Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, as a member serving in this body on September 11, 2001 and throughout the fateful and tragic war in Iraq, and as an original cosponsor, I rise in strong support of the rule governing debate of H. Con. Res. 83, a concurrent resolution directing the President to terminate the engagement of United States Armed Forces in hostilities in or against Iran, as well as the underlying legislation. I thank the gentlelady from Michigan, Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin, for introducing this resolution and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel for his work on this important resolution. I also thank Speaker Pelosi for taking swift action to afford the House the opportunity to honor its constitutional duty to keep the American people safe by limiting the President from taking further precipitous military actions regarding Iran. We know from bitter and heart-breaking experience the truth that while dangerous and bloody battles are fought by the military, it is the nation that goes to war. And that is why the Framers lodged the awesome power to declare and take the nation to war not in the hands of a single individual, but through Article I, Section, clause 11 in the collective judgment of Congress, the representatives of the American people. It is true of course that the United States has an inherent right to self-defense against imminent armed attacks and that it maintains the right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving abroad. But in matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch must inform Congress as to why military action was necessary within a certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future disastrous attacks against the United States. Only after being fully briefed and informed is the Congress in a position to validate and ratify or disapprove and terminate the action. Madam Speaker, Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Power Resolution, Pub. L. 93-148, provides that whenever ``United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.'' The military action ordered on Friday, January 3, 2020 by the President to kill Major General Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, may have rid the world of a major architect of terror but leaves unanswered the critically important question of why the action was taken at that time. Even at this late hour, members of Congress have not been briefed or been shown compelling evidence by the Administration that the action was necessary to repel a credible, certain, and imminent attack on the United States, its allies, or American civilians or military personnel. The Administration has yet to provide proof or assuage the concerns of most member of Congress, and of the American people, that the killing of Major General Soleimani was a necessary action that was the product of a carefully crafted geopolitical strategy developed after extensive discussion within the national security apparatus regarding the short and long-term consequences for the security of the region and our nation and its people. Similarly, we do not know whether the decision to engage in the hostile action against Iran was made by the President in consultation and agreement with our regional and international allies and whether there is now in place a strategy to ensure that the action taken does not lead to a greater escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States or in the worst case, another war in the Middle East placing at risk the lives and safety of millions of persons. Madam Speaker, Major General Soleimani was the long-time chief of the Quds Force, the elite special forces battalion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), assisted Syrian strongman Bashar al Assad slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Syrian civil war, helped incite the Houthis in Yemen's civil war, and oversaw the brutal killing of hundreds of Iraqi protesters recently demonstrating against Iranian influence in their country. Iran's Quds Force, under Soleimani's leadership, has long been suspected by the U.S. Government of involvement in a 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and bore responsibility for the deaths of more than 600 Americans killed by Iranian proxies since the 2003 inception of the war in Iraq. Over the past eight months, in response to rising tensions with Iran, the United States has introduced over 15,000 additional forces into the Middle East. But Major General Soleimani was more than a military leader, he was a high-ranking political leader, second only in power and influence to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In fact, Soleimani was regarded by many as a future president of Iran. It was foreseeable therefore that the killing of Soleimani by American forces was likely to invite retaliation by Iran putting at risk American military and civilian personnel, as well as its allies in the region and across the globe. It must be remembered, Madam Speaker, the United States has national interests in preserving its partnership with Iraq and other countries in the region, including by combating terrorists, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability; and supporting the people of Iraq, Iran, and other countries throughout the Middle East who demand an end to government corruption and violations of basic human rights. For these reasons it is essential that the Administration have in place a sound, well-considered, and meticulously developed strategy for managing disputes with Iran. That does not appear to be the case. There is no evidence that the Administration consulted with Congress or the Gang of 8, no evidence that it enlisted or even consulted our allies in NATO or the region, no evidence that the Administration has a working and well-functioning national security council apparatus. This is a critical Pottery Barn failure in dealing with the Middle East for as former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated before the Iraq War, ``If you break it, you bought it.'' Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed that a ``harsh retaliation is waiting'' for the United States as a consequence of the action taken by the Administration. It is imperative that the Administration have in place a strategy to counter and deescalate any Iranian response and have in place measure to protect the safety of Americans residing or travelling abroad and to protect the security of the homeland. The deliberate and targeted killing of Major General Soleimani has the potential to be the most consequential assassination of a political leader since World War I was started by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria, the heir presumptive of the throne of Austria-Hungary in 1914. One of the enduring lessons of the Great War too often forgotten but so well documented in Barbara Tuchman's prize-winning history, ``The Guns of August,'' is that misconceptions, miscalculations, and mistakes result in the tragedy of horrific warfare; among them are overestimating the value of one's economic power, harboring an ill- founded belief in quick victory, and a failure to consider political backlash warfare. Madam Speaker, the decision to send American men and women into harm's way is the most consequential decision the Constitution vests in the Congress and the President. Members of Congress must be apprised of all facts material to the decision and have access to relevant documentation, classified and otherwise, and afforded the opportunity to meet in small groups and in secure locations with senior members of the Administration's national security team who can answer detailed and pointed questions and provide requested information. The Constitution wisely divides the responsibility of deciding when to use military force to protect the nation and its interests between the President and the Congress, the representatives of the American people. The United States' military involvement in Iraq begun in March 2003 and continuing to this day has taught this nation the importance of having accurate and reliable information when deciding whether to use military force and the painful costs in lives and treasure of acting precipitously or unwisely. We cannot and dare not repeat that mistake. That is why I am proud to support and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent resolution before us, which directs the President to terminate immediately the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military, unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or the use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Our constituents, all Americans across the country, and the people of the globe are looking to us to ensure that tensions between the United States and Iran are deescalated, that smart power and diplomacy be employed, and every effort be made to ensure the peace and safety in America and the region, and the lives of the innocent not be placed at risk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, America is not safe or safer because of the acts that occurred local time on January 3, 2020. America is in more jeopardy, as are our brave men and women in the United States military, whom we hold in the highest esteem and say to their families: We are obligated and committed to honoring and thanking you, but to also recognizing, when we send you into battle, there would and should be the consultation, the engagement, the understanding of the intelligence and the work between Article I, the United States Congress, and Article II, the President of the United States. I will not allow any Member of Congress to malign my Gold Star families or to suggest that any Member here does not respect the ultimate sacrifice that their family members took. Family members who are Gold Star should not be used in a political debate. They should only be honored. And I will not accept anyone describing Democrats as mourning terrorists.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, what I will say is that nothing in this resolution speaks to any named person. It says that this body, this Congress, must adhere to its duty to be able to ensure that the President of the United States does not unilaterally take us into war with Iran. We will not stand for it. It does, as well, say that my resolution in 2002 indicated that we should not have gone to war in Iraq. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, as a member serving in this body on September 11, 2001 and throughout the fateful and tragic war in Iraq, and as an original cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 83, a concurrent resolution directing the President to terminate the engagement of United States Armed Forces in hostilities in or against Iran. l thank the gentlelady from Michigan, Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin, for introducing this resolution and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel for his work on this important resolution. I also thank Speaker Pelosi for taking swift action to afford the House the opportunity to honor its constitutional duty to keep the American people safe by limiting the President from taking further precipitous military actions regarding Iran. We know from bitter and heart-breaking experience the truth that while dangerous and bloody battles are fought by the military, it is the nation that goes to war. And that is why the Framers lodged the awesome power to declare and take the nation to war not in the hands of a single individual, but through Article I, Section, clause 11 in the collective judgment of Congress, the representatives of the American people. It is true of course that the United States has an inherent right to self-defense against imminent armed attacks and that it maintains the right to ensure the safety of diplomatic personnel serving abroad. But in matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch must inform Congress as to why military action was necessary within a certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future disastrous attacks against the United States. Only after being fully briefed and informed is the Congress in a position to validate and ratify or disapprove and terminate the action. Madam Speaker, Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Power Resolution, Pub. L. 93-148, provides that whenever ``United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.'' The military action ordered on Friday, January 3, 2020, local time by the President to kill Major General Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, may have rid the world of a major architect of terror but leaves unanswered the critically important question of why the action was taken at that time. Even at this late hour, members of Congress have not been briefed or been shown compelling evidence by the Administration that the action was necessary to repel a credible, certain, and imminent attack on the United States, its allies, or American civilians or military personnel. The Administration has yet to provide proof or assuage the concerns of most member of Congress, and of the American people, that the killing of Major General Soleimani was a necessary action that was the product of a carefully crafted geopolitical strategy developed after extensive discussion within the national security apparatus regarding the short and long-term consequences for the security of the region and our nation and its people. Similarly, we do not know whether the decision to engage in the hostile action against Iran was made by the President in consultation and agreement with our regional and international allies and whether there is now in place a strategy to ensure that the action taken does not lead to a greater escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States or in the worst case, another war in the Middle East placing at risk the lives and safety of millions of persons. Madam Speaker, Major General Soleimani was the long-time chief of the Quds Force, the elite special forces battalion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), assisted Syrian strongman Bashar al Assad slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Syrian civil war, helped incite the Houthis in Yemen's civil war, and oversaw the brutal killing of hundreds of Iraqi protesters recently demonstrating against Iranian influence in their country. Iran's Quds Force, under Soleimani's leadership, has long been suspected by the U.S. Government of involvement in a 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States and bore responsibility for the deaths of more than 600 Americans killed by Iranian proxies since the 2003 inception of the war in Iraq. Over the past eight months, in response to rising tensions with Iran, the United States has introduced over 15,000 additional forces into the Middle East. But Major General Soleimani was more than a military leader, he was a high-ranking political leader, second only in power and influence to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In fact, Soleimani was regarded by many as a future president of Iran. It was foreseeable therefore that the killing of Soleimani by American forces was likely to invite retaliation by Iran putting at risk American military and civilian personnel, as well as its allies in the region and across the globe. It must be remembered that the United States has national interests in preserving its partnership with Iraq and other countries in the region, including by combating terrorists, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability; and supporting the people of Iraq, Iran, and other countries throughout the Middle East who demand an end to government corruption and violations of basic human rights. For these reasons it is essential that the Administration have in place a sound, well-considered, and meticulously developed strategy for managing disputes with Iran. That does not appear to be the case. There is no evidence that the Administration consulted with Congress or the Gang of 8, no evidence that it enlisted or even consulted our allies in NATO or the region, no evidence that the Administration has a working and well-functioning national security council apparatus. This is a critical Pottery Barn failure in dealing with the Middle East for as former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated before the Iraq War, ``If you break it, you bought it.'' Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed that a ``harsh retaliation is waiting'' for the United States as a consequence of the action taken by the Administration. It is imperative that the Administration have in place a strategy to counter and deescalate any Iranian response and have in place measure to protect the safety of Americans residing or travelling abroad and to protect the security of the homeland. The deliberate and targeted killing of Major General Soleimani has the potential to be the most consequential assassination of a political leader since World War I was started by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria, the heir presumptive of the throne of Austria-Hungary in 1914. One of the enduring lessons of the Great War too often forgotten but so well documented in Barbara Tuchman's prize-winning history, ``The Guns of August,'' is that misconceptions, miscalculations, and mistakes result in the tragedy of horrific warfare; among them are overestimating the value of one's economic power, harboring an ill- founded belief in quick victory, and a failure to consider political backlash warfare. Madam Speaker, the decision to send American men and women into harm's way is the most consequential decision the Constitution vests in the Congress and the President. Members of Congress must be apprised of all facts material to the decision and have access to relevant documentation, classified and otherwise, and afforded the opportunity to meet in small groups and in secure locations with senior members of the Administration's national security team who can answer detailed and pointed questions and provide requested information. The Constitution wisely divides the responsibility of deciding when to use military force to protect the Nation and its interests between the President and the Congress, the representatives of the American people. The United States' military involvement in Iraq begun in March 2003 and continuing to this day has taught this Nation the importance of having accurate and reliable information when deciding whether to use military force and the painful costs in lives and treasure of acting precipitously or unwisely. We cannot and dare not repeat that mistake. That is why I am proud to support and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent resolution before us, which directs the President to terminate immediately the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military, unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or the use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Our constituents, all Americans across the country, and the people of the globe are looking to us to ensure that tensions between the United States and Iran are deescalated, that smart power and diplomacy be employed, and every effort be made to ensure the peace and safety in America and the region, and the lives of the innocent not be placed at risk. Madam Speaker, today our Nation is debating the very profound question of war and peace and the structure and nature of international relations in the 21st century. Before us today is the serious and fundamental question of life and death: whether or not this Congress will give the President authority to commit this Nation to war. Always a question of the greatest importance, our decision today is further weighted by the fact that we are being asked to sanction a new foreign policy doctrine that gives the President the power to launch a unilateral and preemptive first strike against Iraq before we have utilized our diplomatic options. My amendment provides an option and the time to pursue it. Its goal is to give the United Nations inspections process a chance to work. It provides an option short of war with the objective of protecting the American people and the world from any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The amendment urges the United States to reengage the diplomatic process, and it stresses our government's commitment to eliminating any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction through United Nations inspections and enhanced containment. It emphasizes the potentially dangerous and disastrous long-term consequences for the United States of codifying the President's announced doctrine of preemption. The administration's resolution forecloses alternatives to war before we have even tried to pursue them. We do not need to rush to war, and we should not rush to war. If what we are worried about is the defense of the United States and its people, we do not need this resolution. If the United States truly faced an imminent attack from anywhere, the President has all of the authority in the world to ensure our defense based on the Constitution, the War Powers Act and the United Nations Charter. Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked. This is a frightening and dangerous potential consequence that requires sober thought and careful reflection. President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law, the United Nations Charter and our own long-term security interests. It will set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. Do we want to see our claim to preemption echoed by other countries maintaining that they perceive similar threats? India or Pakistan? China or Taiwan? Russia or Georgia? I would submit that we would have little moral authority to urge other countries to resist launching preemptive strikes themselves. This approach threatens to destabilize the Middle East, unleash new forces of terrorism and instability and completely derail any prospects for peace in the region. Unilateralism is not the answer. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are a problem to the world community, and we must confront it and we should do so through the United Nations. Multilateralism and steadfast commitment to international law should be the guiding principle as we move into the 21st century. As I said, the purpose of my amendment is to let the United Nations do its work. Let us give inspections and other containment mechanisms a chance to succeed once again. Inspections did make real progress in eliminating weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s despite Saddam Hussein's best effort at obstruction and deceit. U.N. inspectors destroyed large stockpiles of chemical weapons, missiles and weapons of mass destruction. We can and should renew and expand this process. In addition to inspections, we should improve border monitoring through an enhanced containment system to prevent shipments of nuclear materials or other weapons to Iraq. And we should install surveillance technology on the border to detect such materials. As part of enhanced containment, we should work with the countries bordering Iraq and with regional seaports to ensure that United Nations Security Council resolutions are enforced, and we should plug holes in the current arms embargo blanket. We should also work on nonproliferation efforts globally to secure weapons materials. All of these are diplomatic options that we can and should undertake and which can lead to success. What we are doing today is building the framework for 21st century international relations. It will either be a framework of unilateralism and insecurity or multilateral cooperation and security. It is our choice. During the Cold War, the words ``first strike'' filled us with fear. They still should. I am really appalled that a democracy, our democracy, is contemplating taking such a fearsome step and really setting such a terrible international precedent that could be devastating for global stability and for our own moral authority. We are contemplating sending our young men and women to war where they will be doing the killing and the dying. And we, as representatives of the American people, have no idea where this action will take us, where it will end and what price we will pay in terms of lives and resources. This too should cause us to pause. We have choices, however, and we have an obligation to pursue them, to give U.N. inspections and enhanced containment a chance to work. What this resolution does state very clearly and firmly is that the United States will work to disarm Iraq through United Nations inspections and other diplomatic tools. It states that we reject the doctrine of preemption, and it reaffirms our commitment to our own security and national interests through multilateral diplomacy, not unilateral attack. I urge you to protect our national interests by giving the United Nations a chance by supporting this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, say how grateful we are that, as the assessment has been made, none of our brave soldiers lost their lives last night in the Iranian attack and that it is crucial this week that this Congress assert its authority, its constitutional authority as it relates to any declaration of war, which is our authority under Article I, in spite of the unfortunate determination made by this administration putting American soldiers in danger, diplomats making their families have great concern, and, certainly, jeopardizing the security of the American people. Our soldiers, most of all, we respect and honor, but we must do our job. As we do that, it is important, as well, to recognize that our work must go on. Over the years, I have worked on any number of responses to improving the quality of life of our young juveniles. On any given day, over 48,000 youth in the United States are confined in facilities away from home as a result of the juvenile justice or criminal justice involvement. In many instances, they are not assigned a particular sentence and can stay incarcerated or detained until they are 21. Most are held in restrictive correctional-style facilities, and thousands are held without even having had a trial--no sentence. Mr. Speaker, 92 percent of youth in juvenile facilities are in locked facilities. According to a 2018 report, 52 percent of long-term secure facilities, 44 percent of detention facilities, and 43 percent of reception and diagnostic centers also use mechanical restraints like handcuffs, leg cuffs, restraining chairs, straightjackets, with 40 percent of long-term secure facilities and detention centers isolating youth in locked rooms for 4 hours or more. In the State of Texas, we have had a long history with our foster care system and our detention system where young people--juveniles-- have been abused, sexually assaulted, and other indignities, altering them for life. According to selected findings from the Juvenile Residential Facility Census released in December 2018, 46 percent of all facilities reported locking youths in their rooms. Among public facilities, 81 percent of local facilities and 68 percent of State facilities reported locking young people in sleeping rooms. These young people are going to be the future leaders or the future citizens, residents of this Nation. They will have to take their rightful place. This is wrong, and so I intend to introduce an omnibus reformation of the juvenile justice system to reform it so that we can respond appropriately to these 48,000-plus and really restore their lives. I have already introduced legislation to ban solitary confinement, and locking juveniles in their rooms, lockdown, is equal to that. We don't know the altering factor in the development of these young people. Studies have shown brains are not fully developed until the age of 25, and yet we put on the brains of these young people under 25 in the juvenile justice system the kinds of stimuli that would alter their life forever. We also want to address the question of juveniles having a future, to ban the box of having to admit being arrested or in a juvenile detention center. Remember, most of these juveniles have not had trials. They have not had due process. They don't have a sentence. They can remain in that facility until, in many instances, the age of 21 if they came in at 12 or 14 a for nonviolent offense. Then, of course, we need to find alternative places for juveniles to be able to have wraparound services that really restore them to being a full, young person who can enjoy life and get an education. Many times when juveniles are in juvenile detention centers, their educations are spotty, at best. They don't return to the school system, and they are isolated and prone to dropping out. Yes, families need help. Families wind up in the juvenile justice system or the family court system out of desperation because we don't have help for those families. We need wraparound services, support services, that will encourage and enhance family unity and the ability to address the needs of this young person. Maybe it is volatility, immaturity. Maybe it is a response to home life. Maybe it is because there is drug abuse in the family or criminal activity in the family, or maybe there is poverty in the family or one parent struggling to raise a number of children. We cannot abandon 48,000 children every year in this Nation, Mr. Speaker, and so I will introduce the omnibus reform bill of the juvenile justice system to ensure that we save and build the lives of our young people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, I rise to address the Trump Administration's targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, and the impact of this decision on American national security interests and the safety of American armed forces personnel and civilians in the region and around the world. The decision to kill Major General Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, may have rid the world of a major architect of terror but leaves unanswered the critically important question of why the action was taken at this time. In addition, we do know whether the action taken was the product of a carefully developed geopolitical strategy developed after extensive discussion within the national security apparatus of the short and longterm consequences for the security of the region and our nation and its people. Similarly, we do not know whether it was taken in consultation and agreement with our regional and international allies; and whether there is now in place a strategy to ensure that the action taken does not lead to a greater escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States or in the worst case, another war in the Middle East placing at risk the lives and safety of millions of persons. Qasem Soleimani appears to be the apparent mastermind behind last week's attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Soleimani as long-time chief of the Quds Force, the elite special forces battalion of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), assisted Syrian strongman Bashar al Assad slaughter hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Syrian civil war. Soleimani also incited the Houthis in Yemen's civil war and oversaw the brutal killing of hundreds of Iraqi protesters recently demonstrating against Iranian influence in their country. Iran's Quds Force, under Soleimani's leadership, has long been suspected by the U.S. Government of involvement in a 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. According to the U.S. Department of State, Soleimani was responsible for the 608 Americans killed by Iranian proxies since the 2003 inception of the war in Iraq. But Qasem Soleimani was more than a military leader, he was a highranking political leader, second only in power and influence to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In fact, Soleimani was regarded as a future president of Iran. It was foreseeable that the killing of Soleimani by American forces was likely to invite retaliation by Iran putting at risk American military and civilian personnel, as well as its allies in the region and across the globe. That is why it was essential that the Administration have in place a sound and well-considered and meticulously developed strategy for managing disputes with Iran. That does not appear to be the case. There is no evidence that the Administration consulted with Congress or the Gang of 8, no evidence that it enlisted or even consulted our allies in NATO or the region, no evidence that the Administration has a working and well-functioning national security council apparatus. This is a critical Pottery Barn failure in dealing with the Middle East for as former Secretary of State Colin Powell stated before the Iraq War, ``If you break it, you bought it.'' Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has vowed that a ``harsh retaliation is waiting'' for the United States as a consequence of the action taken yesterday by the Administration. It is imperative that the Administration have in place a strategy to counter and deescalate any Iranian response and have in place measures to protect the safety of Americans residing or travelling abroad and to protect the security of the homeland. We must be prepared and ready because the assassination of Qasem Soleimani has the potential to be the most consequential assassination of a political leader since the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria, the heir presumptive of the throne of Austria-Hungary in 1914, which set in motion the Great War. The decision to send American men and women into harm's way is the most consequential decision the Constitution vests in the President and the Congress. That is why the Administration must consult with and seek and secure from Congress authorization to use military force (AUMF) against Iran. Any vote on an AUMF for engagement with Iran must be preceded by meaningful, substantive, and thoughtful dialogue and robust debate. Members of Congress must be apprised of all facts material to the decision and have access to relevant documentation, classified and otherwise, and afforded the opportunity to meet in small groups and in secure locations with senior members of the Administration's national security team who can answer detailed and pointed questions and provide requested information. The Constitution wisely divides the responsibility of deciding when to use military force to protect the nation and its interests between the President and the Congress, the representatives of the American people. The war in Iraq taught this nation the importance of having accurate and reliable information when deciding whether to use military force and the painful costs in lives and treasure of acting precipitously. We cannot and dare not repeat that mistake. That is why it is essential that all Members of Congress have access to the relevant information and the responsible Administration officials before any vote to authorize the use of military force be scheduled.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the American people and Members of Congress cannot ignore being on the brink of war. Nor can we ignore the fact that the Constitution indicates in Article I that it is the Congress that has the responsibility and duty to declare war. Nor can we ignore the breaking news of 10 rockets that have just hit a base in Iraq that houses U.S. troops or the 4,000 troops that have been sent in the last 24 hours or the reckless decision made by this administration to kill a very bad man in a manner that has created havoc in the Mideast. It is interesting to suggest that our allies are supportive when, in the last 24 hours, Israel said they had nothing to do with it. Presidents Obama and Bush, competent and prepared, indicated that this was not the right thing to do. My concern is that we, as a Nation, are defenders, and we can defend ourselves. We are powerful. That is not the point. The point is that we can do a tactic, but where is the strategy? It is crucial that we do not send young men and women into battle recklessly. I believe the Congress needs to pass a war powers resolution, an AUMF, immediately.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, last Friday, the 13th of December, the Judiciary Committee voted Articles of Impeachment against Donald John Trump, the 45th and current President of the United States and the House of Representatives debated and will vote on those articles of impeachment on December 18, 2019. The Judiciary Committee considered a voluminous amount of powerful, probative, and compelling evidence demonstrating that the President violated his oath of office, disregarded the nation's security, endeavored to corrupt the 2020 presidential election, and then launched a cover-up to prevent Congress from learning the full extent of his transgressions and acting to prevent their recurrence. Separately, I will discuss and evaluate in detail the evidence that supports the articles of impeachment, as well the evidence offered in defense of the President's conduct, but I rise today for the limited purpose of explaining briefly the reasons why the conduct described in the resolution of impeachment is of the utmost seriousness. On December 3, 2019, in the first of my Notes on Impeachment, I discussed and explained the enduring principles that I believe should guide consideration of any articles of impeachment. In this, the second part of my Notes on Impeachment, I will discuss why obstruction of the Congress, particularly the House of Representatives when it is exercising the powers vested in it exclusively by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, clause 5, is one of the grave transgressions that can be committed in this democratic republic. In February 2014, the military of the Russia Federation, without merit or cause, invaded the eastern part of the free and independent country of Ukraine, including the Donbass region and the Crimean Peninsula. The United States, a strategic ally of Ukraine, reacted swiftly to the Russian invasion, condemning the military action in strong and bipartisan fashion, and providing military, humanitarian, and non- military financial assistance to the determined but beleaguered nation of Ukraine, which since 2014 has totaled approximately $1.5 billion. In September 2019, members of the House of Representatives were alerted to a complaint filed by a whistleblower within the Intelligence Community alleging that on a July 25, 2019, call with the President of Ukraine, the current President of the United States sought to withhold $391 million in foreign military aid to Ukraine unless and until it announced publicly that it was currently conducting corruption investigations against the American president's perceived chief election rival. On September 24, 2019, the Speaker of the House announced that the House of Representatives would commence an impeachment inquiry pursuant to its constitutional authority under article I, section 2, clause 5 to determine whether in connection with the July 25, 2019 telephone conversation with the President of Ukraine, the President of the United States has engaged in conduct constituting ``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes or Misdemeanors'' as specified in article II, section 4. On September 25, 2019, the White House released a Memorandum of Conversation in which the July 25, 2019 telephone conversation between the presidents of the United States and of Ukraine was memorialized and which corroborated in all material respects the allegations of the whistle blower. The Memorandum of Conversation released by the White House confirms that the President of the United States put his personal interests over the interests of the nation, engaged in behavior that undermines the integrity of American elections, demeans the dignity of the office of the President of the United States, and jeopardizes the security of the United States. Rather than denying the material allegations raised or expressing any regret, contrition, or apology for the serious breach of conduct, a week later, on October 3, 2019, the President of the United States went before national television cameras and confirmed that he desired for President Zelensky's Government of Ukraine to launch the investigations he requested, stating: ``If they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens . . . Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.'' On October 22, 2019, bemoaning his fate, but not regretting his conduct, the President of the United States tweeted that ``All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here--a lynching,'' thus falsely drawing a moral equivalence between the exercise of the impeachment power expressly and solely conferred on the House of Representatives by the Constitution and lynching, the most heinous act of domestic terrorism and symbolic of one of the darkest and most shameful periods in America's past. From the moment Speaker Pelosi announced the House would commence investigation of the President's conduct, the President responded by initiating and orchestrating unprecedented defiance of Congress and impeding its ability to learn the facts and impose accountability by disregarding subpoenas, refusing all requests for the production of documents, directing his political appointees and other Executive Branch employees from testifying before or cooperating with Congress, and resorting to dilatory litigation in the pursuit of pursuing frivolous and specious claims, such as Article II empowers the President can do whatever he wants or that he is absolutely immune from congressional investigation. Madam Speaker, I am reminded that 21 years ago I served on the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of a president, as did one of my predecessors, the late Barbara Jordan, who reminded the nation that our country depends on us to be big in the biggest moments. This generational passing of the torch is not unique but rather an indelible feature of the American Experience passed down to us from the Framers who met in Philadelphia 232 years ago to craft a Constitution forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessing of liberty to them and their posterity. More than two centuries ago, in 1776, this country was founded on the basis of a bedrock belief in the revolutionary ideas that all men are created equal and are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property; are entitled to live free of arbitrary rule; and most important, are endowed with the right to govern themselves. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that ``all Experience has sh[o]wn that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by taking'' immediate action against their oppressors. But, Jefferson continued, ``when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is there duty'' to take immediate action to repel the danger. Madam Speaker, the Framers had first-hand experience with the types of abuses and usurpations committed by political leaders who ruled them but were not accountable to them and detailed many of those wrongs in the Declaration of Independence. The Framers understood and declared to the world that democratic governors derived their powers from the knowing and voluntary consent of the governed as expressed in free, fair, and unfettered elections unmarred by the influence or sabotage of any foreign country or entity not a member of the political community. The Framers understood that if elections are influenced by foreign actors, then voters are reduced from the great role of citizens to mere subjects, and government for and by the people is a sham. The most important feature of a democracy is that it is the voters who alone can confer the legitimate consent and authorization necessary to govern upon the governors who are then duty-bound to represent the voters' interests, and only their interests. Madam Speaker, the fundamental democratic compact between the governed and the governors is that the latter's authority and continuance in office comes exclusively from the governed and allegiance is owed exclusively to the governed. This agreement can only be reached through free and fair elections, a breach of which threatens the vitality and viability of the social contract upon which democratic self-rule of, by, and for the people depends. Based on their personal experiences, the Framers understood the importance of a president's allegiance being always and only to the nation. President Lincoln called the United States the ``last best hope of man on earth'' and stated at Gettysburg the importance of finishing the work we are in to ensure that ``government of the people, for the people, by the people does not perish from the earth.'' The first of the two serious allegations before us is that President Donald John Trump concocted and masterminded a scheme to coerce President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to conspire with him to sabotage an American election by announcing an investigation into false charges against his perceived chief political rival so that he could retain his office and continue to abuse his power. This is without doubt the most serious transgression that can be committed by a President who, as Lincoln said, has taken an oath ``registered in Heaven'' to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. The second charge leveled against the President in the article of impeachment is that once the Congress and people of the United States learned of his perfidious scheme, the President responded by orchestrating another campaign to obstruct the ability of the House of Representatives to learn the full depth of the betrayal of his oath and his office by refusing to provide required information or to make witnesses available. Instead, the President reverted to his prior habit and practice of ignoring subpoenas, asserting specious privileges, intimidating witnesses, hiding evidence, suborning perjury, questioning the loyalty of dedicated career professionals, and pursuing frivolous litigation in the courts. The alleged misconduct of President Trump is a trifecta in America history because it involves the commission of the three serious offenses against the system most feared by the Framers. First, President Trump violated his oath of office by placing his personal and political interest above by the national interest by scheming to get Ukraine to investigate a potential election opponent. Second, President Trump 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 President Trump 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. 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. Such a state of affairs inevitably leads to actions taken by the ruler that are not in the interests of the nation, like dishonoring treaty agreements, abandoning allies, impugning the independent judiciary and the free press, disregarding fundamental rights and liberties of the people, abrogating civic norms and virtues, pursuing acts of personal enrichment, and currying favor with foreign despots and authoritarians. Although President Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address that ``while the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years,'' the Framers anticipated that the day may come when the actions of a Chief Magistrate would constitute a clear and present danger to the security and survival of the Republic. So, to protect the republic, the Framers equipped the representatives chosen directly by the people with the necessary means of protecting their liberty by wisely including in the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, which vests the sole power of impeachment in the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, it is no accident or coincidence that the Framers established Congress first in the Constitution as Article I. This is because unlike a monarchy or autocracy where the ``King is Law,'' in a democratic republic, the ``Law is King,'' and no man is above the law. In addition to making the legislative branch the preeminent but co- equal branch, the Framers established the House of Representatives as the first of the two branches of the Congress. Members of the House are directly elected by citizen voters and unlike the Senate, no person can be appointed to the House; all Members of the House must be elected. Until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, Senators were appointed by the State Legislature and even today a Senate vacancy can be filled by gubernatorial appointment. Presidents, of course, are selected by electors chosen by voters. This explains why the Framers understood the House would enjoy a ``natural superiority'' over the Senate and other branches of government. Madam Speaker, in a democracy the People are the ultimate repository of political power and authority and the Framers created the House of Representatives to be the direct representative of the People. This is why the most powerful of all governmental prerogatives, the Power of the Purse, is vested solely in the House of Representatives by the Constitution which provides in Article I, Section 7 that ``[A]ll bills for the raising of revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.'' Madam Speaker, the Preamble explains that the reason ``We, The People of the United States,'' established the Constitution was to create a more perfect union where justice reigned and the law protected everyone, where the general welfare of the community was a paramount objective and liberty was secured for everyone, now and for the generations to come. Our form of government was created to secure the self-evident and inalienable right of The People to live free of arbitrary rule or despotism or tyranny. And that is why the Constitution necessarily includes a provision to remove from office any civil officer, including the President and Vice President, whose conduct and actions pose a clear and present threat to the system created by the People to secure their happiness. The purpose of the Impeachment Clause is to protect The People, not punish the person and that is why the Framers vested the sole power of impeachment in the institutional embodiment of The People, the House of Representatives. And that is why a refusal to cooperate or provide information requested by the House of Representatives in furtherance of its impeachment power is different in degree and kind from other inter- branch policy disputes. When the Chief Executive undertakes a wide-spread, full-scale, across the board campaign to impede and frustrate the House of Representatives in the exercise of its Impeachment Power, he is putting his interests and his desires above the interests of The People, the gravest offense that can be committed in a democratic republic. The impeachment power is vested solely in the House of Representatives because no one can tell the People how to go about protecting themselves; if they are required to obtain the permission or consent of another body, then the People are not in charge of determining their fate, and that means our system can be called many things but not a democratic republic. Madam Speaker, in 1862, at another moment of national crisis, President Lincoln said: ``The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.'' And I say to the Members of the House that: In honoring and defending the Constitution, We defend and honor ourselves, Precious alike in what we give and what we receive. For in honoring and defending the Constitution, We keep faith with the Framers to whom we are heir, and Are worthy of the esteem of our countrymen, Now, and in the generations to come. Madam Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I do not shrink from this duty. So, with love and reverence for this country and its people, I stand with the Constitution and that is why I supported the resolution impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we have much to be thankful for in this great and grand Nation. We are thankful for our Constitution that allows us to define what is right and wrong. I am thankful for all of the Americans who will be with their families, all of those who are documented and undocumented individuals in this country who have come for relief and refuge. I am thankful for the Members of Congress who uphold this Constitution. And I am also thankful for the opportunity to salute Bryan Stevenson, who has just turned his book, ``Just Mercy,'' into a movie. I look forward to working to reform the juvenile justice system, to adding my bills banning the box, banning solitary confinement, and alternative sentencing for our children. Our children should be receiving restorative justice; and like Bryan Stevenson, I believe there is a future if we invest in the future of our young people. So I intend to introduce, when we come back from this time in our districts, an omnibus, large juvenile justice reform bill that takes into consideration our teachers, our law enforcement, our social workers, our young people, our faith community, and Bryan Stevenson's advanced and innovative concept that delivers just mercy. Happy holidays. Merry Christmas. Happy Kwanza to everyone in the United States of America for this wonderful holiday season.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I hate no woman or man. Today, the American people should receive clarity and truth. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. The President breached and violated the Constitution of the United States of America. The President committed constitutional crimes. The President's crimes are impeachable. John F. Kennedy said: ``If this country should ever reach the point where any man or group of men by force or threat of force could long defy the commands of our court and our Constitution, then no law would stand free from doubt . . . and no citizen would be safe from his neighbors.'' The facts are undisputed. First, President Trump violated his oath of office by placing his personal political interests above the national interest by scheming to coerce Ukraine into investigating a potential election opponent. Second, President Trump betrayed the Nation's interests by withholding the congressionally agreed $391 million to a fragile ally against a very strong foe, Russia. Third, the essential purpose of the scheme concocted by the President was to enlist a foreign country to help in the 2020 election. These acts are constitutional crimes and abuse of power. The truth is, the President did ask for a favor. Those were his own words in the July 25 call--no mention of corruption, only the mention of the Bidens. The President was engaged in wrongdoing and is a clear and present danger. He has a pattern, and his behavior remains a continuing threat to America's national security. The truth is that abuse of power does violate the Constitution while both corrupting and cheating our American democracy. His acts betrayed the Nation. He must take care to execute laws faithfully. This is the truth. Why does the truth matter? Because it matters to the farmer at his or her plow. It matters to the waitress on an early-morning shift. It matters to the steelworker building America. It matters to the teacher in a fifth grade class. It matters to a mother kissing her military recruit going off to war. The Constitution must be preserved. Our laws must be honored and respected. The bloodshed and sacrifice of fellow Americans cannot be ignored, trampled on, or rejected. Our actions on the vote taken today must be for no personal gain or grandeur. The bright light of this constitutional democracy has been dimmed because of his acts. The truth is no longer for all. It is for one man, Donald J. Trump, his truth, his way. We must reject that abuse of power because that is not America. No one is above the law. Alexander Hamilton said impeachment was designed to deal with ``the misconduct of public men'' and violations of public trust.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The President has violated the trust. We must impeach Donald J. Trump. Madam Speaker, I hate no woman or man. Today the American people should receive clarity and truth. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. The President breached and violated the Constitution of the United States of America. The President committed Constitutional Crimes. The President's crimes are impeachable. President John F. Kennedy said that, ``If this country should ever reach the point where any man or group of men by force or threat of force could long defy the commands of our court and constitution, then no law would stand free from doubt, and no citizen would be safe from his neighbors.'' The facts are undisputed. First, President Trump violated his oath of office by placing his personal and political interest above the national interest by scheming to coerce Ukraine into investigating a potential election opponent. Second, President Trump betrayed the national interest by withholding vital, congressionally appropriated security assistance; $391 Million to a beleaguered and besieged ally facing armed aggression from Russia, America's implacable foe. Third, the essential purpose of the scheme concocted by President Trump 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. These acts are Constitutional crimes and an abuse of power. The truth is this President did ask for a favor--those were his own words. The truth is 391 million dollars was withheld. He jeopardized not only Americans' national security by putting Ukraine at the mercy of Russia. He also threatened honest and fair elections in 2020. In the July 25 call--no mention of corruption/only the mention of the Bidens. The President was engaged in wrongdoing and is a clear and present danger. His pattern of behavior remains a continuing threat to America's national security. The truth is that abuse of power does violate the Constitution, while both corrupting act and cheating our American democracy. His acts betrayed our nation. The Framers were concerned about abuse of power as the Judiciary Committee impeachment report said. The abuse of power was the use of official power in a way that on its face grossly exceeds the President's constitutional authority and violates the take care clause which commands the President to faithfully execute the law--not to demand a foreign country to investigate his 2020 opponent and deprives Americans a fair and unfettered right to vote. This is the truth. Why does the truth matter? Because it is the American way. It matters to the farmer at his or her plough. It matters to the waitress on an early morning bus for the breakfast shift. It matters to the steelworker helping to build America. It matters to the teacher in her fifth-grade social studies class. It matters to a Mother kissing her young military recruit before he or she goes off to war. The Constitution must be preserved, our laws must be honored and respected, the bloodshed and sacrifice of our fellow Americans cannot be ignored, trampled on or rejected and today our actions on the vote taken today must be for no personal gain or grandeur. The bright light of this constitutional Democracy has been dimmed because of his acts--the truth is no longer for all--it is for one man--Donald J. Trump--his truth, his way-- we must reject that abuse of power--because this is not America. No one is above the law. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment was Designed to deal with `the misconduct of public men' which involves `the abuse or violation of some public trust.' '' The President has violated that public trust and the House of Representatives must now protect and defend the Constitution and impeach Donald J. Trump. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record several supporting documents. The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike . . . I guess you have one of your wealthy people. . . The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you. The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. . . It sounds horrible to me. President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough. The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people. President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the House Amendment to Senate Amendment to H.R. 1865, which makes the consolidated appropriations needed to fund critical departments, agencies, and programs of the federal government through September 30, 2020. I thank Chairman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, and their fellow House conferees for their work in reaching this bipartisan agreement. Specifically, this legislation provides $540.4 billion and reflects conference agreements for the FY 2020 Labor-Health and Human Services- Education, Agriculture-Rural Development-Food and Drug Administration, Energy and Water Development, Interior-Environment, Legislative Branch, Military Construction-Veterans Affairs State-Foreign Operations, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriations bills. Madam Speaker, in total this appropriations package provides: 1. $35.9 billion in base defense funding; 2. $484.5 billion in base nondefense funding; 3. $0.6 billion for defense Overseas Contingency Operations; 4. $8 billion for nondefense OCO; 5. $6.2 billion for defense emergency requirements; 6. $4.6 billion for nondefense emergency requirements, program integrity, and wildfire suppression; and 7. $0.6 billion for 21st Century Cures Act funding. I appreciate the Appropriations Committee working with me to include the following Jackson Lee Amendments in the legislation:

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Jackson Lee Amendment to the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Prices Now Act. Let me also express my thanks to the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction for their hard work in crafting this critically important legislation: Chairman Pallone of Energy and Commerce; Chairman Neal of Ways and Means; and Chairman Scott of Education and Labor. The Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Prices Now Act levels the playing field for American patients and taxpayers by: 1. Giving Medicare the power to negotiate directly with the drug companies and creating powerful new tools to force drug companies to the table to agree to real price reductions, while ensuring seniors never lose access to the prescriptions they need. 2. Making the lower drug prices negotiated by Medicare available to Americans with private insurance, not just Medicare beneficiaries. 3. Stopping drug companies from ripping off Americans while charging other countries less for the same drugs and limiting the maximum price for any negotiated drug to be in line with the average price in countries like ours; 4. Creating a new, $2,000 out-of-pocket limit on prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries; and 5. Reinvesting in most transformational improvement to Medicare since its creation--delivering vision, dental and hearing benefits--and turbocharging the search for new cures. High drug prices are harmful. Medical costs and out-of-pocket expenses result in high rates of bankruptcies, and 10 to 25 percent of patients either delay, abandon or compromise treatments because of financial constraints. Survival is also compromised. For example, in chronic myeloid leukemia, the 8 to 10 year survival rate is 80 percent in Europe (where treatment is universally affordable), but the 5-year survival rate is only 60 percent in the United States. The high out-of-pocket expenses discourages patients from seeking care or purchasing drugs. And in a recent survey, one-third of insured persons in my home state of Texas delayed or did not pursue care because of high out-of-pocket expenses. The Jackson Lee Amendment is simple and straightforward. The Jackson Lee Amendment improves the bill by expressing the Sense of Congress regarding the harmful impact of the high cost of prescription drugs on communities of color and persons living in rural or sparsely populated areas of the United States. According to the Center for American Progress, the negotiation authority provided in H.R. 3 could save some diabetics more than $700 on an annual supply of certain types of insulin. Moreover, negotiation could bring down the net price for other types of drugs that are particularly needed in minority and poor communities--including expensive treatments for cancer and multiple sclerosis--by thousands per month. Reform is desperately needed and nearly 1 in 4 Americans currently taking prescription drugs find them difficult to afford. Some people struggling to afford medication for chronic illnesses even turn to drug rationing in desperation, which can be lethal. In fact, a recent study found that 1 in 4 patients with diabetes ration their insulin in response to rising prices. The American public overwhelmingly agrees that it is time to allow the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies: 85 percent of Americans support this tactic to reduce prices for Medicare and private insurance.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. And having been the ranking member of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee over the years, I understand the momentous task and the excellent work that has been done. This bill does what Republicans have always asked: For immigrants to work, for people to seek status; it provides status to hardworking agricultural workers. It provides them a certified agricultural worker status. They undergo background checks and pass strict criminal and national security bars. They have the opportunity to access the line to citizenship. They don't get in front of others. They are protected from reckless deportation. The industry is protected, the farm industry, the production of food is protected. I am delighted that my amendment regarding temporary protected status that impacts Hondurans, Haitians, and others--and also, as I attempt to work on TPS for our Guatemalan friends, this bill ensures the fair way to deal with farmworkers. It stops the outrage of deportation. It stops the outrage of threat, and it does what Cesar Chavez says, that we cannot have achievement and forget our progress and prosperity for our community. It honors their work. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 5038. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5038, the Agricultural Worker Program Act. This legislation will stabilize the agricultural sector and preserve our rural heritage by ensuring that farmers can meet their labor needs well into the future. First, the bill establishes a program for agricultural workers in the United States (and their spouses and minor children) to earn legal status through continued agricultural employment. Specifically, the bill creates a process for farm workers to seek Certified Agricultural Worker status--a temporary status for those who have worked at least 180 days in agriculture over the prior 2-year period. Certified Agricultural Worker status can be renewed indefinitely with continued farm work (at least 100 days per year). Applicants must undergo background checks and pass strict criminal and national security bars. Dependent status is available for spouses and minor children. The bill does not require workers to do or apply for anything else in order to stay and work in the United States. But long-term workers who want to stay have the option of earning a path to lawful permanent residence by paying a $1,000 fine and engaging additional agricultural work, as follows: Workers with 10 years of agricultural work prior to the date of enactment must complete 4 additional years of such work. Workers with less than 10 years of agricultural work prior to the date of enactment must complete 8 additional years of such work. The Farmworkers movement in this country was started and led by a great leader, Cesar Chavez who said, ``We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community. Our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.'' The Texas Farm Workers Union (``TFWU'') was established by Antonio Orendain and farmworker leaders of the Rio Grande Valley active with the United Farm Workers after a disagreement with UFW leadership over direction of a melon strike in south McAllen, TX in 1975. In August 1975, nearly ten years after he began organizing farm workers for the United Farm Workers in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas. Orendain worked for Cesar Chavez in the Chicago UFW national grape and lettuce boycott office. Farmworkers undertake some of the toughest jobs in America. They have earned the opportunity to build their lives without the fear of being uprooted from their families and their communities. The bipartisan Farm Workforce Modernization Act empowers the economic and physical well-being of immigrant families while providing much- needed labor security for our nation's farms. The agricultural industry relies on the labor of 2.4 million farmworkers--about half of whom are undocumented. This bill would protect thousands of families from deportation. With over 60 Democratic and Republican cosponsors, the bill has garnered significant bipartisan support. This is a big step in making our immigration system more humane and more efficient. I know the farming and agricultural communities in the state of Texas farm and my district borders communities that farm. What we are doing here is the right thing and attempting to reinforce the breadbasket that the United States happens to be to the world. I have heard the clamoring of farm workers for a very long time but I have also heard the need for fairness and the improvement of conditions that they are working in with adequate compensation. This bill regularizes people who want to be regularized and who want to contribute to helping the agricultural industry in this great nation. My amendment which I believe is a positive addition to this legislation, to ensure that individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) & Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) who are farmworkers are eligible to qualify for Certified Agricultural Worker status, and the path to legalization and citizenship that is created by the bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report to S. 1790, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020.'' The National Defense Authorization Act is designed to meet the threats we face today as well as into the future. The results of our work here today will reflect our strong commitment to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Services receive the benefits and support that they deserve for their faithful service. Building on our efforts from previous years, this bill contains a number of initiatives designed to provide the resources and support needed for the men and women who keep our nation safe. This legislation recognizes the reality that we live in a dangerous world, where threats are not always easily identifiable, and our enemies are not bound by borders. Confronting this unique type of enemy requires unique capabilities. As we have seen time and time again, our military has the ability to track down violent extremists who wish to do our country harm, regardless of where they reside. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that seven of my amendments adopted during House consideration of the NDAA are included in the final legislation or in language in the accompanying report: Jackson Lee Amendment directing the Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations to ensure that candidates granted admission to attend a military academy undergo screening for speech disorders and be provided the results of the screening test and a list of warfare unrestricted line (URL) Officer positions and occupation specialists that require successful performance on the speech test. Academy students shall have the option of undergoing speech therapy to reduce speech disorders or impediments. Jackson Lee Amendment directing the Secretary of Defense to submit a report analyzing the capacity of the Department of Defense to provide survivors of natural disasters with emergency short-term housing to the congressional defense committees not later than 220 days after the date of enactment of this Act. Jackson Lee Amendment directing the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to update the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House no later than March 15, 2019 on the status of the program required in section 1277 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, including an assessment of whether the program is beneficial to students interning, working part time, or in a program that will result in post-graduation employment with the Department of Defense components or contractors. Jackson Lee Amendment requiring report on Maternity Mortality Rates for military members and their dependents. Jackson Lee Amendment requiring report to be submitted to Congress within 240 days following enactment on the risks posed by debris in low earth orbit and to make recommendations on remediation of risks and outline plans to reduce the incident of space debris. Jackson Lee Amendment requiring that a report from the Secretary of Defense 240 days after the date of the enactment to the congressional defense committees that accounts for all of the efforts, programs, initiatives, and investments of the Department of Defense to train elementary, secondary, and postsecondary students in fields related to cybersecurity, cyber defense, and cyber operations. Jackson Lee Amendment adding ``instruction on the opportunities and risks posed by advancements in AI'' to the objectives of the Artificial Intelligence Education Strategy. The passing of this bill today brings us one step closer to enacting the 57th consecutive National Defense Authorization Act. Despite disagreements on key issues, Members have not failed to reach consensus on behalf of our fighting men and women. I am proud of the work we have done here today.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in 2017, the Gulf region experienced one of the greatest catastrophic floods and hurricanes in our history: Mr. Speaker, 51 trillion gallons of water. Neighborhoods that have never flooded, flooded. People in desperate conditions, reservoirs breaking, dams breaking. And I knew that we had to rescue them. I introduced the first Hurricane Harvey legislation: $174 billion. But, Mr. Speaker, there was a group that I did not want to forget because I know that they are entrepreneurs, and that is why I established the small business grant program, modeled after 9/11, that now has come into fruition with $100 million. I will go home and announce this to my local community. The grants are grants and not loans--unique. They are not like the SBA. They are grants. We fought for that from the Federal Government all the way down to the State government. I am asking my constituents to meet me in Houston at 2 p.m. for a grand announcement in order for the small businesses still impacted by Hurricane Harvey to get grant relief, money that is not a loan, and I am fighting for those loans to be small enough to help all of our small entrepreneurs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4803, the Citizenship for Children of Military Members and Civil Servants Act. I applaud Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and House Judiciary Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) for introducing this bipartisan legislation aimed to fix a problem in current citizenship laws. The current citizenship law implemented by this Administration in October, serves as a disadvantage to certain children who are born abroad and reside with a parent serving overseas in the military or as a federal government employee. Under current law, such children are required to establish U.S. residency in order to obtain citizenship, which can be difficult when a parent is stationed overseas. This small but important change is the necessary fix for U.S. armed forces and in federal government positions overseas. I am glad we could work together to introduce this bipartisan legislation that provides greater flexibility and support to those who have dedicated their careers to serving our nation. American citizens who are deployed members of our military or government officials working abroad should have confidence their children will receive U.S. citizenship. Military families are already making tremendous sacrifices to serve our country abroad and the children should not have to be penalized. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4803 because our military families should not have to deal with the bureaucracy of this Administration for their children to be United States citizens.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 565, ``The Advancing Mutual Interests and Growing Our Success Act'' or AMIGOS Act. Despite deep ties with Portugal, it remains one of only five EU countries whose citizens are ineligible for E-1 and E-2 visas. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, nationals of countries with which the United States maintains a treaty of commerce and navigation may be admitted temporarily to the United States to engage in international trade, an E-1 visa, or to develop and direct an investment enterprise, E-2 visa. E-1 and E-2 visas may be granted to individual traders and investors or to employees of organizational traders and investors. Applicants for E-1 and E-2 visas must generally demonstrate the existence of a bilateral treaty of commerce and navigation between the applicant's country of nationality and the United States. Some treaties allow for the admission of both E-1 and E-2 nonimmigrants, while others allow for the admission of only E-1 or E-2 nonimmigrants. In addition, the visa applicant must be a national of the treaty country. If the applicant is an employee of an organizational trader or investor, both the applicant and the organization must possess the nationality of the treaty country. The nationality of the organization is determined by the nationality of the individual owners--at least 50 percent of the organization must be owned by nationals of the treaty country. The enterprise must be more than marginal and must generate income beyond that which is required to provide a minimal living for the investor and their family. An individual investor must be coming to the United States to develop and direct the business. An applicant who is an employee of an organizational trader or investor must be coming to the United States to fulfill an executive or supervisory position or possess skills that are essential to the firm's U.S. operations. Spouses and minor children accompanying or following to join the principal E-1 or E-2 nonimmigrant will be admitted for the same period of stay as the principal trader or investor. Congress has the ability to take action to improve the historical relationship between the United States and Portugal. If H.R. 565 is enacted, Portuguese nationals would become eligible for E-1 and E-2 visas, but only after an agreement for reciprocal treatment between Portugal and the United States is finalized. In 2012, Congress passed--and the president signed into law--H.R. 3992 to permit Israeli nationals to participate in the E-2 treaty investor program. However, Israeli nationals did not have the ability to apply for E-2 visas until May 1, 2019, when an agreement with Israel was finalized and took effect. It was favorably reported by the House Judiciary Committee without amendment by voice vote; passed by the House on motion to suspend the rules (371 to 0) and passed by the Senate, without amendment, by Unanimous Consent. Similarly, S. 2245, the ``Knowledgeable Innovators and Worthy Investors (KIWI) Act,'' became law on August 1, 2018, but New Zealanders were unable to apply for E-1 and E-2 visas until June 10, 2019 when an agreement for reciprocal treatment took effect. It was Discharged by the Senate Judiciary Committee by Unanimous Consent and passed by the Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent; passed by the House on motion to suspend the rules by voice vote. The last two bills to add countries to the E-1 and E-2 visa programs passed Congress without controversy. Portugal is a longstanding United States ally, with ``bilateral ties dating from the earliest years of the United States, when Portugal recognized the United States in 1791 following the Revolutionary War.'' The United States is also Portugal's largest trading partner outside the European Union (EU), with bilateral trade in goods and services reaching $8 billion in 2018, a 9 percent increase from the previous year. Similarly, U.S. direct investment in Portugal reached $2.1 billion in 2017, with U.S. companies playing a significant role, investing in the Portuguese banking, pharmaceutical, and chemical industries. Both countries have also agreed to a bilateral income tax agreement to prevent double taxation. Portuguese participation in the E-1 and E-2 visa programs will deepen an already strong bilateral trade and investment relationship, and benefit business communities in both countries. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 565, ``The Advancing Mutual Interests and Growing Our Success Act'' or AMIGOS Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4018, the legislation which provides that the amount of time that an elderly offender must serve before being eligible for placement in home detention is to be reduced by the amount of Good Time Credits earned by the prisoner, and for other purposes. This legislation would ensure that elderly offenders become eligible for the pilot program at a point in time that takes into account any good conduct time credits they may have accumulated in the course of their time in prison under the Second Chance Act. This change is important for at least three reasons: (1) the elderly offender pilot program should be consistent with the way the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) calculates other transfers, which includes credit for good conduct time, (2) offenders who otherwise have satisfactory behavior should not lose good conduct time solely due to their elderly status, and (3) one of the goals of the pilot program is to save taxpayer dollars, and older inmates tend to be more costly for BOP to house. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because it is long overdue and provides much needed relief to persons who no longer warrant incarceration. To promote prisoner reentry and improve community reintegration, I co-sponsored and advocated for passage of the Second Chance Act, which Congress enacted in April 2008. The Second Chance Act expanded existing offender reentry grant programs at DOJ and created a wide array of targeted grant-funded pilot programs. The Second Chance Act reauthorization improved programs by: broadening programs to cover reentry courts, expanding grant eligibility to nonprofits, bolstering support for programs targeting offenders with histories of homelessness, substance abuse, or mental illness, and makes the existing elder release pilot program permanent and broadens eligibility. The Second Chance Act also established an elderly offender release program for those individuals over the age of 65 who have served the greater of ten years or 75 percent of their sentence. The Act has been consistently funded by Congress since its enactment. Since its inception, the Second Chance Act has resulted in more than 800 grant awards in 49 states and the District of Columbia to government agencies and nonprofits for reentry programming designed to provide services that can help reduce recidivism and increase public safety. The data shows that this investment in our returning population lowers recidivism, saves money and reduces crime. Nearly one out of three Second Chance Act grantees is a community or faith-based organization and includes funding for federal programs through the Bureau of Prisons. The data shows that this investment in our returning population lowers recidivism, saves money and reduces crime. The Second Chance Act has been a success and its reauthorization was an essential part of any meaningful criminal justice reform effort. Through grants, the Second Chance Act encourages the development of evidence-based reentry programming to improve outcomes for those returning to families and communities. Grantees provide vital resources, including employment training, drug treatment, family programming, and so much more. Reauthorization had broad bipartisan support in Congress and from nearly 700 organizations across the political spectrum. The Second Chance Act has played an important role in the impressive advances Texas has made over the last decade in criminal justice and juvenile justice reform. Texas has received over 28 Second Chance Act grant awards to date, totaling over $11,932,289. One recipient, the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, has used it to provide family-focused reentry services and comprehensive case management to gang-affiliated youth. The City of Dallas used its funding to support a program for women who have a substance abuse diagnosis and are pregnant or have children who are 5 and under. The women received comprehensive family-based support and co- occurring substance use and mental health services on an inpatient and outpatient basis. This change is especially significant because the fastest growing segment of inmates are those age 50 and older, and they cost far more. As an original co-sponsor of the Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2017, I am very proud to have played a part in the development of the Federal Prisoner Reentry Initiative for our citizens over 60 years old. For the previous several Congresses, I introduced the Federal Prison Bureau Relief Act to amend the federal criminal code to require the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to release early an offender who has completed at least half of his or her prison sentence if such offender has: (1) attained age 45, (2) committed no violent offenses, and (3) received no institutional disciplinary violations. The bill modified provisions related to computation of a federal prisoner's good time credit. Specifically, it allowed an eligible federal prisoner to earn a maximum good time credit of 54 days per year of the sentence imposed (instead of 54 days per year of the sentence actually served). It also permitted the Bureau of Prisons to restore good time credit previously denied, based on a prisoner maintaining good behavior. These modifications applied to an ongoing prison sentence imposed on or after November 1, 1987. A bipartisan consensus is developing across this country in support of such a policy. Allowing this group of nonviolent offenders to go home to their families is both beneficial to the inmates as well as in the best interest of the United States. There is a continuing need for re-entry programs. Due to the dramatic growth in the size of the prison population, the issue of prisoner reentry has emerged as one of the most critical and complex dilemmas facing the American criminal justice system. The United States is the world's leader in incarceration. According to the Prison Policy Initiative Mass Incarceration, the American criminal justice system holds almost: 2.3 million people in 1,719 state prisons, 109 federal prisons, 1,772 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,163 local jails, and 80 Indian Country jails as well as in military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories. These trends resulted in prison overcrowding despite increasing evidence that large-scale incarceration is not the most effective means of public safety. The result was that an incredibly low number of prisoners over 60 years of age were released to home confinement under the pilot program. Passing H.R. 4018 will not fix the entire criminal justice system, but it is another important step in our effort to make it a more just and humane system for our elderly non-violent offenders with reentry into our communities.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, who on this floor would stand with me for peace, and who on this floor would stand against our position and against peace? It is well known that the United States, all of my life, has been a strong supporter of Israel, rooted in shared national security interests, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. I have sent to Israel young people, through the Mickey Leland Kibbutzim program, from my district for 25 years--almost 25 years--to develop the understanding and friendship that we continue to promote for the values of what Israel stands for. The United States has worked for decades to strengthen our assistance. We are intertwined through national security. And, in essence, this two-state solution is a solution toward peace. I have been to Palestine and met the Palestinians and their leaders over the years that I have served in the United States Congress. Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Obama stood with Israel, as we all stand today. But we stand with peace and the understanding of the two-state solution. Let us stand united.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I invite my Republican friends to join on the resolution, H. Res. 326. Do not read into it anything more than a pathway to peace, discussion, and dialogue, recognizing the dignity of all people. I join my friends, my Jewish friends, my friends from Palestine, and I join Americans in wanting a two-state solution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, having participated in the restoration and reinvigoration of the Voting Rights Act in the 2000-2008 period that was bipartisan because there was an understanding by President Bush that the denial of one's right to vote is a denial of human rights, I stand here today as a Member who has joined a number of the congressional hearings. I thank Congresswomen Sewell and Fudge and Congressmen Cohen and Nadler for the work that has been done, and I encourage my good friend, Mr. Collins, to be reminded of the voter suppression in his gubernatorial race that resulted in the loss of Stacey Abrams. And so I rise today as one who has seen the impact of voting rights, particularly in the State of Texas, and argue vigorously for the restoration through H.R. 4. It is a fair bill: 25-year period on a rolling basis with current conditions, and a 10-year legitimacy for those that pass the test. President Johnson, during the signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, 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. I am a victim of voting rights suppression. I am a redistrict district that comes from the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Barbara Jordan would not have come to this House had it not been for the right to vote for someone that you choose. In 1940, only 3 percent of African Americans living in the South were registered. Only after Barbara Jordan submitted an amendment did we include Hispanics.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Only in the period of the horrible Shelby vote did we have voter suppression with the voter ID law that impacted Hispanics in Texas severely, purging language that I helped put in this present bill and, of course, moving polling places. If we believe in this document called the Constitution, then we believe in H.R. 4. We want it restored because it is the right of the people to vote. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an original cosponsor, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which corrects the damage done in recent years 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. I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Alabama for introducing this legislation, to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and the Democratic leadership for shepherding this bill to the floor, and to many colleagues and countless number of ordinary Americans who never stopped agitating and working to protect the precious right to vote. Mr. Speaker, in response to the Supreme Court's invitation in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), H.R. 4 provides a new coverage formula based on ``current conditions'' and creates a new coverage formula that hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years. It is significant that this 25-year period is measured on a rolling basis to keep up with ``current conditions,'' so only states and political subdivisions that have a recent record of racial discrimination in voting are covered. States and political subdivisions that qualify for preclearance will be covered for a period of 10 years, but if they have a clean record during that time period, they can be extracted from coverage. H.R. 4 also establishes ``practice-based preclearance,'' which would focus administrative or judicial review narrowly on suspect practices that are most likely to be tainted by discriminatory intent or to have discriminatory effects, as demonstrated by a broad historical record. Under the bill, this process of reviewing changes in voting is limited to a set of specific practices, including such things as: 1. Changes to the methods of elections (to or from at-large elections) in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse. 2. Redistricting in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse. 3. Reducing, consolidating, or relocating polling in areas that are racially, ethnically, or linguistically diverse; and 4. Changes in documentation or requirements to vote or to register. It is useful, Mr. Speaker, to recount how we arrived at this day. Mr. Speaker, fifty-four years ago, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery. Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to bring it even closer to its founding ideals. The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to vote. On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights ``demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote. ``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American. No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will ever I forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory and experience. On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol and in the presence of such luminaries as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Ralph Abernathy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Roy Wilkins of the NAACP; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; James Foreman of the Congress of Racial Equality; A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis of the Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee; Senators Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen; President Johnson addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act: ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.'' The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter discrimination violations that historically left millions of African Americans disenfranchised. In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans registered to vote in Texas and only about 3 percent of African Americans living in the South were registered to vote. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major causes of these racially discriminatory results. After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than 1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote. In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the South. Because of the Voting Rights Act, in 2007 there were more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest number ever. Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress. Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly. The crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Section 5, which requires that states and localities with a chronic record of discrimination in voting practices secure federal approval before making any changes to voting processes. Section 5 protects minority voting rights where voter discrimination has historically been the worst. Between 1982 and 2006, Section 5 stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes right here in Texas. Passed in 1965 with the extraordinary leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, the greatest legislative genius of our lifetime, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was bringing dramatic change in many states across the South. But in 1972, change was not coming fast enough or in many places in Texas. In fact, Texas, which had never elected a woman to Congress or an African American to the Texas State Senate, was not covered by Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the language minorities living in South Texas were not protected at all. But thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the tireless voter registration work performed in 1972 by Hillary Clinton in Texas, along with hundreds of others, including her future husband Bill, Barbara Jordan was elected to Congress, giving meaning to the promise of the Voting Rights Act that all citizens would at long last have the right to cast a vote for person of their community, from their community, for their community. Mr. Speaker, it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in Houston that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to all Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also represented this historic 18th Congressional District of Texas, introduced, and the Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of Section 4(a) and Section 5 to language minorities. During the floor debate on the 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman Jordan explained why this reform was needed: ``There are Mexican-American people in the State of Texas who have been denied the right to vote; who have been impeded in their efforts to register and vote; who have not had encouragement from those election officials because they are brown people. ``So, the state of Texas, if we approve this measure, would be brought within the coverage of this Act for the first time.'' When it comes to extending and protecting the precious right vote, the Lone Star State--the home state of Lyndon Johnson and Barbara Jordan--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 need to passthis legislation is urgent because the right to vote--that ``powerful--instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''-- faces 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 and that is why we must pass H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. 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. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in Shelby County v. Holder, ``[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' However, officials in some states, notably Texas and North Carolina, seemed to regard the Shelby decision as a green light and rushed to implement election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime. My constituents remember very well the Voter ID law passed in Texas in 2011, which required every registered voter to present a valid government-issued photo ID on the day of polling in order to vote. The Justice Department blocked the law in March of 2012, and it was Section 5 that prohibited it from going into effect. At least it did until the Shelby decision, because on the very same day that Shelby was decided officials in Texas announced they would immediately implement the Photo ID law, and other election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime. The Texas Photo ID law was challenged in federal court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos that Texas' strict voter identification law discriminated against blacks and Hispanics and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Mr. 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. I believe that Texas, the Lone Star State, can be the leading state in the Union. But to realize that future, we cannot return to the dark days of its past and must remain ever vigilant and oppose schemes that will abridge or dilute the precious right to vote. That means standing up to and calling out groups and organizations like ``True the Vote'' and its local Houston-based affiliate, the ``King Street Patriots,'' which in recent years have under the guise of poll watchers, improperly interacted with persons at polling stations in Hispanic and African American communities in an attempt to intimidate them from voting. The behavior of this group was so outrageous in 2010 that I reported its conduct to the Attorney General and requested the Department of Justice to investigate. (See Attachment, Letter from Congresswoman Jackson Lee to U.S. Attorney General Holder (October 28, 2010)). Mr. Speaker, in many ways Texas is ground-zero for testing and perfecting schemes to deprive communities of color and language minorities of the right to vote and to have their votes counted. Consider what has transpired in Texas in recent past. Only 68 percent of eligible voters are registered in Texas and state restrictions on third party registration, such as the Volunteer Deputy Registrar program, exacerbate the systemic disenfranchisement of minority communities. These types of programs are often aimed at minority and underserved communities that, for many, many other reasons (like demonization by the president, for example) or mistrust of law enforcement are afraid to live as openly as they should. In Harris County, we had a system where voters were getting purged from the rolls, effectively requiring people to keep active their registrations and hundreds of polling locations closed in Texas, significantly more in number and percentage than any other state. In addition, the Texas Election Code only requires a 72-hour notice of polling location changes. Next, take what happened here in Texas earlier this year when the Texas Secretary of State claimed that his office had identified 95,000 possible noncitizens on the voter rolls and gave the list to the Texas State Attorney General for possible prosecution--leading to a claim from President Trump about widespread voter fraud and outrage from Democrats and activist groups. The only problem was that list was not accurate. At least 20,000 names turned out to be there by mistake, leading to chaos, confusion, and concern that people's eligibility vote was being questioned based on flawed data. The list was made through state records going back to 1996 that show which Texas residents were not citizens when they got a driver's license or other state ID. But many of the person who may have had green cards or work visas at the time they got a Texas ID are on the secretary of state's office's list, and many have become citizens since then since nearly 50,000 people become naturalized U.S. citizens in Texas annually. Latinos made up a big portion of the 95,000-person list. Texas Republicans adopted racial and partisan gerrymandered congressional, State legislative redistricting plans that federal courts have ruled violate the Voting Rights Act and were drawn with discriminatory intent. Even after changes were demanded by the courts, much of the damage done was already done. Reversing the position by the Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Justice has told a federal court that it no longer believes past discrimination by Texas officials should require the state to get outside approval for redistricting maps that will be drawn in 2021. In addition to affirmative ways to making it harder to vote, we also know face other odious impediments in Texas. 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. This is the harm that can be done without preclearance, so on a federal level, there is an impetus to act. 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. 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. 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. The malevolent practice of voter purging is not limited to Texas; we saw it just last year in Georgia, where then Secretary of State and now Governor Brian Kemp purged more than 53,000 persons from the voter, nearly the exact margin of his narrow win over his opponent, Stacy Abrams in the 2018 gubernatorial election. Voter purging is a sinister and malevolent practice visited on voters, who are disproportionately members of communities of color, by state and local election officials. This practice, which would have not passed muster under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, has proliferated in the years since the Supreme Court neutralized the preclearance provision, or as Justice Ginsburg observed in Shelby County v. Holder, ``threw out the umbrella'' of protection. Mr. Speaker, citizens in my congressional district and elsewhere know and have experienced the pain and heartbreak of receiving a letter from state or local election officials that they have been removed from the election rolls, or worse, learn this fact on Election Day. That is why I worked so hard to secure language in the Manager's Amendment to H.R. 4 that strengthens the bill's ``practice-based preclearance'' provisions by adding specifically to the preclearance provision, voting practices that add a new basis or process for removing a name from the list of active registered voters and the practice of reducing the days or hours of in-person voting on Sundays during an early voting period. Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility and sacred duty of all members of Congress who revere democracy to preserve, protect, and expand the precious right to vote of all Americans by passing H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act. 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. Mr. Speaker, for millions of Americans, the right to vote protected by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things. So today, let us rededicate ourselves to honoring those who won for us this precious right by remaining vigilant and fighting against both the efforts of others to abridge or suppress the right to vote and our own apathy in exercising this sacred right.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to again indicate the enormity of what we accomplished today in voting for H.R. 4. It seems like H.R. 4 has been the center point of giving opportunity to so many across the Nation. That is a bill to give every American one vote, one person. It was derailed in the Shelby case from Alabama, misguided by a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, ignoring the sacrifice of our colleague, the Honorable John Lewis, who almost died on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, brutally attacked by State and local police. That is the same as local laws and State laws continuing into the decade to oppress voters. I indicated in that case, that 5-4 decision, that wrongheaded decision, that H.R. 4 corrects, that it was as if we were getting the best of polio and we said we no longer need the vaccine. I have lived through the question of purging, along with my friends from MALDEF and the NAACP legal defense fund, and I worked hard to get language into H.R. 4 that would stop people being purged illegally off the polls, off the rolls. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from MALDEF and a letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, now we have a recognition, that one vote, one person, we will fight to get this signed by the President because the Constitution allows and declares one vote, one person.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as Members of Congress we know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our nation is to have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, law, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military. We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent. Madam Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. I was inspired to serve by President Kennedy who said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said: ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.'' By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated. That is why today I rise to pay tribute to three extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are: Sheerine Karamzadeh, Texas Tech University; Elisabeth Foster, University of Texas; and Alejandro Izaguirre, St. Edward's University. Madam Speaker, the energy, intelligence, and idealism these wonderful young people brought to my office and those interning in the offices of my colleagues help keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world. Because of persons like them the future of our country is bright, and its best days lie ahead. I wish them all well. Madam Speaker, I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great, good, and forever young.