Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to honor and express my deepest sympathy, as a fellow Texan, to the family of Sergeant 1st Class Javier Gutierrez, who lost his life in battle in Afghanistan. I also want to acknowledge Sergeant 1st Class Antonio Rodriguez of New Mexico, as he lost his life in battle as well. It is a war that is endless. Nonetheless, the service of our giants, our young men and women in uniform, is to be constantly honored. Sergeant Gutierrez, a family man, a husband, a father, engaged in the service of his Nation, enthusiastically joining. He came from a long legacy of service to the Nation: his grandfather, another hero in our Nation, and his father, another hero in our Nation. I pray for this family, who has now given the ultimate sacrifice and never refused to put on the uniform to fight in battle for this Nation's freedom, its justice, and its equality. May God bless his family, and may he rest in peace. Defeat President Trump's Proposed Budget

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As I move to another topic, I would like to say that this is a message to my constituents and the American people. As you have heard in the news, and were probably frightened by the excerpts, I hold in my hand a budget for America's future. This was offered by the President of the United States. It is frightening in its attack on the basic security, domestic security, of the American people. I would venture to say that even our young soldiers have found the need for their families to sometimes have assistance with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, food stamps. Tragically, this budget digs deep to hatchet away the basic safety net that we have come to understand is not a handout for working families who may be impoverished but a hand-up. I am startled by the cuts, draconian cuts, in this document. I am startled by $1.6 trillion in cuts for Medicare and Medicaid. I am startled by, in the midst of the coronavirus, a more than $4 billion cut in funding for the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control, the very entities that provide lifesaving research and possible cures for the American people and people around the world. The World Health Organization is begging to go into China at this time, and they are looking to have American researchers who are ready and able to go, to determine how to stop, how to determine the origins, and how to thwart what might be a horrific pandemic around the world. How can you cut $4 billion? Then, the precious children in my congressional district, I have the privilege of representing a number of school districts, not just one, but a good number of school districts. Every day, the administrators, teachers, and parents, dropping their beautiful children off, are looking for an opportunity so that they, too, might serve and contribute to this great Nation. Yet, a number that is so startling it takes your breath away: $6.2 billion in cuts for education. After Hurricane Harvey, with 51 trillion gallons of floodwater, people are still suffering from the losses of their homes, still trying to fix flooding areas and mitigate the damage through infrastructure work. Yet, $1.7 billion has been cut from those needs of people who have experienced heinous and horrific natural disasters and still need the repairs that are necessary. Of course, every child knows that climate change is real. So in this Nation--the innovative, important leader of the world--we are slashing the dollars for climate research. We are not aware as well, I guess, in this administration, that terrorism is on the rise, domestic terrorism in particular. But we must also be vigilant for the terrorism that brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11. Yet, those dollars are being cut from FEMA, $746.9 million. Then, let me say, as I close, that we are also saying to those who are unhoused, the homeless, those who seek better housing, that they, too, can't get housing. Affordable housing for the homeless and others is now waning. Mr. Speaker, I ask to defeat this budget, as we will.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, there are always special moments in this House, particularly when something draws the support of Members from both sides of the aisle. I have been supporting this legislation for a long time, and that is H.R. 1980, the Smithsonian Women's History Museum Act carried by my colleague Representative Carolyn Maloney and so many cosponsors who evidenced the importance of the history of women in this Nation. This is the 100th year of women's right to vote, and I am reminded of the suffragettes who decided to take a chance and be courageous and to fight against the denial of women's right to vote. Early in the 1800s, we know that women of color stood up, like Sojourner Truth, and said, ``Ain't I a woman?'' to demand the right to vote; she was a suffragette and an abolitionist fighting for freedom and justice. Now, this particular museum will open our eyes to the extensive history of women, starting from the Revolutionary War that fought for this country, stood for this country, and helped build this country. I am excited about being part of the support and history of the Smithsonian Women's History Museum Act. I look forward to its doors opening for women to be acknowledged and recognized in the greatness of this country.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, in the dark of night in January 2020, my constituents near the Watson Grinding and Manufacturing Company were awakened by a catastrophic explosion around 4 a.m. in the morning. Unbeknownst to these working families, this particular manufacturing building had propylene, and there was a leak, and there was a seismic explosion. Four hundred homes have been damaged to the extent that people cannot return. Tragically, two employees were killed. Due to the fact that the shift had not started, there wasn't a catastrophic killing of employees, innocent employees. A truck was blown from one part of the street to the other. We now cannot find the owner of this particular company. Homes are still destroyed. Businesses are destroyed. There is no one to call. I will be introducing legislation that insists that companies have the responsibility to report to local jurisdictions the dangerous flammable and toxic materials that they are holding. We are still fighting to get relief for these innocent victims, and we are asking Mr. Watson to stand up and do what he said he would, which is to take care of all of these persons. Well, he is doing it by filing bankruptcy. We will not rest until all of these homes and homeowners find a way for relief. I ask Members to join me in the legislation that will protect communities across the Nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Nevada for his great leadership and the importance of this moment tonight to honor 150 years of the passage of the 15th Amendment, our right to vote, and to be joined by my colleagues, Congresswoman Lee and Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, and we thank our chair, Congresswoman Bass. The Congressional Black Caucus is the conscience of this Nation and always stands in the gap for the very important leadership on this issue. Might I also thank our colleague, whom we are so blessed to have amongst us. I think the gentleman takes the title of singularly being the conscience and the heart of the Congress. That is the Honorable John Lewis, who works with us and has always been our guide as relates to the question of the Voting Rights Act. Many of you are reminded of the fact that, as that Voting Rights Act was fought for and rejected and thought it was too dangerous to pass in the 1960s, moving up to 1965, it took the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, when John Lewis, among others, was beaten almost to death and bloodied on that bridge by horsemen from the Alabama State Police. What a bloody and horrific scene. None of us can imagine what John Lewis went through. He has continued in his service in the United States Congress to stand steadfast with us and to remind us that it is better to do the right thing, regardless of the consequences. When I think of him and this 150th year, I am reminded of how we should stand and fight and be reminded, again, that the precious right to vote can be one that can be quick and fade in the night and be taken away in the twinkle of an eye, as has been attempted over the years. President Johnson addressed the Nation before signing the Voting Rights Act, and said: ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men,'' and women, ``because they are different from other men,'' and women. It is important to remind the Nation of the history of African Americans, the descendants now of enslaved Africans, to remind this Congress that, for nearly 250 years, the peculiar institution of slavery fed into the Nation's booming industries and facilitated its boundless growth. We were the economic engine of this Nation--slave, brutal labor. And as this country prospered, enslaved people were denied the fruits of their labor: no workers' compensation, no life insurance, no days off, no weekends. They were brutalized without vote, without presence, without even the dignity of being one person. They were denied a voice in America's fledgling democracy and only began to see that change as the attempt came to make a difference by, in 1869, passing the 15th Amendment over impassioned opposition. The 13th Amendment had been passed. As my recollection serves me, President Lincoln was not able to see the final passage of that, but that was passed--and how horrific that was--to be able to finally have slavery denied. In 1869, the lameduck Congress passed the 15th Amendment over impassioned opposition, but, Madam Speaker, it did not last long. In 1876, this thing call Reconstruction, the many African Americans who were in the Senate and House were stricken out because of the 1876 compromise to take the priority of the South over the rights of human beings. And then came the horrors of poll tax, literacy tests, violence, Jim Crowism, the brutality against anyone who wanted to vote. Even when the 19th Amendment came in 1920, it was not Black women who received the right to vote. So this is a worthy honoring. My predecessor, the Honorable Barbara Jordan, my mentor and someone who encouraged me in the position I am now in, indicated, with her leadership in 1975, she was wise enough to include the State of Texas by adding to the Voting Rights Act Mexican Americans. She said: There are Mexican American people in the State of Texas who have been denied the right to vote, who have been impeded in their efforts to register and vote, who have not had encouragement from those election officials because they are brown people. By adding the Mexican American population community, Texas was added to the Voting Rights Act, and, lo and behold, we have suffered even with that addition because we have had poll tax ourselves. We have had the onslaught of the voter ID bill. The purging has been enormous in the State of Texas: the moving of polls, lights being out, electricity being out, machines not working. I recall in the 1940s, there were only 30,000 African American voters, and a small percentage of them throughout the South were registered to vote. We are back where we were. The State of Texas, as we come up on this election, has taken away a tool that has been used for decades, and that is the right to push a straight ticket. They know that the success of the 2018 election came about through young voters and elderly voters and diverse voters who knew how to do that one vote with these long ballots, and they took away that very right. The people could choose if they wanted to vote for one party or another. We are looking at whether or not that is violating the Voting Rights Act. It takes away a choice. Let me conclude my remarks by indicating the importance of this legislation and, again, take some words from President Lyndon Baines Johnson: ``Presidents and Congresses, laws and lawsuits can open the doors to the polling places and open the doors to the wondrous rewards which await the wise use of the ballot. But only the individual Negro, and all others who have been denied the right to vote, can really walk through those doors, and can use that right, and can transform the vote into an instrument of justice and fulfillment.'' Lyndon Baines Johnson didn't realize that counties and cities and States across America would find ways to stop those on the basis of race and color and some other form of discrimination. He didn't realize that his job had not ended with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and as we reauthorized it just a few years ago. He did not realize that people would still be stopped from voting, those who have been incarcerated, mostly people of color. Today, I pay tribute to my colleague who is leading this and pay tribute to the colleagues who are bringing us to recognize the 150 years. It is good to recognize, but the fight still is maintained. If their vote at the ballot box is going to be the change agent of this Nation so homeless persons will not still be homeless, people who are hungry will not still be hungry, small businesses that want to open their doors will not be denied because of the present leadership and administration, our vote counts, and the honor and tribute that we can give to those who were enslaved for 250 years is to use the precious right to vote. As they do so, our colleagues on the floor of this House will pay tribute to them by passing, as well, H.R. 40, which is a commission to study reparations and proposals. Use your vote for a reason to enhance and uplift. Use your vote to save those who cannot speak for themselves: the hungry and those who need access to medical care. Use your vote. That is the challenge for all of us. Honor the 150th year by your action, by your vote, and by your commitment to this Nation. Madam Speaker, 150 years ago this month, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified and because of that Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act it authorized and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law, I stand before you as Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who in 2017 became the first African American woman to attain the position of Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. Madam Speaker, I rise today not just to commemorate the landmark achievement of 150 years ago but to inform our colleagues and the nation of the need to redouble and rededicate our efforts to the work that remains to be done to protect the right of all Americans to vote free from discrimination and the injustices that prevent them from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship. On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol and in the presence of such luminaries as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Ralph Abernathy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Roy Wilkins of the NAACP; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; James Foreman of the Congress of Racial Equality; A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis of the Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee; Senators Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen; President Johnson addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men. Madam Speaker, for nearly 250 years, ``the peculiar institution'' of slavery fed into the nation's booming industries and facilitated its boundless growth. Even as the country prospered, enslaved people were denied the fruits of their own labor. They were also denied a voice in America's fledgling democracy. This only began to change in the middle of the 19th century. At the close of the Civil War, the nation wrangled with the future of nearly 4 million Black people who, until the adoption of the 13th Amendment, had been held captive in the South. On the heels of the 13th Amendment, which formally ended slavery, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to guarantee Black people citizenship and equality under the law. But suffrage was an entirely separate question. As lawmakers mapped out plans to reunify the country, extending the right to vote was hardly a priority in the North but in the South, however, Black people were voting. In some states--Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina--the African-American electorate outnumbered its white counterpart because in 1867, when Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts, the new laws established, among other things, conditions for the former Confederate states' return to the Union. Perhaps the most important stipulation was that the readmitted states had to draft new constitutions that guaranteed suffrage to citizens regardless of their race. It didn't take long for Lincoln Republicans in Congress to recognize that for Reconstruction to have a chance, African Americans would have to be able advocate for themselves in elections. So in 1869, the lame-duck Congress passed the 15th Amendment over impassioned position. The amendment, which was ratified in less than a year, made it illegal to ``deny'' or ``abridge'' the right to vote ``on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude'' and gave Congress the power to enforce the new law. Soon, Black people began voting not only in the South but throughout the country. They were elected to statewide office and were even sent to Washington to represent Americans in both houses of Congress. That it all ended in 1876 when the Hayes-Tilden Compromise resolving the 1876 presidential election ended Reconstruction. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter discrimination violations that historically left millions of African Americans disenfranchised. In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans registered to vote in Texas and only about 3 percent of African Americans living in the South were registered to vote. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major causes of these racially discriminatory results. After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than 1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote. In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the South. Because of the Voting Rights Act, today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest number ever. The Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress. Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly. The crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Section 5, which requires that states and localities with a chronic record of discrimination in voting practices secure federal approval before making any changes to voting processes. Section 5 protects minority voting rights where voter discrimination has historically been the worst. Since 1982, Section 5 has stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes right here in Texas. And it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in Houston that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to all Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also represented this historic 18th Congressional District of Texas, introduced, and the Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of Section 4(a) and Section 5 to language minorities. During the floor debate on the 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman Jordan explained why this reform was needed: There are Mexican-American people in the State of Texas who have been denied the right to vote; who have been impeded in their efforts to register and vote; who have not had encouragement from those election officials because they are brown people. So, the state of Texas, if we approve this measure, would be brought within the coverage of this Act for the first time. When it comes to extending and protecting the precious right vote, the Lone Star State--the home state of Lyndon Johnson and Barbara Jordan--can be the leading state in the Union, one that sets the example for the nation. But to realize that future, we must turn from and not return to the dark days of the past. We must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge or dilute the precious right to vote. Madam Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that the right to vote--that ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''--is facing grave threats. The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements. According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down Section 4(b) was that ``times change.'' Now, the Court was right; times have changed. But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed. Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in stymieing the practices that resulted in the wholesale disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did eliminate them entirely. The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still needed to prevent another polio epidemic. However, officials in some states, notably Texas and North Carolina, seemed to regard the Shelby decision as a green light and rushed to implement election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime. My constituents remember very well the Voter ID law passed in Texas in 2011, which required every registered voter to present a valid government-issued photo ID on the day of polling in order to vote. The Justice Department blocked the law in March of 2012, and it was Section 5 that prohibited it from going into effect. At least it did until the Shelby decision, because on the very same day that Shelby was decided officials in Texas announced they would immediately implement the Photo ID law, and other election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime. The Texas Photo ID law was challenged in federal court and thankfully, just yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos that Texas' strict voter identification law discriminated against blacks and Hispanics and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Madam Speaker, protecting voting rights and combating voter suppression schemes are two of the critical challenges facing our great democracy. Without safeguards to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the polls, more injustices are likely to occur and the voices of millions silenced. Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their votes. Consider the demographic groups who lack a government issued ID: 1. African Americans: 25 percent; 2. Asian Americans: 20 percent; 3. Hispanic Americans: 19 percent; 4. Young people, aged 18-24: 18 percent; and 5. Persons with incomes less than $35,000: 15 percent. And there are other ways abridging or suppressing the right to vote, including: 1. Curtailing or eliminating early voting; 2. Ending same-day registration; 3. Not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day will not count; 4. Eliminating adolescent pre-registration; 5. Shortening poll hours; and 6. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges thus allowing self-proclaimed ``ballot security vigilantes'' like the King Street Patriots to cause trouble at the polls. Specifically, I call for the passage of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, of which I am an original co-sponsor, which repairs the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court's Shelby decision. This legislation replaces the old ``static'' coverage formula with a new dynamic coverage formula, or ``rolling trigger,'' which effectively gives the legislation nationwide reach because any state and any jurisdiction in any state potentially is subject to being covered if the requisite number of violations are found to have been committed. Madam Speaker, before concluding there is one other point I would like to stress. In his address to the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Johnson said: Presidents and Congresses, laws and lawsuits can open the doors to the polling places and open the doors to the wondrous rewards which await the wise use of the ballot. But only the individual Negro, and all others who have been denied the right to vote, can really walk through those doors, and can use that right, and can transform the vote into an instrument of justice and fulfillment. In other words, political power--and the justice, opportunity, inclusion, and fulfillment it provides--comes not from the right to vote but in the exercise of that right. And that means it is the civic obligation of every citizen to both register and vote in every election, state and local as well as federal. Because if we can register and vote, but fail to do so, we are guilty of voluntary voter suppression, the most effective method of disenfranchisement ever devised. And in recent years, Americans have not been doing a very good job of exercising our civic responsibility to register, vote, and make their voices heard. Madam Speaker, for millions of Americans, the right to vote made possible by the 15th Amendment and protected by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things. So on this 150th anniversary of that landmark amendment, let us rededicate ourselves to honoring those who won for us this precious right by remaining vigilant and fighting against both the efforts of others to abridge or suppress the right to vote and our own apathy in exercising this sacred right.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my Colleagues in support of House Resolution 826, ``Expressing disapproval of the Trump administration's harmful actions towards Medicaid.'' Great Presidents are made by landmark policy initiatives and programs that bring a positive impact for the lives of the American people or the world. Trump has promised to introduce new proposals to protect those with pre-existing conditions if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) bill is replaced, but so far none of his administration's alternatives have come close to providing the level of healthcare currently available. The landmark bill, seen as one of the key pieces of legislation signed by President Obama barred insurers from denying coverage, or charging more, to those with a pre-existing condition. Trump said during his State of the Union Address that he would protect the rights of the insured with pre-existing conditions is not true and the dishonesty of his statement is revealed by his administration joining a lawsuit to take away this important protection. Through his actions Trump is doing all that he can to end the protections for those with pre-existing conditions. Trump's Justice Department joined a lawsuit that would end the protections for pre-existing conditions. In July of this year, Medicare and Medicaid will reach 55 years of service to Americans from all walks of life. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, another great president, signed Medicare and Medicaid into law as part of the Social Security Act. This landmark legislation that truly represents Americans at our best became a reality due to the tireless efforts of great leaders like Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson. The signing of the law that established Medicare forged a promise with American seniors that we must not allow Donald J. Trump to take from them. America's word matters and our promise to our seniors cannot be allowed to be broken. Both Medicare and Medicaid promise our nation's elderly and poor that they could enjoy their lives with peace of mind and the security of reliable, affordable, and high-quality healthcare. Medicaid created a crucial partnership between the Government and the governed to provide a basic health care safety net for some of the most vulnerable Americans: children of adults with low incomes, persons with disabilities and the poor. Mr. Speaker, over half a century later, the legacy of these programs has proven how powerful government action can be to the life and wellbeing of our nation's most vulnerable. Today, the Trump administration is trying to go back on this promise. On January 30, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its long-rumored guidance on Medicaid block grants. This notice to state Medicaid directors invites states to restructure their Medicaid programs in a radical manner previously rejected by Congress, by capping federal funding at an artificially low level. Millions of Americans will be denied health care because of this draconian directive. Also persons who are disabled, children, and seniors will be most impacted. We should vote no on cutting medicaid and making Americans sicker. Medicaid's financing is already based on federal matching of state Medicaid costs. The current program reimburses states as they spend money to pay for Medicaid services, with the federal government paying for a portion of state costs ranging from 50 percent to 90 percent, depending on the nature of the cost and the state. State fiscal flexibility is therefore built into Medicaid: States can spend what is needed on Medicaid knowing that their match rate is fixed in statute. Today, 70 million Americans rely on Medicaid for health care, ranging from preventive services, hospital visits, lab tests, to critical medical supplies, and prescription drugs. Before the Medicaid, funding poor families with children, pregnant women, and low-income working Americans were not able to afford even the most basic medical care they needed to remain healthy and productive. The most likely group to be block granted under HAO in the next several months is therefore the Medicaid expansion population, composed of adults who are under 138 percent of the federal poverty level and do not otherwise qualify for Medicaid as disabled, as a very low-income parent, or as a pregnant woman. However, according to the guidance that CMS released, other groups of Medicaid beneficiaries are also vulnerable to a federal approval of a similar block grant if they are in any way optional for states to cover. The HAO guidance is a quid pro quo that proffers to states accept financial risk in return for new flexibility. But ``flexibility'' in this case is simply another route to cuts to Medicaid that are not allowed under the Medicaid statute. As detailed below, HAO allows states to make otherwise disallowed cuts to Medicaid eligibility, benefits, and provider payment rates. The underlying reason for changing eligibility is to reduce the numbers of those covered. In my home state of Texas and in communities across the U.S. Medicare and Medicaid are vital programs that have significantly changed the lives and improved health outcomes of many Americans over the past century and represent the best American values where we believe Health is a Human right not a commodity. Medicaid is also really needed when communities face natural disasters like hurricane Harvey in Texas. Unfortunately, Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured (27.6 percent) in the nation, 4 percent more than Louisiana the next state on the list and has opted out of participating in Medicaid expansion. The State of Texas' refusal to participate in the Medicaid expansion created by the Affordable Care act has already put the poor residents in my state in jeopardy, with this proposed change many more will be at risk of losing health insurance. In the 18th Congressional District there are 195,400 persons with Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas favor access to universal health care, because they understand the insecurity and feeling of helplessness of being uninsured or underinsured. I join my colleagues in support of H. Res. 826 because it sends a clear message to this Administration and the American people that the House of Representatives--the People's House will not tolerate harmful changes to critical health care programs like Medicaid by this Administration.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I rise with enthusiasm and support for H.R. 2474, the PRO Act. I would indicate that in America we would ask the question, When will we have a 40-hour week or the weekend? All brought about by union organizing and union leadership. We need the PRO Act to ensure that Americans across the land have the ability legally to organize and to be able to operate under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Let me also say that it is imperative that we begin to recognize that the American people like unions. Over 64 percent of Americans and millennials appreciate the idea of having representation for better quality of life and work. So I rise to add to this very important legislation an amendment that extends whistleblower protections to employees of both employers and unions under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. This is a fair and balanced amendment. We remember Supreme Court decisions like the Janus Act, and many others, who undermine the ability for unions to be able to organize or to engage. This protects the people who are trying to organize. But the whistleblower protections allow employees of employers and employees of unions to be protected if they see something wrong and they want to make sure that it is right. Let me give you an example: Today, I met Kimberly Lawson, who is part of the Fight for $15. She also came to share the problems she has had with sexual harassment on the job. It happens to be in one of the fast-food operations. She said, on the record, that if we could pass the PRO Act, she wouldn't be alone trying to raise our hourly wage or face sexual harassment without a union to help her. This is important legislation. The whistleblower protection is important because Ms. Lawson would have the ability to be able to report what is happening to her without losing her job as a single mother with a young child. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, let me, first of all, thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), ranking member, for her support. Let me also thank the chairman of this committee for his leadership and support, and the staff for working with my staff so very ably. But let me add that, as I have seen, committee Democrats on this particular committee strongly agree that allegations of corruption should be fully investigated. They have not ignored it, and those who are charged should be prosecuted and held accountable. They have not ignored it. That is why we have robust criminal and civil penalties for unions and companies. This is about whistleblower protection, and I would say that no union is against this. That is why this amendment particularly reinforces that the employees of employers and employees of unions have the right to bring to the attention anything that undermines their workplace or their quality of work. I believe this is an amendment that all of us can support and that it focuses on whistleblowers, and I ask my colleagues to support it. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining for both sides?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, let me be very clear. It is an important point to make that Democrats--the committee Democrats, in particular--recognize that a few bad actors are not going to deter or dissuade us from taking this historic step towards strengthening workers' rights to organize and restoring balance to the economy. As I said earlier, the growing support for unions is phenomenal. Millions of Americans look for a better quality of life because unions are negotiating on their behalf. If this particular employee at the fast-food organization had a union, she would be able to organize and ensure that she got $15 an hour, or to be able to make sure she had better healthcare for her young 5-year-old. Madam Chair, this is legislation that is long in coming. And my amendment adds to the importance of it by protecting whistleblowers who work for employers and work for unions. I also want to say that the Government Accountability Project that protects whistleblowers is supporting this legislation. I would ask that my colleagues support it because we are standing up to corruption, but we are also standing up for workers--workers who need opportunities and the ability to get a better quality of life. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, do I have the right to close as the proponent of the amendment?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for us being able to come together around a very vital amendment that gives protection to employees of employers and employees of unions to be able to indicate when matters are wrong, incorrect, or violate the law, or impact negatively on employees of any organization. But what I would say is that it is important that this particular legislation go forward because of the historic nature of ensuring the ability to organize for willing individuals. And let me cite Kimberly Lawson again. She is fighting for $15. A union would help her provide for her family and organize for those dollars. Maybe we don't know about those particular workers who are living below the poverty line or living with wages that are below an hourly wage or decent wage. Unions would help that. We cannot talk about individuals already in the higher, upper brow of work in this Nation. Their salaries may be going up. Hers is not. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support and vote for the Jackson Lee amendment and support the PRO Act. Madam Chair, I would like to offer an amendment today that would provide whistleblower protections to employees who report violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). This amendment covers BOTH employees of employers as well as employees of labor unions. The LMRDA is an important labor law passed in 1959 that protects union members' through a ``bill of rights'' for members of labor organizations, requires extensive reporting and public disclosure of labor union finances, guards against the failure to observe high standards of responsibility and ethical conduct by providing civil and criminal remedies against employers and unions who engage in misconduct, and mandates transparency regarding arrangements between employers and anti-labor consultants. I am pleased that the PRO Act includes reforms to the LMRDA that further clarify the original intent of the law by ensuring that employers not only disclose arrangements they enter into with antiunion consultants to directly persuade employees on how to exercise their rights under the NLRA, but also to disclose arrangements where the consultants are hired to engage in indirect persuasion activities. Examples of indirect persuasion include planning employee meetings, drafting speeches or presentations to employees, training employer representatives, identifying employees for disciplinary action or targeting, or drafting employer personnel policies. The DOL has narrowly construed the law for too long and excludes up to 75% of the arrangements with union busting consultants. To remedy this, the PRO Act reinstates requirements of the Persuader Rule adopted by the Obama Administration in 2016 but was unfortunately repealed by the Trump Administration. That repeal, coupled with the Trump Administration's refusal to defend the rule in court, ensures workers remain in the dark about the activities of consultants hired to bust union organizing drives. Another way to strengthen the LMRDA is to provide whistleblower protections; which is exactly what this amendment does. All workers deserve whistleblower protections for reporting potential violations of law, no matter their place of employment or the type of employer. This amendment covers reporting alleged violations by an employee, regardless of whether their employer is a business or a labor organization. This amendment allows employees to file complaints with the Department of Labor and provides for a prompt investigation of allegations of unlawful retaliation. It ensures employees have a right to a hearing, and effective remedies including reinstatement, back pay and attorney fees. And if the DOL fails to act in a timely manner, employees have the right to bring suit in federal court to secure a remedy. I urge all members to support this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I know that Senator Romney does not need to have his words further edified, but there is something about courage and something about his words that struck my heart. So if I might, in the remarks that Senator Romney made yesterday in his decision to cast a vote for article I, he said, briefly: The Constitution is at the foundation of our Nation. We each take an oath to defend it. Paraphrasing, he said: We arrived at different judgments, and he hoped that we would respect each other's good faith. Senator jurors swore an oath before God. He said: ``I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am.'' And he knew his decision would be hard. I thought we lived in a nation that respected the heartfelt decisions and deliberation that Members have to make. But after his decision and vote there was an onslaught of ugly and nasty comments, individuals calling him weak, #ExpellMitt. I want to live in a nation that is better than that, that when we have to make hard decisions, we will be respected by all of America. We all love the Constitution. I want to thank Senator Romney for his profile in courage. There needs to be more of that. He voted the right way. We all did who voted ``aye'' on article I and article II.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, our emerging Nation sought to be a bright light for democracy and the rule of law. This afternoon, I sat in the Senate Chamber and watched the Senate one by one announce the words guilty or not guilty: Article I, guilty 48, not guilty 52; Article II, guilty 47, not guilty 53. I believe the presentation of the Judiciary, Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees was brilliantly presented. I wondered whether there would be one moment for a profile in courage, one understanding that the norm of this Nation cannot tolerate what the Framers were most frightened about, which was the constitutional crime of abuse of power or having a sovereign nation interfere with our elections. Yet, there was one in Article I that made it bipartisan in the guilt, but no one in Article II. Simply stated, now what is the answer? That this Nation no longer loves its democracy; does not stand by the rule of law; and, therefore, the person who remains in office is a king? I believe, Madam Speaker, that we must raise the Constitution and fight for justice.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, this February we recognize and celebrate the 42nd commemoration of Black History Month. This month we celebrate the contributions of African Americans to the history of our great nation, and pay tribute to trailblazers, pioneers, heroes, and leaders like the 44th President of the United States and First Lady, Barack Obama and Michelle Obama, respectively; Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; U.S. Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce; U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan; U.S. Congressman Mickey Leland; Astronauts Dr. Guion Stewart Bluford, Jr. and Mae C. Jemison; activists, intellectuals, authors, artists, and entrepreneurs like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, James Baldwin, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Gwendolyn Brooks, Shonda Rhimes, Ava Duvernay, Oprah Winfrey, and Super Bowl LIV winning quarterback Patrick Mahomes and National Football League Most Valuable Player Lamar Jackson, just to name a few of the countless number of well-known and unsung heroes whose contributions have helped our nation become a more perfect union. The history of the United States has been marked by the great contributions of African American activists, leaders, writers, and artists. As a member of Congress, I know that I stand on the shoulders of giants like Shirley Chisolm, John Conyers, John Lewis, Ronald Dellums, and Barbara Jordan whose struggles and triumphs made it possible for me to stand here today and continue the fight for equality, justice, and progress for all, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The greatest of these giants to me are Mrs. Ivalita ``Ivy'' Jackson, a vocational nurse, and Mr. Ezra A. Jackson, one of the first African Americans to succeed in the comic book publishing business. They were my beloved parents and they taught me the value of education, hard work, discipline, perseverance, and caring for others. And I am continually inspired by Dr. Elwyn Lee, my husband and the first tenured African American law professor at the University of Houston. Madam Speaker, I particularly wish to acknowledge the contributions of African American veterans in defending from foreign aggressors and who by their courageous examples helped transform our nation from a segregated society to a nation committed to the never-ending challenge of perfecting our union. Several years ago about this time, I was honored to join Congressmen John Lewis and former Congressman Charles Rangel, a Korean War veteran, in paying tribute to surviving members of the Tuskegee Airmen and the 555th Parachute Infantry, the famed ``Triple Nickels'' at a moving ceremony sponsored by the U.S. Army commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The success of the Tuskegee Airmen in escorting bombers during World War II--achieving one of the lowest loss records of all the escort fighter groups and being in constant demand for their services by the allied bomber units--is a record unmatched by any other fighter group. So impressive and astounding were the feats of the Tuskegee Airmen that in 1948, it helped persuade President Harry Truman to issue his famous Executive Order No. 9981, which directed equality of treatment and opportunity in all of the United States Armed Forces and led to the end of racial segregation in the U.S. military forces. It is a source of enormous and enduring pride that my father-in-law, Phillip Ferguson Lee, was one of the Tuskegee Airmen. Clearly, what began as an experiment to determine whether ``colored'' soldiers' were capable of operating expensive and complex combat aircraft ended as an unqualified success based on the experience of the Tuskegee Airmen, whose record included 261 aircraft destroyed, 148 aircraft damaged, 15,553 combat sorties and 1,578 missions over Italy and North Africa. They also destroyed or damaged over 950 units of ground transportation and escorted more than 200 bombing missions. They proved that ``the antidote to racism is excellence in performance,'' as retired Lt. Col. Herbert Carter once remarked. Madam Speaker, Black History Month is also a time to remember many pioneering women like U.S. Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm; activists Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks; astronaut Mae C. Jemison; mathematicians like Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson authors Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Gwendolyn Brooks; all of whom have each in their own way, whether through courageous activism, cultural or intellectual contributions, or artistic creativity, forged social and political change, and forever changed our great Nation for the better. It is also fitting, Madam Speaker, that in addition to those national leaders who contributions have made our nation better, we honor also those who have and are making a difference in their local communities. In my home city of Houston, there are numerous men and women who are great because they have heeded the counsel of Dr. King who said: ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. You only a need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.'' By that measure, I wish to pay tribute to some of the great men and women who help to make Houston the wonderful, dynamic, vibrant, inclusive, and progressive city that it is. As we celebrate Black History Month, let us pay tribute to those who have come before us, and pay forward to future generations by addressing what is the number one issue for African American families, and all American families today: preserving the American promise of economic opportunity for all. Our immediate focus must be to work 'For The People' for job creation, and enacting legislation that will foster and lay the foundation for today's and tomorrow's generation of groundbreaking activists, leaders, scientists, writers and artists to continue contributing to the greatness of America. We must continue to preserve the American Dream for all. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand here in celebration of the heroic and historic acts of African Americans and their indispensable contributions to this great Nation. It is through our work in creating possibilities for today and future generations that we best honor the accomplishments and legacy of our predecessors.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, my first opportunity in speaking today is to make sure that we honor all the men and women who are wearing uniforms in the United States military, as Congresswoman Lee has said, her family members and many family members who served. What we do know is we found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We supported Congresswoman Lee in the rational position to have the inspection go forth, to know what was going on. The only thing we secured was an endless war. In the question of Iran, Mr. Ro Khanna's position is right. If there is any need to defend us in Iran, the War Powers Resolution allows a President to do that if we are defending ourselves against attacks or if there are hostilities. We need to address this in a constitutional way. Article I says that Congress declares war. The endless war that has carried on, for those of us who have been to Iraq and then Afghanistan realize that our soldiers deserve the dignity of a debate when they should go to war. Let me say to those who were injured by Iran: It is not just a side hit, if you will. These soldiers have been hit. We honor them. We should have a Congress to stand up if we go to war, not use this resolution. It should be repealed.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and a cosponsor, I rise in strong support of RCP 116-49, the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 550, the No War With Iran Act, introduced by the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee. I thank my Out of Iraq colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, for sponsoring this legislation which repeals P.L. 107-43, the broad, unrestrained, and outdated 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq, which was passed and signed into law on October 16, 2002, nearly twenty years ago. Congress never intended for the 2002 AUMF to have such broad and extended reach. Over the last 18 years, we have seen 3 Presidents use this legislation as a blank check to engage in serious military action. The 2002 AUMF is an outdated piece of legislation and repealing it will not affect any current military operations. The 2002 AUMF's only function is to provide the President with cover to claim Congress has already authorized him to attack Iranian officials, which is false. Moreover, the 2002 AUMF is unnecessary because in the administration's own view, everything the 2002 AUMF covers is already fully covered under the 2001 9/11 AUMF, except for attacks against Iran. Congress passed the 2002 AUMF to address the perceived threat posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein and the AUMF permitted the President to use the Armed Forces as ``necessary and appropriate'' to ``defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and to ``enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' U.S. military deployments and operations carried out pursuant to the 2002 AUMF--dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom--officially concluded in 2011. Almost 18 years after the resolution's passage, the United States recognizes the sovereignty of Iraq and considers Iraq a key ally. Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole duty to declare war. Repealing obsolete Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) is essential to Congress living up to its constitutional responsibilities. Leaving the 2002 AUMF in place increases the likelihood that future Presidents will use it as a basis to start a new war, or expand a current one, without Congress's explicit authorization. In July 2019, the House adopted a Lee amendment to NDAA virtually identical to H.R. 2456, To Repeal the AUMF Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, by a bipartisan vote of 242 to 180. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership stripped it out. The overly broad 2002 AUMF represents a critical deterioration of congressional oversight. As our brave servicemembers are deployed around the world in combat zones, Congress is missing in action. Congress must repeal the 2002 AUMF immediately to fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide oversight and consent on matters of war and peace. As provided under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, absent a congressional declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force, the President as Commander-in-Chief has constitutional power to engage the U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities only in the case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces. Madam Speaker, since the objectives which led Congress to pass the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) have been achieved, I believe the authorization to use that military force expired automatically. Madam Speaker, where a congressional authorization to use military force has expired, the President must obtain a new authorization to continue the use of force. Given the material changes in circumstances, introducing additional U.S. combat troops into the region would be both unwise and beyond the scope of authority conferred by the 2002 AUMF. As a co-equal branch of government, it is Congress's right and responsibility to be fully consulted regarding any potential plans to expand military operations in the region, to assess whether such action is in the national security interest of the United States and our allies, and to withhold or grant authorization for the use of military force based on this assessment. As we have learned from the painful and bitter experience of the past 18 years, at the initiation of hostilities, the costs in terms of blood and treasure of U.S. military interventions abroad are often underestimated and the benefits overstated. More than 6,800 American servicemembers gave the last full measure of devotion to their country on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq, with hundreds of thousands more returning with physical, emotional, or psychological wounds that may never heal. The direct economic cost of the war in the Persian Gulf exceeds $1.07 trillion, including $773 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds, an increase of $243 billion to the Department of Defense base budget, and an increase of $54.2 billion to the Veterans Administration budget to address the human costs of the military involvement in Iraq. We should not repeat the mistakes of the past and my position on this issue is directly aligned with the will of the American people. I commend my colleague, Representative Barbara Lee, for her introduction and advocacy of this legislation that will repeal the outdated 2002 AUMF.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, war is a violent and catastrophic act, and its impact on the people of any nation is one that is long- lasting. Between the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, close to 7,000 Americans lost their lives; families were broken. But yet, we honor them for their service, as we honor those who are now serving and who have put on the uniform unselfishly, just like the young men and women who were called immediately after the killing of General Soleimani. Today, we made an important statement on this floor; that is that the Constitution prevails; the rule of law prevails, as we hope it will prevail in the other body in this proceeding. We know that Congress declares war. If there is danger, the President can use the War Powers Resolution. But as we did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we have an endless war. We do not need to engage in a war with Iran. If we are attacked or there are hostilities, we can defend ourselves. Let us deliberate on behalf of the American people and do it the right way. To our military, we thank you for your service.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me offer my appreciation and thanks to Congresswoman Tlaib of Michigan for anchoring an important special order on the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act or ``No Ban Act,'' legislation which terminates the Trump Administration's so-called Muslim Ban and prevents future discriminatory bans. As a senior member of the committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, and the vice-Chair of Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the Chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus and the Congressional Nigeria Caucus, I am proud to support the No Ban Act because it broadens Section 202(a) of the Immigrant and Nationality Act to include a nondiscrimination provision which includes protection from religious discrimination and applies to all individuals traveling to the United States. Specifically, the No Ban Act ensures that this nondiscrimination provision applies to nonimmigrant visas, entry into the United States, or the approval or revocation of any immigration benefit. The legislation mandates that restrictions or suspensions entry must be supported by reliable and compelling evidence and that it is tailored to the specified purpose and requires the consultation and input of the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security when suspending or restricting entry under Section 212(f). The No Ban Act preserves the President's ability to use this authority when the Secretary of State determines, based on credible facts, that entry should be suspended or restricted to address specific acts that undermine the security or public safety of the United States or of human rights or of democratic processes or institutions or endangers international stability. These permissible uses of Section 212(f) have been employed by previous Democratic and Republican presidents. The No Ban Act requires specific evidence supporting the use of Section 212(f), including evidence that is connected with the duration of the suspension or restriction and requires that the suspension or restriction must be narrowly tailored to address a compelling governmental interest, using the least restrictive means possible. Waivers for class-based restrictions and suspensions must be considered and the bill provides that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of family-based and humanitarian waivers. The bill repeals the unilateral executive actions and three Muslim ban executive orders and presidential proclamations that have harmed the Muslim American community and damaged our standing in the world. I also approve the legislation's repeal of the Trump executive order that instituted extreme vetting for refugees, as well as an asylum presidential proclamation that abused the Section 212(f) authority. Another salutary aspect of the bill is that it ensures there will be congressional consultation and periodic reporting for any future use of Section 212(f) to ensure that Congress has data on visa applications and refugee admissions to conduct critical oversight. If a briefing is not provided within 48 hours and updated every 30 days thereafter, the emergency suspension or action will terminate absent congressional action. Finally, the No Ban Act requires backward-looking reporting on how each of the executive orders and presidential proclamations was implemented to ensure a complete reckoning. Given the harm created by the Muslim Ban upheld by the Supreme Court in its 5-4 decision in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ----, No. 17-965 (June 26, 2018), is it any wonder that the NO BAN Act enjoys broad support from nearly 400 civil rights, faith-based, and community organizations, as well as the legal community, the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center, the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Church World Service, Amnesty International, and the International Refugee Assistance Project. It is useful to review how we got to this point. During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump pledged at a political rally in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina that, if elected, he would ban Muslims from entering the United States and was ``calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'' On January 27, 2017, as President, Trump signed Executive Order No. 13,769 (EO-1), which, among other things, suspended entry for 90 days of foreign nationals from seven countries identified by Congress or the Executive as presenting heightened terrorism-related risks, which was immediately challenged and enjoined nationwide by a federal district court. Rather than continuing to litigate the matter, the government announced that it would revoke that order and issue a new one. On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13,780 (EO-2), section 2(c) of EO-2 of which directed that entry of nationals from six of the seven countries designated in EO-1 be suspended for 90 days from the effective date of the order, citing a need for time to establish adequate standards to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists. Section 6(a) of that executive order directed that applications for refugee status and travel of refugees into the United States under the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) be suspended for 120 days from the effective date ``to review the adequacy of USRAP application and adjudication procedures'' and section 6(b) suspended the entry of any individual under USRAP once 50,000 refugees have entered the United States in fiscal year 2017. On June 14, just before Section 2(c) of EO-2 was by its terms set to expire, President Trump issued a memorandum to Executive Branch officials declaring the effective date of each enjoined provision of EO-2 to be the date on which the injunctions in these cases ``are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.'' The government sought review in both cases, making arguments both on the merits of the cases and on procedural issues. On September 24, 2017, the President issued a Proclamation restricting travel to the United States by citizens from eight countries, which along with the previous executive orders was struck down by the Ninth Circuit before the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the lower court by the narrow 5-4 margin. Let me share a story of how the President's Muslim Ban affects people in real life, living in the real world, one of whom lived in my congressional district. A few days after the first Muslim Ban was issued on January 27, 2017, I got a call to go to the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in my district. ICE had detained a Katy High School student from Jordan following President Trump's immigration ban. His name was Mohammad Abu Khadra. He was detained in Houston at the airport and then spirited away to Chicago when he returned from his native country a day after President Donald Trump issued his immigration ban. He was an innocent child who had gone home to renew the documents that allowed him to be in America. They had expired after he spent a few months living in the United States with his older brother. Mohammad Abu Khadra was just a young man who wanted to come to the United States, as many others do. The teenager looked every bit the part of an increasingly diverse America, with hair cut stylishly short on the sides and long on top, wearing a slim-fitting shirt, buttoned up to the collar, with rolled-up jeans and a big, blue wristwatch. His 37-year-old brother had lived in America for five years at the time. Mohammad had been taking courses in English as a second language. When Mohammad came to Texas on a tourist visa a few months prior, he had no trouble and had the documents required. When he returned to renew his paperwork, he was doing exactly what was required of him. Landing back again in Houston, however, Mohammad had been swept up needlessly in Trump's ban which does not even include Jordan, a longtime ally of the United States. They pulled him aside and kept asking him, ``What are you doing? Where are you going? What is your business?'' The questions continued for a scared young boy thousands of miles away from home without counsel. Mohammad told the truth about what he was doing while in the States. At some point during the questioning, Mohammad told authorities that he was enrolled in school. Enrolling in public school is a violation of his visa, but we do not ask students their status in the school system in Harris County. He was taking only ESL courses--something he perhaps had not been able to explain. Authorities held Mohammdad, questioned him without counsel and then sent him to Chicago to a detention center for an undetermined amount of time. This is a 16-year-old boy, and this should not have happened to him. He was a minor, the case moved from the Department of Homeland Security to Health and Human Services, which eventually released him. The Muslim Ban was the first separation of children from their families and turned out be a harbinger of the cruelties and inhumanities to come. That is why we need to pass H.R. 2214, the No Ban Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in 2016, I wrote this op-ed, ``Seven Years of Change You Can See and Feel.'' I wrote it in the backdrop of the election of President Barack Obama and his opening remarks and his inauguration that said: ``Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the op-ed I authored. [From the Washington Examiner, Feb. 17, 2016] Seven Years of Change You Can See and Feel (By Sheila Jackson Lee) The morning of January 20, 2009 was one of the coldest days on record in Washington, DC. But this was nothing compared to the chill wind blowing through the American economy and body politic. The nation was facing economic challenges unseen since the Great Depression: Americans were losing their jobs at a frightening rate of 800,000 per month; the national unemployment rate had risen to 7.8 percent and would continue to climb until reaching its peak of 10.0 percent in October 2009. For African Americans, the numbers were much grimmer: A jobless rate of 13.5 percent in January 2009 which would grow to 16.5 percent by the end of the year. And on top of this, tens of thousands of American families each month were losing their health insurance and their homes to foreclosure. The United States was still bogged down in the quagmire that was the Iraq War and young people by the thousands were being forced to defer or drop out of college because of lack of financial aid. And the average price of gas exceeded $4 per gallon. It was against this backdrop that I watched from the inaugural platform as Barack Obama, surrounded by his radiant and beautiful wife, Michelle, and their two adorable daughters, rose to take the oath of office. After being sworn in as the nation's 44th president of the United States, Obama reassured an anxious but hopeful nation, saying: ``Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.'' Watching Barack Obama address the nation that day, spectators in attendance and viewers across the country and around the world understood they were witnessing a historic president, the first African American ever to hold the nation's highest office. But more than being a historic president, Barack Obama's actions and leadership over the ensuing seven years would demonstrate that his would be a consequential presidency that changed America for the better. His first and most pressing task was to rescue an economy on the brink of collapse. Working with the Democratic- controlled Congress, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed, which created 3.7 million jobs and saved the jobs of millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers and social service providers. The Recovery Act also cut taxes for working families, extended unemployment insurance, and expanded the Earned Income and Child Tax Credits, which disproportionately benefit African American families. Seven years later the verdict is in on the economic plan put in place by President Obama and the Democratic Congress. The Recovery Act ended the Great Recession, transformed the economy from one hemorrhaging jobs to one that has created more than 16 million new jobs over a record 71 consecutive months. The national unemployment rate has dipped under 5 percent for the first time since President Clinton left office, the deficit has been cut by 71 percent and the Dow Jones stock market index topped 18,000 in 2015, an increase of 177 percent over where it stood the day President Obama took office. As an added benefit, the average price of gasoline has been reduced from more than $4.11 per gallon to $1.80, the lowest price since before the tragedy of September 11. The seven years of Obama also effected policy change in the areas of criminal justice reform, health and education, national security and foreign affairs. President Obama also made history by appointing two women to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the first Hispanic American to serve on the Court. He appointed the first African American man and woman to serve as attorney general and the first woman to chair the Federal Reserve Board. In the area of foreign affairs and national security, President Obama ended the Iraq War, assembled and led an international coalition to impose sanctions on Iran that were so crippling that it was forced to the negotiating table. That yielded the Iran Nuclear Agreement that prevents Iran from ever attaining a nuclear weapon. And of course, as the world knows, because of President Obama's leadership, General Motors is alive and Osama Bin Laden is dead. For seven years, President Barack Obama has represented our country with grace, integrity, honor, and distinction. He has provided consolation, hope, and healing in the face of unspeakable tragedies such as the massacre of innocent children at Sandy Hook, worshippers at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, spectators at the Boston Marathon, and mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado and Tucson, Arizona. He expressed and symbolized our joy and pride in the progress made over the last half century--and the distance we still have to travel--when he marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and addressed the multitude from the spot on the steps where the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. shared his dream for America's future. So as President Obama serves the final year of his presidency, it is clear beyond doubt that he kept the promise he made to the nation seven years ago on that cold day in January when he said: ``Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. But know this America: They will be met.'' They were more than just met; they were overcome under his leadership. And because of President Obama, today the United States is stronger, more prosperous and better positioned than ever to win the future. And that is what makes his one of the most consequential presidencies in American history.