy in Ukraine advised him on July 26, 2019, the day after the President's telephone call with President Zelensky, that he clearly overheard a conversation that day between Ambassador Sondland and the President in which the latter asked Ambassador Sondland whether President Zelensky was ``going to do the investigation.'' That staffer, David Holmes, affirmed the correctness of Ambassador Taylor's account and went on to testify that in response to the President's question, Ambassador Sondland replied to the President that ``[Zelensky] is going to do it'' and that President Zelensky ``will do anything you ask him to.'' When Mr. Holmes asked Ambassador Sondland about the President's commitment to Ukraine, he testified that Ambassador Sondland replied that the President ``does not give a [expletive] about Ukraine and that the President only cares about big stuff . . . that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation, that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.'' Indispensable to carrying out the plan to announce the launch of a phony corruption investigation into former Vice-President Biden was the removal of the then United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, the longest serving female member of the diplomatic corps, and an American diplomat with a demonstrated expertise and distinguished record of fighting corruption and leading Ukraine away from its notorious past when it was a satellite of the Soviet Union. So, led by Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer, a smear campaign was conducted against Ambassador Yovanovitch, accusing her falsely of impugning the President and allegedly abetting corruption in Ukraine. This led directly to the Ambassador being recalled from her duty station and referenced in the July 25, 2019 telephone call where the President stated to President Zelensky that ``[Ambassador Yovanovitch] from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news'' and that ``she's going to go through some things.'' David Hale, who as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs was the third ranking official in the State Department, testified that he witnessed the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch and urged his departmental superiors to place a full-page advertisement in local Ukrainian press in support of Ambassador Yovanovitch, but this suggestion was refused. In her appearance before the Intelligence Committee, Ambassador Yovanovitch testified that she was aghast that she was personally mentioned in a telephone call between the President and the President of Ukraine and stated that she felt threatened and intimidated when she heard the President remark that she was ``going to go through some things.'' Ambassador Yovanovitch relived this fear in real time when she learned the President was live tweeting disparaging things about her as she testified, implying, for example, that she was somehow in part responsible for the 1993 situation in Mogadishu, Somalia. Three Administration officials with direct knowledge of the July 25, 2019 telephone called testified under oath before the Intelligence Committee: Jennifer Williams, a State Department foreign service officer to the Office of Vice-President Mike Pence; and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, NSC Director of European Affairs, who was born in the Ukraine on the anniversary of D-Day, immigrated to the United States with his father and twin brother when he was three years old, was later commissioned an officer in the United States Army and deployed overseas to South Korea, Germany, and Iraq, where he was wounded in combat operations and awarded the Purple Heart. Ms. Williams characterized the President's conduct on the telephone call as ``unusual,'' inappropriate, and partisan in nature. Lt. Col. Vindman was gravely concerned because the President of the United States was requesting a foreign country to investigate an American citizen, an act so contrary to national policy and interest that he immediately reported the matter to a senior counsel lawyer on the National Security Council. The third person witnessing the call was Tim Morrison, who at the time of the July 25, 2019 telephone call was Senior Director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council and a former Republican congressional professional staff member, who testified that the President's behavior on the telephone call gave him a ``sinking feeling'' because it could easily be characterized as pursuing partisan political interests. Mr. Morrison testified that he contacted NSC counsel and sought to have the record of the telephone call hidden on a secure server to avoid discovery by official Washington. The testimony of Gordon Sondland, appointed by the President as the Ambassador to the European Union and a million-dollar Trump donor, was chilling, especially his testimony that ``everyone was in the loop.'' Ambassador Sondland testified that he communicated directly with the President who directed him to work on the Ukraine matter with Rudy Giuliani, who had no official role with the U.S. government. Ambassador Sondland stated under oath that Rudy Giuliani pressured the Ukraine government to investigate Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that had Hunter Biden, the former vice-president's son as one of its board members. Further, Ambassador Sondland testified that the President conditioned a White House meeting with President Zelensky and the release of security assistance on his announcement of an investigation designed to blame any 2016 presidential election interference on Ukraine and thus undermine the unanimous assessment of the American Intelligence Community that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit candidate Trump and harm candidate Clinton. In addition, according to Ambassador Sondland, the highly sought and desired White House visit and security assistance was conditioned on the announcement by President Zelensky of an investigation into his perceived chief domestic political rival, former Vice-President Joseph R. Biden. It takes no great leap in logic to divine that the President's intent and purpose here was to replicate his 2016 campaign formula from 2016: invite foreign meddling, point to an investigation, and exploit it by rumor and innuendo on social media. Ambassador Sondland asked rhetorically, ``Was there a quid pro quo?'' and then said: ``As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.'' And according to Ambassador Sondland, ``[e]veryone was in the loop,'' including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; Mulvaney's senior adviser, Rob Blair; Secretary Pompeo's counselor, Ulrich Brechbuehl; Lisa Kenna, the State Department executive secretary; National Security Advisor John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser at the time; Bolton's Deputy National Security Advisor Fiona Hill; and NRC senior official Timothy Morrison, and even Vice President Mike Pence who Ambassador Sondland testified he told in September 2019 that the Ukraine aid appeared to be stalled because of the demand for investigations. Finally, Dr. Fiona Hill, who preceded Tim Morrison in the Trump Administration as National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia testified that after speaking with and listening to Ambassador Sondland she came to understand that United States policy for Ukraine had diverged into one track pursuing standard United States policy objectives of promoting democracy and the rule of law, fighting corruption, and protecting Ukraine from Russia; and another track solely concerned with achieving the more narrow personal and political goal of the President to prevail upon the new Ukrainian president to commit publicly to announcing an investigation of supposed interference by Ukraine in the 2016 presidential election as well as a manufactured wrongdoing by former Vice-President Joseph Biden. Dr. Hill testified that her direct supervisor, NSA Advisor John Bolton, characterized this second track as a ``drug deal'' which she stated to Ambassador Sondland that ``I do think this is all going to blow up. And here we are.'' Madam Speaker, I will further discuss what message this evidence sends to us loud and clear.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, February 5, 2020, the United States Senate determined not to convict and remove from office Donald John Trump, President of the United States, who was impeached by the House for high crimes and misdemeanors; a decision I firmly believe will be judged harshly by history for all time. Madam Speaker it is important to understand the seriousness of a determination by the House to exercise the power of impeachment, which under Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution is vested solely in the House of Representatives. The purpose of impeachment is not to punish the person but to protect the people by removing from office an individual whose misconduct and behavior is so dangerous that it imperils the liberty of the people, the security of the nation, or the vitality of the governmental system. In short, impeachment is the passionate outcry (crie de coeur) of a people alarmed at a pattern of abuses and usurpations that evidence a desire to reduce them to accept absolute despotism or establish tyrannical rule. The impeachment power is vested in the House of Representatives because it is the body designed by the Framers to be the physical, direct, and immediate representatives of the People, reflecting all of their passions and hopes and fears and concerns. So, when `The People' who established the Constitution are acting to preserve and protect their governmental system and their security, there is no higher or countervailing authority to which they must yield. A refusal by any authority subordinate to `The People,' including the President of the United States, to cooperate with, or honor a request for information from the House of Representatives when it is exercising its sole power of impeachment is simply another way of saying that the person in question is exalting his or her interests over the sovereign interests of the people, the ultimate repository of all political power in a democratic republic such as the United States. The impeachment inquiry initiated pursuant to H. Res. 660 by the House of Representatives systematically and methodically revealed the manner in which the President misused the power and authority of his office to extort a beleaguered and besieged ally to conspire with him to sabotage the 2016 presidential election so that he could retain the office he holds and continue to abuse its powers. Every material allegation set forth in the whistleblower's complaint has been verified, corroborated, or affirmed by a host of witnesses who overcame opposition and threats by the White House and courageously testified from which three unassailable conclusions can be drawn. First, the President violated his oath of office by placing his personal and political interest above the national interest by scheming to get Ukraine to announce a phony investigation against a potential election opponent. Second, the President betrayed the national interest by withholding vital, congressionally appropriated security assistance to a beleaguered and besieged ally facing armed aggression from Russia, America's implacable foe. Third, the essential purpose of the scheme concocted by the President was to enlist a foreign country to help him fix the 2020 presidential election in his favor, the very type of interference most feared by the Framers. The evidence showed that the President of the United States abused the powers vested in him in the way the Framers most feared and worked hardest to protect against. What this means in short is that the evidence showed that the President committed the trifecta of the most cardinal political sins that can be committed in a democratic republic. If American elections are not free, fair, and uninfluenced by foreign actors, then the democracy is extinguished and citizens are reduced to subjects ruled by an authority dependent not on the consent of the governed, but on the assistance and beneficence of unaccountable foreign actors. The testimony and evidence led to and supported a conclusion that the President abused his power to extort a foreign nation to conspire with him to sabotage an American election and undermine democracy so he could retain his office to abuse his powers. Madam Speaker, Ukraine is not just another country but a bulwark for the West against Russia, its imperialism, its autocratic tendencies; Ukraine is an ally on the frontline of the United States' containment policy toward Russian expansion that has been in place since 1947. Thus, withholding desperately needed security assistance to Ukraine not only harms that nation but endangers the security of more than 325 million Americans. The conduct of the President adduced by the evidence illustrates the reason for the doomsday clause in Article I, section 2, clause 5 as the ultimate protector of a people and system of government in which America is to be ruled by American leaders selected by American voters without the assistance of non-Americans. Madam Speaker, the hallmarks of a democratic system of government are: (1) an independent judiciary; (2) civilian control of the military; (3) free and independent political parties; (4) fealty to the rule of law; (5) freedom of speech and of assembly; and (6) a free and independent press. But the lynchpin of a functioning and real democracy is free and fair elections. As I stated earlier, if American elections are not free, fair, and uninfluenced by foreign actors, then the democracy is extinguished and citizens are reduced to subjects ruled by an authority dependent not on the consent of the governed, but on the assistance and beneficence of unaccountable foreign actors. The Framers wanted to ensure that the President's allegiance would always be to the nation, which is why the text of the presidential oath is the only one specified in the Constitution and why the Emoluments Clause (Article 1, Section 9, clause 8) prohibits the President from accepting any title of nobility or thing of value from any King, Prince, or foreign state without the consent of Congress. The first President of the United States, George Washington, counseling in his famous 1796 Farewell Address to beware of foreign entanglements, said the government sometimes acts to make ``the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.'' President Washington also pointed out the pernicious influence of foreign involvement in American elections: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Madam Speaker, if we are to have government of the people, by the people, for the people, then elections must be decided by Americans, and only Americans, without the influence of foreign leaders or nations. The only legitimate way political authority is conveyed voluntarily and consensually from the governed to the governors is through free and fair elections uncorrupted by foreign involvement. In seeking to entangle Ukraine directly in the 2020 presidential election, the actions proved by the House Impeachment Managers showed that the President acted to further his own personal political interests and disregarded his oath registered in Heaven to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Instead of advancing America's interests, Russia, America's implacable foe since 1945, has been emboldened and is benefitting from every action that weakens or jeopardizes Ukraine's ability to defend itself from aggression, beginning with the lukewarm embrace of this Administration of NATO, and especially Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which deems an attack on any NATO member country as an attack on all, a commitment that has kept the peace in Europe since the end of World War II. The Framers understood that abuse of power is the gravest offense that can be committed in a democratic republic. Criminal offenses, the Framers understood, could be adjudicated in the judicial system, policy disagreements could be worked out in the political system, and concerns over maladministration could be addressed and decided or corrected in the electoral system. But acts that by their nature injure the very system of government itself are different, or sui generis, and require a different and more immediate remedy, and that is the removal from the office entrusted to the person or persons causing the injury. This is done to protect the people and the republic, not to inflict punishment on the person. The Framers were well aware that some of the most dangerous abuses of power were not violations of the criminal code but the actions of a tyrant who ruled under the divine right of kings and they pledged their lives, honor, and sacred fortunes never to countenance such abuses or usurpations in their new country. Consider if you will a small sample of the legal acts of abuse and suffering inflicted on Americans in the time of the Framers by their rulers, Great Britain's King George III and the British Parliament, which they documented in the Declaration of Independence: He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with [Parliament] to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States; For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent; For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury; For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences The principle the Framers were asserting is that removal of the King and Parliament was justified not because they had committed criminal violations of the statute book, but because they had and were exercising their power in a manner that threatened the liberty and security of the people. In short, the Framers were declaring to the world that their governors had so abused their powers that it ``revealed the character of a tyrant who was unfit to be the ruler of a free people.'' And to ensure that did not happen again in the new nation, the Framers wisely included Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 vesting the sole power of impeachment in the House of Representatives and Article II, Section 4 subjecting the President and Vice President to removal from Office ``on Impeachment for and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The actions alleged in H. Res. 755, the impeachment resolution, and proved to a certainty by the House Managers bespeak a stunning disregard for the values that sustain our country and a contempt for the institutions that protect our liberties and national security. As alarming is the fact there has been from the President no expression of regret, no remorse, no contrition, no apology, no atonement, no request for forgiveness, no admission of wrongdoing or even erroneous judgment, and no attempt at reconciliation. Instead, the President continues to double-down on his previous actions, still claiming, despite all evidence to the contrary, that his telephone call with President Zelensky was ``perfect'' and inviting other countries, such as China, to become involved in our nation's 2020 presidential election. This means the clear and present threat to our democracy that moved the House to act is a continuing one, which the Senate should have acted to remove. Given the disappointing failure to convict and remove by the Senate, it is incumbent on each Member of this body, and all citizens of our great nation, to vigilantly be on guard to safeguard our democratic institutions, values, and principles against further attack. That is what this moment in history demands of us and we dare not I falter or fail in this moment of crisis so as was said in another perilous time, ``sail on oh ship of state, sail on oh union great; humanity with all its fears, with all it hopes of future years, is hanging breathlessly on thy fate.'' I extend my deepest thanks to thank Speaker Pelosi for the extraordinary leadership she has displayed on behalf of this House, the Congress, and the nation during the present crisis. I also want to acknowledge and thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for the meticulous and thoroughly professional manner in which their committees discharged the responsibilities entrusted to them by H. Res. 660, the impeachment inquiry resolution. I thank all of the members of the Committees on the Judiciary and on Intelligence for the tremendous contributions they made in compiling such a powerful and overwhelming evidentiary record for impeachment. I especially wish to recognize the extraordinary advocacy of the House Impeachment Managers in presenting such a persuasive and compelling case for impeachment to the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment. Of course, an enterprise of this magnitude could not be carried out successfully without the assistance, support, and commitment of extremely talented professional staff members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees and I thank them for the invaluable service they rendered to our nation. Finally, I wish to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to members of my personal staff, Gregory Berry, Chief Counsel; Robin Chand, Senior Counsel; and Glenn Rushing, Chief of Staff, for their expertise and tireless efforts in researching and analyzing the unprecedented factual background, legal issues, and constitutional precedents involved in these proceedings. Madam Speaker, it has been said that what we do in life echoes in history, and Scripture tells us in Psalms 30:5 that ``weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning.'' I am confident that if we hold fast and honor the values and principles that we know to be right and true and good, then constitutional government will be preserved and passed on to future generations just as it was to us. So, it is with love and reverence for this country and its people, that I stood with the Constitution and supported the resolution impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors and it is why I disagree with the conclusion of the Senate not to convict and remove the President from office.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a member of the bipartisan Congressional HBCU Caucus and an original co-sponsor, I rise in support of H.R. 1494, the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) Homeland Security Partnerships Act, which strengthens partnerships between historically Black colleges and universities and minority- serving institutions, and the Department of Homeland Security. As a strong proponent of the preservation of our nation's HBCU's and MSI's, I support this bill because our students deserve to receive an outstanding education and have access to equal resources, regardless of the institution they choose to attend. H.R. 1494 would improve the quality of HBCU's and minority serving institutions by allowing the Department of Homeland Security to promote recruitment, hiring, research and acquisition opportunities. H.R. 1494 also requires the Department of Homeland Security to send each HBCU and minority-serving institution a comprehensive list of internship, fellowship, scholarship and recruitment opportunities within the Department for students and graduates of such institutions. In addition to the implementation of strategies to improve governmental relations with these colleges, universities and institutions, the DHS will submit reports detailing financial awards, descriptions of how the partnerships are enforced, and summaries of outreach efforts to HBCU's and minority-serving institutions. Madam Speaker, I am proud that one of the greatest HBCUs in the country, Texas Southern University, is located in my congressional district. Texas Southern University has a rich history with nine academic units, 1,000 dedicated staff members, and over 9,200 esteemed students. Like most of my HBCU Caucus colleagues, I have worked closely with my local HBCU to provide funding and resources needed to enable them to fulfill their mission of educating the next generation of social engineers and conducting research programs addressing issues of major concern to the African American community. As Chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection in the 111th Congress, I authored the legislation to establish a Transportation Security Center of Excellence at TSU and worked to help TSU secure $1.2 million in funding over four years from the Department of Homeland Security for this Center of Excellence. One of my proudest accomplishments as a member of Congress is my success in working with federal officials in the Clinton Administration to settle the lawsuit against TSU that had been pending for more than 23 years. I was proud to spearhead the initiative that brought more than $13 million in financial aid relief for the students and campus of Texas Southern University. I also worked with TSU administrators to initiate digital archive projects to preserve the records of two of its most distinguished alumni, the legendary Barbara Jordan and Mickey Leland, both of whom preceded me as the Member of Congress for the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas. I was pleased to facilitate a partnership between Comcast and TSU's School of Communication to provide scholarships and internships to TSU students and in-kind marketing services to the university. I helped secure funding needed to establish the Center for Transportation, Training and Research in the TSU College of Science, Engineering, and Technology. HBCU's have played a critical role in American history. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated: ``The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character--that is the goal of true education.'' HBCUs do not just educate--HBCUs have and will continue to fill an important role in education opportunity and engagement for millions of young people from diverse backgrounds. Funds provided by the Science and Technology Directorate grants and cooperative agreements will provide enhancements in areas relating to homeland security such as cybersecurity, emergency management and counterterrorism. As leaders of this country, the success and expansion of HBCUs and minority-serving institutions falls on our shoulders and we must act swiftly to ensure that these institutions are protected. In an effort to maintain the legacy and educational quality of our historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions, we must act urgently to ensure the proper relationships are established between all of these institutions and the Department of Homeland Security. I ask all members to join me in voting for H.R. 1494, the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) Homeland Security Partnerships Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of Congress, I rise in support of H.R. 4432, the Protecting Critical Infrastructure Against Drones and Emerging Threats Act, which requires a full assessment of threats relating to unmanned aircrafts, development and dissemination of a security threat assessment regarding unmanned aircrafts and similar technologies, and the establishment of secure communications and critical information technology infrastructure to properly utilize analytical tools. By requiring the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security to prepare a threat assessment within one year of the bill's enactment to share with the House and Senate Homeland Security committees, Congress and the President can act swiftly to prevent any potential risks. With national security as one of our nation's top priorities, we must begin to fully determine the risks posed by this advanced and increasingly popular technology. The data will be collected from agencies through data-mining and other advanced diagnostic tools at the Federal, state and local levels, as well as various infrastructure owners and operators. Assessment of the data will include a report and classified plan to alleviate any potential threats through the use of unmanned aircrafts. The Federal Aviation Administration reported a total of 1.1 million small hobbyist drones and about 412,000 commercial drone registrations for the year 2019. The use of unmanned aircrafts is growing rapidly, both as a hobby and for commercial purposes, including in the oil and gas industry. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to vote in support of H.R. 4432.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5273, the ``Securing America's Ports Act.'' I voted for H.R. 5273 because it secures America's land ports of entry along the border by increasing the rate of expeditious scanning of commercial and passenger vehicles entering the United States. But Madam Speaker, this bill does more than just secure the border. H.R. 5273 also encourages the continuation of cross-cultural interactions through tourism and trade across an increasingly secure border and encourages the rich diversity of interactions and cooperation between the United States and Mexico as well as ensures mutual economic success. As many of you know, Texas shares the longest border with Mexico of any states in the Union at 1,254 miles. Over time, the southwest region of the country has become the largest manufacturing corridor in the world. In 2019, it was estimated that two-way trade between the United States and Mexico surpassed $600 billion. Trade between Texas and Mexico alone was approximately $200 billion each year. In fact, in a single day, more than one million people come and go across the border, along with 300,000 vehicles and over 75,000 trucks. This magnitude of crossings at the border demands our attention. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses these systems to inspect contents of commercial and passenger vehicles for potential contraband, such as drugs, without physically opening or unloading the vehicles. My congressional district is home to one of the most racially and culturally diverse communities in the United States . In the 18th Congressional District of Texas, 39.1 percent of people identify as Hispanic or Latino, 39.9 percent identify as Black or African American, and 45.4 percent identify as White. Throughout my time in Congress, I have sought to propose and support legislation that increases the efficiency of operations at the border in addition to encouraging trade for the economic betterment of Texans. For example, I supported H.R. 4940, the Border and Port Security Act, which prioritized improving the level of efficiency at the border by requiring the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to hire, train, and assign at least 500 new officers. By adding qualified CBP agents, H.R. 4940 would help resolve CBP's understaffing crisis and efficiently address not only the high volumes of commercial and passenger vehicles that cross the border every day but also the seasonal surges that leave our CBP officers overwhelmed. Today, the Securing America's Ports Act is building on previous initiatives like H.R. 4940 and improving the processes at our border. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5273 understands and acts upon the nuances between the need to secure the border and achieve safety and security while also promote the robust exchange of goods, services, people, and ideas that we have enjoyed and profited from for years. I ask all members to join me in voting for H.R. 5273, the Securing America's Ports Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior Member of Congress, I rise in support of H.R. 2932, the ``Homeland Security for Children Act,'' which would direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to identify and integrate the needs of children into activities to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against the risk of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters. The ``Homeland Security for Children Act'' would make children's needs a priority throughout the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), by directing the DHS Undersecretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans to incorporate feedback from children's organizations into Department-wide activities. This legislation would require DHS to submit a report to Congress on the Department's efforts to integrate the needs of children into the policies, programs, and activities at DHS. DHS will authorize a Children's Technical Expert position, ensuring that the Agency will adequately incorporate the needs of children into its emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation activities. Due to their general incapacity to protect and advocate for themselves, children are more likely to succumb to the negative outcomes associated with disasters and acts of terrorism. FEMA has consistently missed the mark when it comes to acknowledging and prioritizing the unique needs of children in its disaster-related activities. When disaster strikes, whether natural or manmade, the country has historically struggled to adequately prepare for children's unique needs. For example, in Houston Hurricane Harvey made land fall in 2017 and proceeded to affect 13 million people, cause $125 billion dollars in damages, and take the lives of 94 individuals. Nearly 3 million children in Harris County alone were impacted by Hurricane Harvey. Six months after the storm approximately 4,000 childcare programs, afterschool programs, and schools closed for weeks in the Greater Houston area. Hurricane Harvey resulted in an increase to the number of economically disadvantaged children, cases of mental health issues and student homelessness. The shortage of childcare throughout the impacted regions prevented many families from returning to their `normal' lives. Traumatic experiences, such as a natural disaster, can negatively impact a child's mental health, cause an increase in irritability, aggression, anger, and physical ailments, such as headaches and stomach aches. It is vital that FEMA makes it a priority to integrate the needs of children into their activities to prepare for, protect against and mitigate against the risk of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters. I ask all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 2932, the ``Homeland Security for Children Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of Congress, I rise in support of H.R. 4737, the ``Department of Homeland Security Climate Change Research Act,'' which requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to evaluate existing federal research regarding approaches to mitigate climate change on homeland security, to identify areas for further research within the Department, and to research and develop approaches to mitigate the consequences of climate change on homeland security. This legislation directs DHS to assess and potentially expand existing federal research projects that examine ways to mitigate the effects of climate change on homeland security programs. The development in research from DHS will explore the connection, if any, between climate change and homeland security, including how the resulting competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent can contribute to acts of terrorism. Climate change poses a direct threat to U.S. national security through its effects on critical infrastructure, the lives of citizens, the economy, and energy security. The scarcer resources become, the more power is given to those who control them, especially in regions where people are particularly reliant on natural resources for their livelihoods. Terrorist groups will exploit the natural disasters and water and food shortages expected to result from climate change and allow them to recruit more easily, operate more freely and control civilian populations. H.R. 4737 will ensure that DHS is adequately structured to meet the demands of responding to and recovering from acts of terrorism and natural disasters that are aggravated by climate change. Climate change is not just a global problem, but also a threat to domestic security. More than 60 percent of the country has faced moderate to extreme drought conditions and massive heat waves which devastated corn crops, put pressure on food prices, and caused deaths around the country. Climate change poses costly threats to our domestic installations and potentially destabilizing threats to our international installations that hold strategic importance to the United States. The extreme weather events that we have witnessed in the past 5 years illustrate the impact of climate change in the U.S. is much more complicated than a simple rise in temperatures. Each region of this country will be impacted differently; understanding these regional consequences is important to policymakers because it will allow planning for response and adaptation. Studies show that Texas is among a string of ``Deep South'' states that will experience the worst effects of climate change. For example, Hurricane Harvey was a 1,000 year storm that has to date claimed the lives of at least 30 persons. Before it was finished, Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex. A record 4,323 days, which is nearly 12 years, elapsed since a major hurricane (Category 3 or above) made landfall in the United States prior to Hurricane Harvey; the last Category 3 hurricane to hit the United States was Hurricane Wilma in 2005, the same year Hurricane Katrina destroyed much of New Orleans. To put in perspective the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey, the volume of water that fell on Houston and other affected areas of Texas and Louisiana could fill more than 24,000 Astrodomes or supply the water for the raging Niagara Falls for 15 days. In the first three days of the storm, more than 49,000 homes that had suffered flood damage and more than 1,000 homes were completely destroyed in the storm. Local authorities closed major freeways, airports, and schools. In the first three days of the storm, more than 49,000 homes that had suffered flood damage and more than 1,000 homes were completely destroyed in the storm. More than 30,000 persons were forced out of their homes due to the storm. Presently, Houston experiences about five days each year over 100 deg. Fahrenheit and by 2100, the city could expect some 70 days over 100 deg. Fahrenheit. The major weather and climate disasters that Texas experienced each produced at least a billion dollars in losses. As the climate continues to warm, more multi-year droughts are expected with devastating impacts to the state's agriculture sector and drinking water. As climate change affects food security and the availability of water and land, affected people will become more vulnerable not only to negative climate impacts but also to recruitment by terrorist groups offering alternative livelihoods and economic incentives. Climate change will directly affect America's homeland and the security of its citizens. I ask all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 4737, the ``Department of Homeland Security Climate Change Research Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank all of the women of America. I thank the sponsor of this bill. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member for being on the floor. I thank him. I ask the question: Does anybody see the sense of women not being in the most powerful document of laws and power of the American people? Let us be reminded of the words of Abigail Adams: ``I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws''--which she is saying to her husband--``which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.'' I rise enthusiastically to support H.J. Res. 79 and to say to my colleagues there is no constitutional prohibition for passing this. We are grandly involved because this is the 1972 passage by the State of Texas of the equal rights amendment. And here, in 1977, Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug were in Houston at the 1977 National Women's Conference that our predecessor, Barbara Jordan, was at. Let us pass H.J. Res. 79, because, as Abigail Adams said, let's remember the ladies. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary and an original cosponsor, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.J. Res. 79, which eliminates the ratification deadline for the Equal Rights Amendment and will lead to the long overdue adding of the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Madam Speaker, I am reminded of the imperative powerfully expressed on March 31, 1776 in Braintree, Massachusetts in a letter from Abigail Adams, the future First Lady, to her husband John Adams: I long to hear that you have declared an independency--and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. The resolution before us will help enshrine for all time the belief, promise, and commitment that all men, and women, are created equal and endowed with by the Creator with the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are making real this promise thanks to the bipartisan resolution introduced by Congresswoman Spiers of California. The Constitution does not prohibit the action we are taking; in fact, it permits it since ratification deadlines are not even mentioned, much less imposed by the Constitution. This resolution reinforces that, the previous deadline is no bar to passing the ERA. Under Article V of the Constitution, the Equal Rights Amendment ``shall be valid to all intents and purposes whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states.'' A resolution identical to H.J. Res. 79 has been introduced in the United States Senate, which I call upon the Senate to take up and pass forthwith. Madam Speaker, it is useful to review how we arrived at this moment in history. Beginning in the late 1960s, the National Organization for Women (NOW) devised and began implementing a strategy of pushing for equal rights through a combination of impact litigation and advocacy for the Equal Rights Amendment. I remember this particularly well because in November 1977, the first National Women's Conference was held in Houston, Texas and attended my congressional predecessor, the Honorable Barbara Jordan. The National Women's Conference was inspired by a 1975 United Nations-sponsored event from two years prior which led President Gerald Ford to establish a national commission to investigate women's issues. Congress later voted to provide $5 million to fund the organization of regional conferences and to hold a national gathering at the conclusion, the result of these efforts was the National Women's Conference meant to unite all women and give them an opportunity to voice their hopes for the future of the government. I remember that Phyllis Schlafly of the conservative Eagle Forum organized and came to Houston to lead backlash demonstration protesting the ERA and the women's movement, claiming that the ERA would force women to give up their right to be supported by their husbands, and subject them to the military. draft and deployment to Vietnam. That was the launch of the conservative counter-offensive to derail ratification of the ERA and the beginning of the schism that has seen equality between the sexes and expanding the economic, privacy, and political rights of women subject to increasing partisan debate and action that is continues to the present day. In 1970, Congresswoman Martha Griffiths of Michigan filed a discharge petition in the House to bring the ERA to the floor, after the Judiciary Committee consistently refused to act on it. The discharge petition was adopted, and the ERA passed the House by a wide margin. The Senate Judiciary Committee also held several days of hearings in 1970 on its version of the ERA but it failed to gain enough votes that year. On October 12, 1971, the House voted by 354-24 to approve a version of the ERA that stated: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years of its submission by the Congress: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. On March 22, 1972, the Senate passed the ERA by a vote of 84-8. The following month, Madam Speaker, I graduated from college in the first undergraduate class of women to attend Yale University in September 1969. I was a member of the group of 250 upper-class women who transferred to Yale University, a number that eventually led to 1,500 women being admitted over the years, in addition to the 4,000 male students. Between September 12-14, 1969 undergraduate women students arrived on campus and at that time, 48 of 817 FAS faculty were women and only two had tenure. I am proud to be a part of the history of Yale University and had the opportunity to speak about my experience at the 50th Anniversary last year. The presence of women at Yale, which had been an all-male institution was a sign of the change that was sweeping the nation. I first arrived at Yale with the anticipation and anxiety of any college student arriving on campus for the first time. This was an extraordinary milestone--both for Yale and for us young women. But being a ``first'' is not all that people may assume that it is. In the centennial year of the 19th Amendment, on January 15, 2020, the Virginia General Assembly became the 38th state to vote to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, the magic number needed to become enshrined in the Constitution. Because of the ERA, women are finally included in our Constitution, making them equal to men under law. A vote to eliminate the ratification deadline for the ERA is a vote for equality; a vote against the measure is a vote to preserve the legacy of sex discrimination. Women will not continue to be second-class citizens in their own country. The absence of the ERA has meant that women can be paid less for their work, violated with impunity, and discriminated against simply for being women. Women made up more than 6 in 10 seniors who lived in poverty last year, with the poverty rate for senior women at 11 percent. The average Social Security benefit for women 65 and older is about $14,270 per year, compared to about $18,375 for men 65 and older. In the 116th Congress, women hold just 23.6 percent of seats in the U.S. Congress. In 2019, just 33 Fortune 500 CEOs are women, a new record. While women-owned businesses account for 42 percent of all firms, women-owned business account for just 8 percent of the total private sector workforce and 4.3 percent of total revenue. Some legal scholars note the location of the deadline in the preamble is important, because the ERA's deadline was not part of the text that the states voted on when they ratified the amendment. Other scholars argue that the deadline itself is unconstitutional because Article V of the Constitution does not include mention of deadlines. A close reading and clear understanding of the Constitution leads inescapably to the conclusion that when the Framers considered a time period to be of the essence, they specified the time period clearly in the document itself. Moreover, in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), the Supreme Court rejected the idea that Article V contains an implied limitation period for ratifications. Madam Speaker, as a country founded on principles of liberty, justice and equality, and a global leader in formulating international human rights standards, the United States need to pass the ERA to meet basic standards for women who are denied equal access to legal rights and protections. Too many women in the United States inexplicably lag behind international human rights standards and it is a myth that women in the United States already enjoy all of the expected standards of rights and protections afforded under America. The reality is, women in the United States experience continued discrimination and daunting disparities that prevent them from fully participating as equal members of society. For example, women have risen to some of the highest levels of legislative and executive representation over the years, yet with 20% of Congressional Members and an average of 24.9% of state legislatures, but the United States ranks #72 in the global market of women represented in public and political positions. While the number of women justices has significantly increased, women litigants' access to justice is severely limited. Although women vote in higher percentages than men, women's access to voting is under attack in many states where increased voter ID requirements and voter purges pose unprecedented barriers. Although women constitute nearly half of the US labor force, at a participation rate of 57%, equal economic opportunity is severely lacking given deficient or nonexistent mandatory standards for workplace accommodations for pregnant women, post-natal mothers and persons with care responsibilities. What also remains a shameful truth in America, is the gender wage gap which has remained at or near 21% over the past decade. And women with higher levels of education experience the largest earning gaps, as do minority women regardless of educational attainment. The percentage of women in poverty has increased over the past decade, from 12.1% to 14.5%, with a higher rate of poverty than men and women are exposed to higher rates of homelessness and violence without adequate protections in place in shelters and housing support options. Women in detention facilities throughout the country also experience increasingly high rates of over-incarceration, sexual violence, shackling while pregnant, solitary confinement, lack of alternative custodial sentencing for women with dependent children, and insufficient access to health care and re-entry programs. Migrant women traveling to the U.S., many victims of trafficking and violence, including sexual violence, are kept in detention centers with children for prolonged periods of time. The U.N. has reported that women, particularly black and LBTQ women, in the U.S. experience police brutality and increased incidents of homicide by police. Even though women own over one-third of commercial businesses in the United States, primarily in small and medium sized businesses, these businesses face greater barriers in obtaining low cost capital from sources such as the SBA--which awards less than 5% of federal contracts to women-owned business. Finally, one of the most alarming deficiencies for women in America is the inability to access basic health care and the imposition of devastating barriers to reproductive health and rights. Too many women are suffering dire and deadly consequences. Between 1990 and 2013, the maternal mortality rate for women in the U.S. has increased by 136%. Black women are nearly 4 times more likely to die in childbirth, and states with high poverty rates have a 77% higher maternal mortality rate. The United States deserves to much better. It is unacceptable that women in America are facing a health care crisis so dire that the global community is denouncing it as a human rights violation. Sadly, the direction States are taking will only further dismantle women's access to affordable and trustworthy reproductive healthcare. While clinics are shutting down at drastic rates throughout the country, devastating restrictions and barriers imposed throughout Texas strike at the core of this abomination. A Texas statute known as HB2 (House Bill 2), was enacted several years ago under false claims to promote women's health, when in fact it only set in motion dangerous restrictions on women's access to reproductive health care. In addition to constant attacks on funding for reproductive health care clinics, abortion providers in Texas were forced to undergo impossible million-dollar renovations and upgrades. Denying hundreds of thousands of women health care services in Texas, nearly half of all reproductive health care clinics were forced to shut down, and now only 10 remain in the second largest state in the country. No woman in America should be denied the dignity of being ability to make choices about her body and healthcare. Access to safe, legal and unhindered healthcare must be realized by all women. These simple facts can no longer be denied, and hypocrisy can no longer be tolerated. A woman's personal autonomy over her own body and her right to choose whether to bear or beget a child is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. More than 40 years ago in the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion. We cannot ignore the obvious hypocrisy of imbalanced protection and access to fundamentally protected rights for women in America when it is easier to purchase and lawfully possess a firearm--even for a person on the terrorist watchlist--than it is for a woman to exercise her constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Madam Speaker, this is not fair, and it is not right. And with the ERA added to the Constitution, it will also not be lawful. Madam Speaker, Congress had the authority to extend the deadline and it chose to do in 1979; a fortiori, it has the power to eliminate the deadline today. And that is the right, just, and moral thing to do. I urge all Members to stand on the right side of history and join me in voting to pass H.J. Res. 79 so that the Equal Rights Amendment can take its rightful place as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.