Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2589, the Unifying DHS Intelligence Enterprise Act. H.R. 2589 seeks to improve the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence enterprise by ensuring intelligence officers across DHS are sharing information and countering threats in a unified manner. Since the Department was established, intelligence and information sharing capabilities have matured, but DHS still lacks a coordinated intelligence enterprise. In 2016, the Committee on Homeland Security released a comprehensive review of the Department of Homeland Security's use of intelligence to counter terrorist threats and prescribed 30 recommendations. As a result, this bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, through a DHS chief intelligence officer, to develop and disseminate written DHS-wide guidance for the processing, analysis, production, and dissemination of Homeland Security and terrorism information, and ensures this guidance is consistent with the protection of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. Given the diversity of missions across the Department, it is vital that component intelligence officers are working together, sharing information, and vetting that information against the broader U.S. intelligence community holdings. H.R. 2589 requires an assessment and description of how the dissemination of information to the intelligence community and Federal law enforcement assists such entities in carrying out their respective missions. One of the key missions of DHS is to act as a clearinghouse for threat information, and this bill will ensure that the Department continues to evolve into a better, more effective asset in responding to threats to the homeland. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2589, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Green) for his service, and I thank him for this legislation. It is worth noting that the bill that we just passed and the bill that we are now debating specifically dealing with cybersecurity and intelligence are crucial elements of our security. I think that with the combination of recognizing the importance of the intelligence community that is on the front lines of providing our safety and then acknowledging the vulnerabilities in the cyber system as one of the components of new technology, I started out my remarks by taking note of the drone attack on the refineries in Saudi Arabia. Here we are talking about cyber and its impact. But I think the overall sense of these two initiatives is to ensure that we in Homeland Security are on the front end of dealing with the importance of securing this Nation on the new technologies that we are facing every single day. I ask my colleagues to support the underlying legislation. I include in the Record the following articles on this very topic: ``Thousands of Vulnerabilities in Seattle's IT Network Attributed to Siloed Approach to Cybersecurity,'' September 17, 2019; ``Leader of New NSA Cybersecurity Directorate Outlines Threats, Objectives,'' dated September 5, 2019; and then, August 30, 2019, ``Why Focusing on Threat Hunting May Leave You Vulnerable.'' [September 17, 2019] Thousands of Vulnerabilities in Seattle's IT Network Attributed to Siloed Approach to Cybersecurity (By David Kroman) Last May, Seattle's head of information security flagged a problem within the city's technology department: Because of a process breakdown, employees were indicating that they had fixed vulnerabilities in the department's computer network when, in fact, they had not been fixed. ``It has been discovered that there are currently over 21,000 known critical and high vulnerabilities on systems throughout Seattle IT,'' Andrew Whitaker, then the department's chief information security officer, wrote in a May 22 email to technology leadership. ``Tickets have been closed out, claiming to have vulnerabilities remediated, but upon follow-up review they were, with a few exceptions, not remediated.'' The result was that the servers, desktops and applications within the newly consolidated Department of Information Technology--which now handles the vast majority of the city of Seattle's technology functions, from utilities to the fire department--contained open miniportals that could be accessed by would-be hackers. When left unremediated, vulnerabilities provide possible paths for hackers to plant spyware, ransomware, viruses and other malicious software that can be immensely harmful to an organization, especially one that provides critical services. Cities are often particularly open to an attack and the effect can be devastating, as recent ransom attacks in Baltimore and Atlanta have shown. Saad Bashir, Seattle's new head of the Department of Information Technology, said in an interview that he believes the vulnerabilities are manageable. He said Seattle is at risk, as are all organizations, but, in general, not abnormally so. However, Bashir acknowledged the process breakdown was indicative of a broader problem (https://crosscut.com/2017/ 07/at-city-hall-a-massive-department-is-mired-in-chaos) he has been attempting to address within the organization since taking his position earlier this year. ``What I observed very early was that there was a siloed approach in how cybersecurity was being practiced in the world of IT,'' he said. Because of a disconnect between teams, Bashir said, some part of the security process would get completed, but would not be properly handed off to the next team. ``If you're not clear, then you may not know whether that particular vulnerability management work has been completed the way it's supposed to be completed,'' Bashir said. In an effort to improve the processes within the department, Bashir began a major reorganization of the relatively new department--including his firing of 14 directors and managers (https://crosscut.com/2019/05/ seattles-new-it-boss-fires-14-directors-part-organizational- change)--just two days before Whitaker's message. The reorganization was not motivated solely by security weaknesses, he said, but was intended to create a smoother structure that would better catch possible entry points. When asked if the city was safer from an attack since he took over, Bashir said, ``Absolutely.'' Every organization contains some number of vulnerabilities. The trick is to continually identify and address them as they arise--an e-windshield wiper of sorts, where the vulnerabilities are the raindrops. Experts say hackers are increasingly less likely to gain access through a vulnerability than they are through a phishing expedition. In such cases, a deceiving email message persuades employees to provide passwords or a malware- infected USB drive is left in a parking lot in hopes that someone finds it and plugs it in to their computer. But addressing vulnerabilities in the city's systems continues to be an important function of its IT department. ``If I were a serious bad guy I'd be looking at the most vulnerable place,'' said Dr. Barbara Endicott-Popovsky, executive director of the Center for Information Assurance & Cybersecurity at the University of Washington. ``I'd be looking at cities and I'd be looking at universities, because they're open and they can't afford the latest and greatest. It's kind of like, `Open sesame.' '' Mike Hamilton, founder of CI Security and Seattle's chief information security officer from 2006 to 2013, said there are a number of reasons cities struggle to stay ahead of cyberattacks. For one, the number of qualified security experts is down across the country, he said. And of those who are on the market, cities can't match the pay of large companies like Amazon or Microsoft. ``The ones that are good are in short supply, which means that local governments cannot compete for those resources,'' he said. Additionally, cities are responsible for the security of all their departments, each of which may require vastly different things. ``Because government is a federation of agencies, that makes it a little difficult to have policies in place that apply to [for example] the regulated industry of human resources without raising the ire of unions,'' he said. Hamilton also said the biennial budgeting of local government makes keeping up challenging. ``Technology moves a whole lot freaking faster,'' he said. All of this, Hamilton said, is in the context of extremely high stakes. Compared with for-profit companies, ``the potential impact [of an attack on government] is so much greater and government can't afford it,'' said Hamilton. ``We know something needs to be fixed, and we don't fix it until something blows up.'' Bashir said the new processes he's put into place has made him ``confident that we no longer have any glaring process gaps.'' He couldn't say exactly how many vulnerabilities are still open on city systems, but that it was less than 21,000. The ideal number, Bashir said, is zero, but that's also extremely unlikely, which makes it hard to identify what a ``good'' number is. ``I worry about all of them,'' said Andrew Cushman, the city's new chief security officer. ``Whether that number is 21,000 or whether that number is 10 depends on the attacker and how skilled that attacker is and how motivated that attacker is. So I don't worry more because that number is 21,000, then I do if that number is 10.'' Going forward, Bashir said he wants ``to create a high level of security awareness mindset across the organization.'' The city could have zero vulnerabilities and it wouldn't matter if one employee plugs in the wrong USB to a work computer. Hamilton said there are several easy things cities can do that, while not offering total protection, would make it so they are no longer ``the slowest gnu in the herd getting picked off.'' For one, mandate zero personal use of city equipment, something Singapore implemented in 2017. Phishing attacks remain the easiest entry point for hackers and so that's where the bulk of the city's attention should focus, Hamilton said. Because no matter how many protections are put into place, ``There is not now, nor will there ever be, a firewall for stupid.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues support the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the leadership of the chairman, and I appreciate the ranking member on the floor. I have had the privilege of traveling with Congresswoman Underwood to the border in some very challenging circumstances, and I appreciated, as a nurse, as a trained nurse, as she is a trained nurse, I appreciated the astuteness with which she viewed this matter. Let me say to my good friend, the doctor, we are always looking forward to trying to work with our colleagues on the basic humanity of every person, recognizing that this is not about healthcare for undocumented immigrants. It is about individuals who are in the custody of the United States. Just picture for a moment, having gone to the border now for almost two decades as a resident of Texas, just imagine that there are moments when there is an influx of individuals fleeing for their lives. It happened under President Obama's administration in 2014, and we managed it. There was no hysteria. There were facilities that were built. There was medical care that we were able to access. In this instance, it did not happen. And the glaring reality of children who died and those who were working hard, the law enforcement personnel, I saw them trying to do as much as they could, but without a structure, we lost lives. So the importance of this legislation is particularly one that I think is important. Picture for a moment, when we were in the midst of the crisis, Coast Guard medical personnel, doctors with a table, some medicine on the corner, their medical paraphernalia out in the open where files were, no place to deal with the medical needs of anyone. That is not American. We are not asking to provide healthcare. This is not Medicare or Medicaid. It is a basic dignity of protecting the American people by ensuring that these people are treated for whatever might be necessary. So the e-record process is powerful because it allows the accessing of medical care by having a record system and also by having that system being accessed by all DHS components operating on the border. It is just a simple case of protecting those of us in the United States, protecting those who are in our custody. Why not? Why not be proactive and positive for dealing with fellow human beings? Let's get away from this undocumented and realize this is a land of laws and immigrants. We all, collectively, together, want to abide by that. But we also realize that, when 9-month-old Roger is in my hands, and he crossed the border in the arms of his sister, that 9-month-old Roger, even though I saw him in one of the HHS centers, probably needed care. Or the woman who had given birth 45 days earlier and holding in her hands a 45-day-old baby who had not seen a doctor, she had not been to the hospital. This might help give aid to those individuals. So let me be very clear: This is an important initiative. It is an initiative that I think most Americans will support. I rise to support the gentlewoman's legislation and thank her for her courage and astuteness in bringing this to our attention.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, because I was chairing a Committee on the assault weapons ban, I missed the following vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 542.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, because I was held up chairing a hearing on the assault weapons ban, I missed the motion on ordering the previous question to the rule, House Resolution 577, regarding the Homeland Security bill and the whistleblower bill. If I had been here, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and certainly the ranking member for his position on this bill, but I rise with great enthusiasm to support H.R. 2203 by the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, and as well to indicate to her that I had wished that the joy of doing this would be that we are passing productive legislation, but the sadness is that it is based upon the history and the evidence of what is going on at the southern border where she lives. So I hope those who are waiting for this bill will realize that it is going to pass this House and that we are going to move this bill to the United States Senate and ask the Senate whether, in fact, they believe in the humanity of all people. Let me share with you what this bill is about from my perspective. First of all, I take no backseat to dealing with the border patrol agents, the CBP, and any others. In 2004, Senator Kerry and I, he in the Senate and I in the House, helped contribute to the modernizing of the border patrol, because when I went down to the border, they didn't have the tools that they needed. We gave them the night goggles, we gave them the kinds of equipment that they needed, those heavy terrain vehicles. We gave them the fast boats that they needed. We gave them their equipment, recognizing that we had been organized just a few years as the Homeland Security Committee, and we wanted our border to be safe and secure, but at the same time, we wanted to make sure that we had comprehensive immigration reform. That was imploded when we could not pass a major bill that came to this House. So I am curious why anyone would not want to have a bill that says it is the Homeland Security Improvement Act. So I stand here in the name of Roger, 9 months old, who was separated from his parents by the Trump administration's heinous policies of family separation. This bill deals with eliminating family separation. I stand here for the mother who had had a baby, and 45 days after having that baby, she had not been to a hospital, but she was in a detention center. I think it is fair that there be a policy for border patrol agents to wear those cameras, like any other law enforcement, to protect them and others; the limitation on the separation of families; the prohibition of exceeding 72 hours in short-term detention; the ombudsman, which is so important so that we have a fair investment. To my friend that was on the floor dealing with human trafficking: Any day of the week, I will join him in a bill that deals with human trafficking. I held the first hearing by Homeland Security on human trafficking in the field almost 8 years ago, because Houston is a known epicenter for human trafficking. But right now, we are dealing with the improvement of this Department, and I believe this commission is going to be important and crucial for migrant families and children that have been separated and abused by the Trump administration. Do we want to see human beings in cages? Or do we want to have a fair system that protects the United States and the border from the intrusion of those who would do us harm? A regular immigration system would allow these desperate families to come and be processed. I would have wanted the Mexican program to be out. I would have wanted to have my amendment that deals with making sure that the FOIA amendment covers every detention center, private and nonprivate, that would have ensured that they had to report about what was going on inside these detention centers. Those amendments were not allowed at this time, but we will work with the gentlewoman and work with Homeland Security to make sure that we do not have Members of Congress blocked from coming to these private detention centers that women and children are in. But this is a good start. This gives tools to those who are in need of those particular tools.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the additional time. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to focus on this: We know in the past year, under this administration, seven-plus children have died. How many adults have also passed? It is as important to report the deaths of individuals in our own prison systems as it is to report migrant deaths. They are human beings. It is important to be able to use and to understand the use of force. To every law enforcement officer, I say to their families, I want them to go home to their families. But to every human being who comes desperate for the hope and the blessings of America who has not come to do us harm, I want to be able to have the oversight that is in this bill, the accountability and transparency in that border area. We all know that El Paso has been touted as the safest city in the Nation. It was not an immigrant that killed 22 people. It was not an immigrant whose violence and victimization and utilization of an automatic weapon caused the injuries to the people whom I had to visit in the hospitals of El Paso. It was not an immigrant. Mr. Speaker, this is a worthy bill that will, in fact, provide the right direction for the Homeland Security Department. I rise to support H.R. 2203. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 2203, the Homeland Security Improvement Act. I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Escobar for her leadership in drafting this important piece of legislation. As a member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security, I am well aware of the many problems associated with this Administration's immigration policy. Independent Ombudsman: Establishes an independent Ombudsman for Border and Immigration Related Concerns within DHS. The functions of the Ombudsman include establishing an independent, neutral, and confidential process to assist individuals with complaints against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Provides for annual reporting on the complaints filed, including the number and types of complaints received to identify trends and solve systemic problems. Reviews compliance by CBP and ICE with all departmental policies and standards related to treatment of migrants in custody, including with respect to force-feeding. Makes the complaint resolution process easy to follow by establishing a publicly available website. Border Communities Liaison: Directs the Ombudsman, in conjunction with the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at DHS, to appoint a Border Community Liaison in each Border Patrol sector along the northern and southern border to: foster cooperation between ICE, CBP, and border communities; consult with border communities on CBP and ICE policies, directives, and programs; receive feedback from border communities about CBP and ICE activities in the region; and report annually to the Ombudsman. Border Oversight Panel: Directs the Ombudsman to establish a Border Oversight Panel to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the border enforcement policies, strategies, and programs that directly affect border communities. Specifically directs the Panel to pay special attention to the way DHS policies impact due process, property rights, legal obligations, and migrant and officer safety. Training Evaluations: Requires the Ombudsman to conduct annual evaluations of all training given to the agents and officers at CBP and ICE. The Ombudsman must examine whether there is training in specific key areas including community policing, enforcement near sensitive locations, interacting with vulnerable populations, and professional and ethical conduct (like lawful use of force, LGBTQ sensitivity, and sexual harassment). Mandates that the Ombudsman provide recommendations to the Secretary on additional training needs. The Secretary must respond to these recommendations publicly within 180 days with an action plan to implement such recommendations and a justification for why any of such recommendations have been rejected. Body-Worn Cameras: Directs the Ombudsman, in coordination with CBP Commissioner, ICE Director, and labor organizations representing agents and officers, to submit to Congress a plan for requiring the use of body-worn cameras by U.S. Border Patrol agents and ICE officers when engaged in border security and immigration enforcement activities. Provides that the plan must consider existing state and local body- worn camera policies and principles developed by major civil and human rights organizations. I offered an amendment to H.R. 2203, that was not included in this final bill. This Jackson Lee Amendment, listed as No. 6 on the Rules Committee Roster, makes a good bill better by creating an affirmative obligation on the part of Customs and Border Protection to provide access to records of entities that contract with the agency to provide services related to detention or removal of persons, including children. The Jackson Lee Amendment states simply: ``In the case of a contractor including a State licensed, vetted, and qualified contractor, and a nonprofit entity, which has a contract with U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the provision of direct or support services associated with providing care for individuals, including unaccompanied alien children, apprehended at the southern border of the United States, any record of the contractor held by U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall be considered an agency record for purposes of section 552 on title 5, United States Code.'' Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement. The FOIA also requires agencies to proactively post online certain categories of information, including frequently requested records. As Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court have all recognized, the FOIA is a vital part of our democracy. I will continue to work with my colleagues on gaining greater transparency and oversight of CBP. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, today the transcript was released of the conversation between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine. As a person who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law, it is crucial that we proceed with the work that is necessary, and so I rise to add my enthusiastic support for H. Res. 576 that just passed, expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the whistleblower complaint, in order to protect the whistleblower and to have the complaint sent to the United States Congress, which, I believe, it is on its way, and, if not, we must have it as quickly as possible. Let me also say that today we had a very important hearing in the Judiciary Committee regarding the ban on assault weapons. It has been 53 days since El Paso, 52 days since Dayton, and 25 days since Odessa. It seems that the leadership of the NRA finds my statements attractive, and so they have taken to the airways with their cousin, FOX News, to talk about the opinion that I had regarding the AR-15 that, to me, ``it was as heavy as 10 boxes.'' As a person who believes in the First Amendment, I have a right to say that. To all of the members of the NRA: I believe in your beliefs and your right to believe them, but you are being led by an unfortunate group of leaders who simply want to attack and have no solutions. I will take the hit from the NRA to save lives. I am not afraid of the NRA.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I was speaking to one of our colleagues who indicated that he held a town hall meeting where he was explaining, as a civics matter, the Constitution of the United States and the role of the United States Congress in holding the executive accountable. He said his constituents relished the opportunity to understand the process. I am going to remind our colleagues that any time we move toward a process that is constitutionally based, it is somber and respectful, detailed and efficient. So I want to read from Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, which indicates that the House of Representatives ``shall have the sole power of impeachment.'' Article II states that the President ``shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Article II also requires that the President ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' With that in mind, I believe it is important that this Congress recognizes its duty to work in an efficient manner; that all committees work and investigate, and all committees do their work in a somber manner; and that we continue to educate our constituents about the value of the Constitution, the beauty of this Nation, and the rule of law. That would mean that we are doing our job as Members of the United States Congress. The Constitution governs the order of our nation and it dictates the work of the Congress. Article I details the powers of the House and the exercising of these powers as they relate to the coordinate, coequal branches of government, codified in Articles II and Articles III: three equal branches of government coexisting and cohesively working to provide oversight to the respective actions of the Congress, the Executive and Judiciary. This has worked, with challenges of course, since 1789, and the situation which we are now currently facing is directed by three provisions of the Constitution. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 indicates that the ``House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.'' Article II states that the ``The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.; Article II also requires that the ``President take care that the laws are faithfully executed.'' That language is stark and clear--and throughout our history it has been used in varying periods where the assessment was that the law has been breached. Sometimes Congresses are concerned that the weight and view of the American people should be considered. Sometimes they are moved by the urgency of the matter. We now have an urgent matter: that matter involves the President of the United States speaking to a sovereign foreign nation and conspicuously and overtly asking for an investigation of his opponent in a presidential election, forthcoming in 2020. In addition to this request for an overt investigation of an American citizen, within close proximity to this, the president directed a staff member to deny the directives of the United States Congress to provide foreign aid to this sovereign nation--Ukraine--an act that is without comparison in our knowledge in the history of the United States, and an act that falls within the language of the law of the Constitution, abuse of power and certainly one that violates Article II's dictate that the President ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Let us be very clear: monies were stalled, denied and delayed to a sovereign nation in the backdrop of a directive of Congress to issue funds to a sovereign nation as leverage in order to investigate a private citizen of the United States. Further, the series of acts of obstruction involving Congress has been bold and continuous. The House Judiciary Committee effectively has brought forth witnesses, and sought witnesses that were then directed by the President to not appear, in violation of the three equal branches of government. In spite of that, the committee has meticulously continued its work in building a case for impeachment. Last week, we prepared extensively for the testimony of Corey Lewandowsky, who is not and has never been a federal employee, was not employed by the White House at any time, and not employed by the federal government at any time and also who was directed by the President to rebuff, stall and thwart; and who also was, in essence, directed to stain the constitutional process, by his responses, and the authority of the Congress. Article I gives the Congress, and the House of Representatives in particular, its authority to proceed to hold the President of the United States accountable. There is no room for any other process. There is no other action. There is no other time. With a heavy heart, it is imperative that the impeachment inquiry begin and that the Articles of Impeachment are filed expeditiously; and that the Constitution works with the full authority of the United States Congress. That the Article I works with Article III courts to ensure an orderly response and respectful approach to this somber, sacred and high calling of the Congress and the Nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Plaskett for anchoring this Special Order on support of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I want to express my significant concerns with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed rule to change the determination qualifications for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Currently, nearly 36 million people receive monthly SNAP benefits. To be eligible for assistance, gross monthly income must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line. 44.4 percent of residents in Houston live at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty line. In the Houston metropolitan area households with children, 19.3 percent struggled against food hardships in 2014-2015. In February of 2018, SNAP served 304,542 households in Houston, bringing in $82,374,563 of 100 percent federally funded benefits, generating approximately $147.5 million in economic activity. In Harris County alone, 599,928 people are eligible for SNAP benefits. In August of 2019 Harris County received a total of $70.9 million in totally SNAP payments. As a result of the proposal 3 million people may lose their eligibility for food assistance. States currently have the flexibility to not cut off benefits as soon as a family's gross income exceeds a certain level, but to more slowly phase out the food aid. This is to ensure that those who are at or slightly above the poverty line do not risk falling below that line. Additionally, these benefits reduce food insecurity and help alleviate poverty. The proposed changes would limit this and cause many families to be abruptly cut off. The new proposal jeopardizes access to free school meals for 500,000 low-income students. Not only does this significantly affect families but also retired populations that rely on a fixed income. This would adversely affect food banks around the nation as people look for food elsewhere. Forcing families to choose between placing food on the table and covering other important expenses is unacceptable. This proposal shows the Republicans' special interest agenda that gives billion-dollar handouts to big corporations and the wealthy few, and then steals from children, veterans, seniors and working families to make up the difference. It is both cruel and counterproductive, ignoring the positives that SNAP puts into the economy by creating $1.79 for every dollar in benefits. This proposed rule change does not help and support low-income individuals and families meet their basic human needs. The current Administration is rejecting the overwhelmingly bipartisan passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which made smart improvements that strengthened the safety net for food-insecure families. This Administration must commit to implementing the bipartisan agreement to make anti-hunger initiatives more effective. House Democrats will always stand firm for the health, well-being and dignity of America's working families, and will continue to advance our For The People agenda to deliver lower health care costs, bigger paychecks and cleaner government that fights for the public interests, not the special interests. Thus, I urge the administration to reconsider this proposal and look at the adverse effects that it will have on our society.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1423, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act or the FAIR Act. I support the FAIR Act because it restores the rights of workers and consumers by making forced arbitration between individuals and corporations illegal. This would allow individuals the choice as to how to pursue their rights against a corporation. It also means that corporations will know that when they violate the law, they can be held publicly accountable. I have been a champion of FAIR since 2006 when we were discussing the LaVar Arrington and arbitration process of the National Football League Players Association. Mr. Arrington was an All-Pro linebacker for the Washington Redskins and the New York Giants in the NFL. In 2004, the NFLPA agreed to represent LaVar Arrington in the matter and retained a major New York law firm. I am advised that the law firm did not meet with LaVar Arrington until shortly before his non-injury grievance arbitration was scheduled to be heard. LaVar Arrington was not impressed with the performance of his legal representatives, and after the hearing called NFLPA President Gene Upshaw to complain. LaVar Arrington asked Mr. Upshaw, who had hired a major New York firm, how they could be his lawyers if they had not even bothered to meet with him, the client, until shortly before the arbitration. LaVar Arrington told Gene Upshaw he was going to hire his own attorney who could give him an objective view and did so shortly thereafter. After LaVar Arrington retained new counsel, the arbitration was adjourned for the purpose of pursuing settlement negotiations. Through the efforts of new counsel, a settlement was reached and Mr. Carl Poston played an important role in achieving this settlement, including arranging a meeting with Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs to explain LaVar Arrington's feelings concerning the situation. Coach Gibbs helped prevail on the Redskins to reach an acceptable settlement with LaVar Arrington. The settlement provided that no one did anything wrong or improper and provided for a new contract for LaVar Arrington under which he could obtain an additional $4.85 million under certain conditions, including the right to void the contract if he made Pro Bowls in the next four years unless the Redskins paid LaVar Arrington an additional $3.25 million. The settlement agreement provided: ``This Agreement shall not be construed as an admission of liability or a finding of wrongdoing by any party.'' As LaVar Arrington has put it, ``[m]y grievance against the Redskins has been settled on no-fault, win-win resolution.'' In 2006, when faced with the issues of the NFLPA's arbitration procedures, I had the questions of: (a) whether the arbitration procedures employed by the NFLPA are fair; (b) whether they ensure a neutral arbitrator; (c) whether adequate opportunity for judicial review exists; and (d) whether the procedures comport with the intent underlying the Federal Arbitration Act and, if not, what might be a proper legislative response. We cannot continue to allow corporations to bury forced arbitration clauses in employee handbooks and smart phone apps. Notably, the bill also applies to small businesses seeking to protect their rights under federal antitrust laws. We know it is a one-sided system and that corporations write the clauses to be so rigged so most people give up pursing their rights altogether. Corporations choose the forced arbitration provider, the rules under which the forced arbitration will take place, the state in which the forced arbitration proceeding will occur, and the payment terms. Most people do not know about forced arbitration but even those who are aware have no say in the process and, because these clauses apply to most jobs, products, and services, a person has no choice but to live with the total depravation of their rights via forced arbitration or give up the job/product/service altogether. I would like to acknowledge a victim of forced arbitration. I have been told we are joined by Alexander Newton, the brother of Andowah Newton from New York. Andowah Newton is Vice President, Legal Affairs at LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., a multinational luxury goods conglomerate. For years, Ms. Newton was sexually harassed at work by a colleague. When she formally reported the harassment, the company demanded she apologize to the harasser for reporting him and the company promoted the harasser. It also began retaliating against her at work. Ms. Newton had been forced to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement as part of accepting her offer of employment. Pursuant to New York's 2018 law prohibiting employment agreements that mandate arbitration of sexual harassment claims, in 2019, Ms. Newton filed her sexual harassment claims in New York state court. The company has moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the New York law is preempted by federal law and that Ms. Newton should be forced into mandatory confidential arbitration proceedings. Ms. Newton continues to fight the motion to compel in court. For Ms. Newton and for all of the victims of forced arbitration, we need to resolve this injustice. Buried in the fine print of everything from nursing home admissions forms and credit card ``agreements,'' to online click-through ``terms and conditions'' and employee handbooks, forced arbitration enables corporations to evade responsibility and avoid accountability. Forced arbitration means that when a corporation violates the rights of their workers or consumers, they cannot enforce their rights. Forced arbitration lets corporations funnel aggrieved workers and consumers into a private and secret system which is designed by the corporation to be so rigged that most people are forced to give up their rights altogether. We know that because corporations know that most individuals will simply give up when faced with a forced arbitration, there is virtually no incentive for corporations to follow the law, or to quickly and fairly handle consumer or worker claims. The FAIR Act would restore the rights of workers and consumers by making forced arbitration between individuals and corporations illegal--meaning that individuals will be returned the choice as to how to pursue their rights against a corporation. The FAIR Act also means that corporations will know that when they violate the law, they can be held publicly accountable, thereby returning to corporations the powerful incentive to follow the law in the first place and to treat people justly and fairly. Forced arbitration is a private, secretive system without any enforceable standards or legal protections. There is no public review of decisions to ensure the arbitrator got it right. Federal law does not even require that arbitrators have any legal training or even follow the law and the entire system is unaccountable to the public. American heroes fought hard for fundamentally important laws--such as federal antidiscrimination laws and laws to protect servicemembers and their families--but these laws are now unenforceable. It is time to close the forced arbitration loophole that gives corporations the power to ignore the laws Congress enacted. The Supreme Court held that corporations are allowed to force individuals into arbitration because the Federal Arbitration Act, which was passed in 1925--wipes out all rights under all other laws unless and until Congress updates that law. Thus, the FAIR Act simply amends the Federal Arbitration Act to make clear that workers and consumers cannot be forced into arbitration against their will. This prohibition on forced arbitration would apply to all workers (no matter how they are classified by their employer), consumers, and small businesses seeking to enforce their rights under antitrust laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1423, the ``Forced Arbitration Injustice Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support and endorse the FAIR Act, of which there will be a vigorous debate on the floor of the House tomorrow. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I was very pleased to be a cosponsor of that legislation and to explain to Americans what forced dispute arbitration is. It is arbitration almost without your knowledge. This bill will provide the opportunity for individuals who are forced into arbitration to be able to waive that particular provision. In fact, one of the saddest cases is that of someone who utilized Massage Envy, a company where this person was trying to relieve their pain and, unfortunately, was assaulted on the massage table. All they wanted to do was to get out of their contract, but when they checked the little box to get out of their contract, they checked the box to say that you must go into forced arbitration. You must wait weeks and months and days and years. I want to take note of the fact that this is not about trial lawyers. It is about justice. I am glad that the Nation has lawyers who can stand before the bar and in the courts to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Forced arbitration is an injustice. This repeals that injustice. I am a strong supporter of the FAIR Act, and the fact is that it gives justice to those who have no other remedy. Let's pass the FAIR Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1618, the ``Nicholas and Zachary Burt Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of 2019.'' I thank Congresswoman Kuster of New Hampshire for introducing this legislation which will save the lives of many children. H.R. 1618 directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to establish a grant program to provide assistance to States for specified activities related to the prevention of carbon monoxide poisoning, including installation of alarms in certain dwellings and facilities. More specifically, this grant would assist in installing alarms in dwelling units of low-income families or the elderly, childcare facilities, public schools, senior centers, and student dorms owned by public universities. In addition to installation efforts, this bill would also assist in enforcement and education efforts related to carbon monoxide detectors. Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas produced by burning fuel. Exposure to unhealthy levels of carbon monoxide can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning, a serious health condition that could result in death. In the month of August, a carbon monoxide leak at the Raveneaux Apartments in Houston sent eighteen people to the hospital--seven of these victims were children. This time, all of the victims survived. More than 150 people in the United States die from carbon monoxide poisoning every year. Home deaths account for the majority of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning, and research shows that purchasing and installing carbon monoxide alarms close to the sleeping areas in residential homes and other dwelling units can help avoid fatalities. That is why I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 1618.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 806, the Portable Fuel Container Safety Act of 2019. I want to thank Congressman Mike Thompson for introducing H.R. 806 which will help to save the lives of countless children. H.R. 806 directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to require fuel containers to include devices that impede flames from entering the container. This requirement applies to flammable, liquid fuel containers of fewer than five gallons that are intended for transport. The bill also requires child resistant caps on kerosene and diesel fuel containers. CPSC may either promulgate a rule or adopt an existing standard. Additionally, CPSC must educate consumers about dangers associated with using or storing such containers near an open flame or a source of ignition. On September 21, 2013, a 10-year-old boy, Christopher Allsup, died when an old red plastic gas container exploded showering him with burning gasoline. Over 90 percent of his body was burnt. He was flown to the University of Iowa Burn Center where he lived for only 5 hours. In 2010, Robert Jacoby had poured gasoline from a gas can onto a brush pile he planned to ignite, he then walked the can 20 feet from the pile when it exploded. He said he had not yet lit a match or any other fire but claimed a spark from static electricity created by the friction between the plastic can and his denim jeans was the source of ignition. Jacoby suffered severe burns over 75 percent of his body and spent four months in a burn unit, incurring $1.5 million in medical bills. In August in preparation for Hurricane Dorian a resident of Fort Myers, Florida had filled several gasoline canisters and stored them next to a natural gas-powered water heater. A hot shower triggered the water heater causing it to work harder with the vapors of the gasoline ultimately starting a fire in the garage. Luckily, water coming from the pipe sprayed everywhere, containing the fire to the garage. Gasoline from gas cans is responsible for deaths and injuries both from ignition and the volatile vapors as well as from direct aspiration into the lung or aspiration following vomiting of ingested gasoline. For children, the most serious types of injuries associated with exposure to gasoline are burns following ignition of the volatile vapors, chemical pneumonia, pulmonary damage, and possible death associated with direct aspiration into the lungs or aspiration during vomiting following ingestion. The filling of portable fuel containers or ``gas cans'' in pickup trucks and cars can result in serious fires as a result from the buildup of static electricity from the bed liner or carpet. Under certain limited conditions--including a very low volume of gasoline left inside--a flashback explosion can occur inside a plastic gas can, when gas vapor escaping the can contacts a source of ignition such as a flame or spark. Since 1998 the CPSC has tallied at least 1,200 emergency room visits and 11 deaths due to gas can explosions. That is why I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 806.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Budget, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4285, the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2019, which among other things, reauthorizes the VA Vendee Loan Program. The VA Vendee Loan program allows veterans, non-veterans, owner- occupants, and investors the opportunity to purchase VA real estate owned properties. Veterans have the opportunity to purchase these properties with little to no money down, competitive interest rates, 15 or 30 year loan term options, and no appraisal requirement or pre-payment penalties. H.R. 4285 would provide a one-year extension to this critical program that gives veterans a viable alternative to traditional financing. The Department of Veterans Affairs is making a positive impact on the lives of thousands of veterans and beneficiaries. For example, in the Philippines, the Manila Regional office is the only Veterans Affairs office outside the United States or its territories. This legislation will create a one-year extension of VA's authority to operate a Regional Office in the Philippines, providing benefits claims, local payment of benefit checks, and other social services to thousands of U.S. veterans living oversees in the Philippines. In addition, H.R. 4285 will provide a two year extension of authority to fund financial assistance for supportive services to very low income veteran families in permanent housing, and a one-year extension of VA's authority to temporarily expand payments and allowances for beneficiary travel in connection with veterans receiving care from vet centers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4285, the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2019, to continue providing the Department of Veterans Affairs the resources to continue providing services to our nation's veterans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2134 the ``Helen Keller National Center Reauthorization Act of 2019.'' Helen Keller was an American author, political activist, and lecturer who was the first deaf-blind person to earn a Bachelors Degree in the United States. She was born in Tuscumbia, Alabama on June 27, 1880 and she spent her life campaigning for women's suffrage, labor rights and antimilitarism. The Helen Keller National Center Act established a Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults to provide specialized intensive services for deaf-blind persons, to train personnel to provide such services, and to conduct applied research, development, and demonstrations relating to communication techniques, teaching methods, aids, devices and delivery of services. This bill requires an annual audit of the Center and it directs the Secretary of Education to ensure that Center service and training programs are monitored regularly, and Center operation is evaluated annually, with written reports to the President and Congress submitted by specified deadlines. There are approximately thirty-six million adult Americans that suffer some type of hearing loss and approximately ten million Americans that are blind or visually impaired. This legislation will help ensure that these Americans get the help they need to fulfill their dreams. That is why I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 2134.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, on this, the 18th anniversary of the attack launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, I rise to remember the victims of that horrific tragedy and those first- responders who risked, and in too many cases, sacrificed their lives to rescue the occupants of the besieged World Trade Center Towers. The morning of September 11, 2001 is, and will always be, a day like no other. It is a day all living Americans will remember because not since Pearl Harbor had there been such a dastardly and deadly attack on American soil. Eighteen years later, my heart still grieves for those who perished on flights United Airlines 93, American Airlines 77, American Airlines 11, and United Airlines 175. When the sun rose on the morning of September 11, none of us knew that it would end in an inferno in the magnificent World Trade Center Towers in New York City and the Pentagon and in the grassy fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives. My prayer is that for those who lost a father, a mother, a husband, a wife, a child, or a friend will in the days and years ahead take comfort in the certain knowledge that they have gone on to claim the greatest prize, a place in the Lord's loving arms. And down here on the ground, their memory will never die so long as any of the many of us who loved them lives. Madam Speaker, I watched as the first, and then the second, plane flew into the World Trade Center and was horrified when the buildings came down. I was in The Capitol and saw the billowing smoke from the wreckage at the Pentagon and was told about the missing third plane that met its fiery end in the empty fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania thanks to the selfless act of patriotic and heroic Americans. But as hard as it is to believe, out of a tragedy so overwhelming and horrific, something good and great emerged in the aftermath of September 11. On that day there were no Republicans or Democrats. There were no Northerners or Southerners or West or East Coasters. We were not Red State or Blue State. We were all simply Americans. On that day, we were united in our shock and anger and sadness. We were united in our resolve to defend our country and protect the freedoms that has made America the greatest country in the history of the world. Later that day, I joined scores of my colleagues on the East Steps of the Capitol where we sang `God Bless America', lit candles, held hands, and prayed for our country and its leaders. In the days ahead, I travelled to New York City to visit first responders and victims still recovering bodies and rescuing victims of the attacks and became a charter member of the Committee on Homeland Security to ensure that 9-11 never again happens in America. A united America can never be defeated as Operation Enduring Freedom showed. The brave and valiant armed forces of the United States swiftly toppled the Taliban and liberated Afghanistan, making good on the pledge that ``[w]hether the terrorists are brought to justice or justice is brought to the terrorists, justice will be done.'' And though he ran and hid for almost ten years, Osama bin Ladin could not hide forever and evade the long arm of American justice, which, under the leadership of President Barack Obama, caught up with him on May 2, 2011. Madam Speaker, Americans take care of their own. Americans cherish freedom. Americans cherish liberty. And Americans want peace. Not just for themselves alone, but all persons in every corner of the globe. Madam Speaker, ensuring that America is safe and secure and protected from another attack on American soil is the least we owe to the heroic passengers on Flight 93 and to the brave firefighters of the FDNY and officers of the NYPD and the officers and civilians we lost in the Pentagon who gave faithful service to our nation. Americans want their country to remain safe, free, and invulnerable to another cowardly attack like the one we witnessed eighteen years ago today. We owe that much to the Americans who lost and gave their lives. We owe it to them to ensure that their children and loved ones will never again experience such pain, suffering, and loss. We can do this. We must do this. After all, we are Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, how familiar this day is. As a Member of the United States Congress who was in this building on 9/11, it was a bright and shiny day in New York and Washington, D.C. as we fled this building, saw the billowing smoke in the Pentagon, and knew that the other towers had already fallen by someone telling us something had happened. Hearing rumors that planes were flying into the White House and the State Department, we wondered about the resilience and the freedom of this Nation. How grateful I am to stand here, 18 years later, to remind Americans and those who were not yet born that that was a day that should be reminding us every day of the greatness of our freedom, the value of our democracy, and the power of our people. We honor those who fell, those families who still do not know of their missing loved ones, those who went to war, those who have come back. But most of all, this day is to remind us of the wonderment of the representation of this Nation, the diverse Nation that it is, people from all walks of life, that whatever we have to overcome, whatever divisiveness we may see yesterday, today, or tomorrow, it will never-- it will never--undermine the greatness of this country. I will always, as one who was here, I will always remember and I will never forget. And I honor those whose lives were lost, pray for their families, but celebrate this country as we sang on the east steps, ``God Bless America.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee for anchoring this Special Order recognizing the 400th anniversary of the first slave arriving in America. Four hundred years ago the first slave arrived in America, ships set sail from the west coast of Africa and in the process, began one of mankind's most inhumane practices: human bondage and slavery. For two centuries, human beings--full of hopes and fears, dreams and concerns, ambition and anguish--were transported onto ships like chattel, and the lives of many forever changed. The reverberations from this horrific series of acts--a transatlantic slave trade that touched the shores of a colony that came to be known as America, and later a democratic republic known as the United States of America--are unknown and worthy of exploration. Approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865. The institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the Government of the United States from 1789 through 1865. American Slavery is our country's original sin and its existence at the birth of our nation is a permanent scar on our country's founding documents, and on the venerated authors of those documents, and it is a legacy that continued well into the last century. While it is nearly impossible to determine how the lives touched by slavery could have flourished in the absence of bondage, we have certain datum that permits us to examine how a subset of Americans-- African Americans--have been affected by the callousness of involuntary servitude. We know that in almost every segment of society--education, healthcare, jobs and wealth--the inequities that persist in America are more acutely and disproportionately felt in Black America. This historic discrimination continues: African-Americans continue to suffer debilitating economic, educational, and health hardships including but not limited to having nearly 1,000,000 black people incarcerated; an unemployment rate more than twice the current white unemployment rate; and an average of less than \1/16\ of the wealth of white families, a disparity which has worsened, not improved over time. A closer look at the statistics reveals the stark disparity in these areas. Black household wealth is less than one fifth of the national average. The median black household had a net worth of just $17,600 in 2016. Yet in that same year, the median white household held $171,000 in wealth while the national household median was $97,300. The black unemployment rate is 6.6 percent more than double the national unemployment rate. Approximately 31 percent of black children live in poverty, compared to 11 percent of white children. The national average is 18 percent, which suggests that the percentage of black children living in poverty is more than 150 percent of the national average. In the healthcare domain, the disparities suffered by African Americans is also troubling. Over 20 percent of African Americans do not have health insurance, compared to a national average between 8.8 percent and 9.1 percent. One in four African American women are uninsured. Compared to the national average, African American adults are 20 percent more likely to suffer from asthma and three times more likely to die from it. Black adults are 72 percent more likely to suffer from diabetes than average. Black women are four times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes, such as embolisms, and pregnancy-related hypertension, than any other racial group. In our nation, among children aged 19-35 months, black children were vaccinated at rates lower than white children: 68 percent versus 78 percent, respectively. Education has often been called the key to unlocking social mobility. African American students are less likely than white students to have access to college-ready courses. In fact, in 2011-12, only 57 percent of black students had access to a full range of math and science courses necessary for college readiness, compared to with 81 percent of Asian American students and 71 percent of white students. Black students spend less time in the classroom due to discipline, which further hinders their access to a quality education. Black students are nearly two times as likely to be suspended without educational services as white students. Black students are also 3.8 times as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as white students. In addition, black children represent 19 percent of the nation's pre- school population, yet 47 percent of those receiving more than one out- of-school suspension. School districts with the most students of color, on average, receive 15 percent less per student in state and local funding than the whitest districts. And, of course, we cannot consider the disparities between black and white in America without considering the intersection of African Americans and the Criminal Justice system. There are more Black men in bondage today who are incarcerated or under correctional control, than there were black men who were enslaved in the 1800s. The United States locks up African American males at a rate 5.8 times higher than the most openly racist country in the world ever did: South Africa under apartheid (1993), African American males: 851 per 100,000 United States (2006), African American males: 4,789 per 100,000 Incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment. For example, incarceration rates in the United States by race were: African Americans: 2,468 per 100,000 Latinos: 1,038 per 100,000 Whites: 409 per 100,000 African American offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes and are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Looking at males aged 25-29 and by race, you can see what is going on even clearer: For White males ages 25-29: 1,685 per 100,000. For Latino males ages 25-29: 3,912 per 100,000. For African American males ages 25-29: 11,695 per 100,000. (That's 11.7 percent of Black men in their late 20s.) Overall, one in 50 murders is ruled justified--but when the killer is white and the victim is a black man, the figure climbs to one in six. A handgun homicide is nine times more likely to be found justified-- when the killer is white and the victim is a black man. Handgun killings with a white shooter and a black male victim exhibit an even more dramatic bias: one in four is found justified. But then again, we knew these inequities existed because for many Black Americans, these disparities are just a part of daily life. This is why, in 1989, my predecessor as the most senior African American on this September Judiciary Committee, the honorable John Conyers, a past Chairman of this Committee introduced H.R. 40, legislation that would establish a commission to study and develop proposals attendant to reparations. Though many thought it a lost cause, John Conyers believed that a day would come when our nation would need to account for the brutal mistreatment of African-Americans during chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation and the enduring structural racism endemic to our society. I would like to take this moment to personally thank the estimable John Conyers for his work on this legislation for the last thirty years. With the rise and normalization of white supremacist expression during the Trump administration, the discussion of H.R. 40 and the concept of restorative justice have gained more urgency, garnering the attention of mainstream commentator, and illustrating the need for a national reckoning. H.R. 40 is intended to create the framework for a national discussion on the enduring impact of slavery and its complex legacy to begin that necessary process of atonement. The designation of this legislation as H.R. 40 is intended to memorialize the promise made by General William T. Sherman, in his 1865 Special Field Order No. 15, to redistribute 400,000 acres of formerly Confederate owned coastal land in South Carolina and Florida, subdivided into 40 acre plots. Since its introduction, H.R. 40 has acted to spur some governmental acknowledgement of the sin of slavery, but most often the response has taken the form of an apology. However, even the well intentioned commitments to examine the historical and modern day implications of slavery by the Clinton administration fell short of the mark and failed to inspire substantive pubic discourse. Since my reintroduction of H.R. 40 at the beginning of this Congress, both the legislation and concept of reparations have become the focus of national debate. For many, it is apparent that the success of the Obama administration has unleashed a backlash of racism and intolerance that is an echo of America's dark past which has yet to be exorcised from the national consciousness. Commentators have turned to H.R. 40 as a response to formally begin the process of analyzing, confronting and atoning for these dark chapters of American history. Even conservative voices, like that of New York Times columnist David Brooks, are starting to give the reparations cause the hearing it deserves, observing that ``Reparations are a drastic policy and hard to execute, but the very act of talking and designing them heals a wound and opens a new story.'' Similarly, a majority of the Democratic presidential contenders have turned to H.R. 40 as a tool for reconciliation, with 17 cosponsoring or claiming they would sign the bill into law if elected. Though critics have argued that the idea of reparations is unworkable politically or financially, their focus on money misses the point of the H.R. 40 commission's mandate. The goal of these historical investigations is to bring American society to a new reckoning with how our past affects the current conditions of African-Americans and to make America a better place by helping the truly disadvantaged. Consequently, the reparations movement does not focus on payments to individuals, but to remedies that can be created in as many forms necessary to equitably address the many kinds of injuries sustained from chattel slavery and its continuing vestiges. To merely focus on finance is an empty gesture and betrays a lack of understanding of the depth of the unaddressed moral issues that continue to haunt this nation. While it might be convenient to assume that we can address the current divisive racial and political climate in our nation through race neutral means, experience shows that we have not escaped our history. By passing H.R. 40, Congress can start a movement toward the national reckoning we need to bridge racial divides. Reparations are ultimately about respect and reconciliation--and the hope that one day, all Americans can walk together toward a more just future. We owe it to those who were ripped from their homes those many years ago an ocean away; we owe it to the millions of Americans--yes they were Americans--who were born into bondage, knew a life of servitude, and died anonymous deaths, as prisoners of this system. We owe it to the millions of descendants of these slaves, for they are the heirs to a society of inequities and indignities that naturally filled the vacuum after slavery was formally abolished 154 years ago. And let me end as I began, noting that this year is the 400th commemoration of the 1619 arrival of the first captive Africans in English North America, at Point Comfort, Virginia. Let us proceed with the cause of this morning with a full heart, with the knowledge that this work will take time and trust. Let us also do with the spirit of reconciliation and understanding that this bill represents. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to help address the harm that slavery has had on our nation by supporting H.R. 40.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a number of points--first of all, to acknowledge the killing and mass murder in El Paso, in Dayton, and in Odessa. I think it is calling upon this Congress not only to pray but to do, and I plan to do. Let me also indicate that this is the Year of Return, 400 years that enslaved Africans came to the United States. Millions were enslaved and came. From 1789 to 1865, the institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned. I am glad to have been part of a historic trip to Ghana with my colleague and the Speaker of the House to honor the Year of Return and thank the Ghanan leadership for its welcoming of those of us who came to honor that history, although tragic with the loss of life and the issue of wealth being created in this Nation. Let me also remind our colleagues that we are glad that our neighbors in the Southeast survived, but I want to remind us of the devastation in the Bahamas. We must not let our neighbors suffer. We must rise up with funding. We must recognize that they are our neighbors. We must deal with immigration laws, and we must be receptive, Mr. Speaker, to helping them get back on their feet. I know this Congress and this House will work together when our fellow neighbors are suffering the way they are suffering.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee for anchoring this Special Order recognizing the 400th anniversary of the first slave arriving in America. Four hundred years ago the first slave arrived in America, ships set sail from the west coast of Africa and in the process, began one of mankind's most inhumane practices: human bondage and slavery. For two centuries, human beings--full of hopes and fears, dreams and concerns, ambition and anguish--were transported onto ships like chattel, and the lives of many forever changed. The reverberations from this horrific series of acts--a transatlantic slave trade that touched the shores of a colony that came to be known as America, and later a democratic republic known as the United States of America--are unknown and worthy of exploration. Approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865. The institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the Government of the United States from 1789 through 1865. American Slavery is our country's original sin and its existence at the birth of our nation is a permanent scar on our country's founding documents, and on the venerated authors of those documents, and it is a legacy that continued well into the last century. While it is nearly impossible to determine how the lives touched by slavery could have flourished in the absence of bondage, we have certain datum that permits us to examine how a subset of Americans-- African Americans--have been affected by the callousness of involuntary servitude. We know that in almost every segment of society--education, healthcare, jobs and wealth--the inequities that persist in America are more acutely and disproportionately felt in Black America. This historic discrimination continues: African-Americans continue to suffer debilitating economic, educational, and health hardships including but not limited to having nearly 1,000,000 black people incarcerated; an unemployment rate more than twice the current white unemployment rate; and an average of less than 1/16 of the wealth of white families, a disparity which has worsened, not improved over time. A closer look at the statistics reveals the stark disparity in these areas. Black household wealth is less than one fifth of the national average. The median black household had a net worth of just $17,600 in 2016. Yet in that same year, the median white house hold held $171,000 in wealth while the national household median was $97,300. The black unemployment rate is 6.6 percent, more than double the national unemployment rate. Approximately 31 percent children live in poverty, compared to 11 percent of white children. The national average is 18 percent which suggests that the percentage of black children living in poverty is more than 150 percent the national average. In the healthcare domain, the disparities suffered by African Americans is also troubling. Over 26 percent of African Americans do not have health insurance, compared to a national average between 8.8 percent and 9.1 percent. One in four African American women are uninsured. Compared to national average, African American adults are 20 percent more likely to suffer from asthma and three times more likely to die from it. Black adults are 72 percent more likely to suffer from diabetes than average. Black women are four times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes, such as embolisms, and pregnancy-related hypertension, than any other racial group. In our nation, among children aged 19-35 months, black children were vaccinated at rates lower than white children: 68 percent versus 78 percent respectively. Education has often been called the key to unlocking social mobility. African American students are less likely than white students to have access to college-ready courses. In fact, in 2011-12, only 57 percent of black students have access to a full range of math and science courses necessary for college readiness, compared to with 81 percent of Asian American students and 71 percent of white students. Black students spend less time in the classroom due to discipline, which further hinders their access to a quality education. Black students are nearly two times as likely to be suspended without educational services as white students. Black students are also 3.8 times as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as white students. In addition, black children represent 19 percent of the nation's pre- school population, yet 47 percent of those receiving more than one out- of-school suspension. School districts with the most students of color, on average, receive 15 percent less per student in state and local funding than the whitest districts. And, of course, we cannot consider the disparities between black and white in America without considering the intersection of African Americans and the Criminal Justice system. There are more Black men in bondage today who are incarcerated or under correctional control, than there were black men who were enslaved in the 1800s. The United States locks up African American males at a rate 5.8 times higher than the most openly racist country in the world ever did: South Africa under apartheid (1993), African American males: 851 per 100,000 United States (2006), African American males: 4,789 per 100,000 Incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment. For example, incarceration rates in the United States by race were: African Americans: 2,468 per 100,000 Latinos: 1,038 per 100,000 Whites: 409 per 100,000 African American offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes and are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Looking at males aged 25-29 and by race, you can see what is going on even clearer: For White males ages 25-29: 1,685 per 100,000; For Latino males ages 25-29: 3,912 per 100,000; For African American males ages 25-29: 11,695 per 100,000. (That's 11.7 percent of Black men in their late 20s.) Overall, one in 50 murders is ruled justified--but when the killer is white and the victim is a black man, the figure climbs to one in six. A handgun homicide is nine times more likely to be found justified when the killer is white and the victim is a black man. Hand gun killings with a white shooter and a black male victim exhibit an even more dramatic bias: one in four is found justified. But then again, we knew these inequities existed I because for many Black Americans, these disparities are just a part of daily life. This is why, in 1989, my predecessor as the most senior African American on this September Judiciary Committee, the honorable John Conyers, a past Chairman of this Committee introduced H.R. 40, legislation that would establish a commission to study and develop proposals attendant to reparations. Though many thought it a lost cause, John Conyers believed that a day would come when our nation would need to account for the brutal mistreatment of African-Americans during chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation and the enduring structural racism endemic to our society. I would like to take this moment to personally thank the estimable John Conyers for his work on this legislation for the last thirty years. With the rise and normalization of white supremacist expression during the Trump administration, the discussion of H.R. 40 and the concept of restorative justice have gained more urgency, garnering the attention of mainstream commentator, and illustrating the need for a national reckoning. H.R. 40 is intended to create the framework for a national discussion on the enduring impact of slavery and its complex legacy to begin that necessary process of atonement. The designation of this legislation as H.R. 40 is intended to memorialize the promise made by General William T. Sherman, in his 1865 Special Field Order No. 15, to redistribute 400,000 acres of formerly Confederate owned coastal land in South Carolina and Florida, subdivided into 40 acre plots. Since its introduction, H.R. 40 has acted to spur some governmental acknowledgement of the sin of slavery, but most often the response has taken the form of an apology. However, even the well intentioned commitments to to examine the historical and modern day implications of slavery by the Clinton administration fell short of the mark and failed to inspire substantive pubic discourse. Since my reintroduction of H.R. 40 at the beginning of this Congress, both the legislation and concept of reparations have become the focus of national debate. For many, it is apparent that the success of the Obama administration has unleashed a backlash of racism and intolerance that is an echo of America's dark past which has yet to be exorcised from the national consciousness. Commentators have turned to H.R. 40 as a response to formally begin the process of analyzing, confronting and atoning for these dark chapters of American history. Even conservative voices, like that of New York Times columnist David Brooks, are starting to give the reparations cause the hearing it deserves, observing that ``Reparations are a drastic policy and hard to execute, but the very act of talking and designing them heals a wound and opens a new story.'' Similarly, a majority of the Democratic presidential contenders have turned to H.R 40 as a tool for reconciliation, with 17 cosponsoring or claiming they would sign the bill into law if elected. Though critics have argued that the idea of reparations is unworkable politically or financially, their focus on money misses the point of the H.R. 40 commission's mandate. The goal of these historical investigations is to bring American society to a new reckoning with how our past affects the current conditions of African-Americans and to make America a better place by helping the truly disadvantaged. Consequently, the reparations movement does not focus on payments to individuals, but to remedies that can be created in as many forms necessary to equitably address the many kinds of injuries sustained from chattel slavery and its continuing vestiges. To merely focus on finance is an empty gesture and betrays a lack of understanding of the depth of the unaddressed moral issues that continue to haunt this nation. While it might be convenient to assume that we can address the current divisive racial and political climate in our nation through race neutral means, experience shows that we have not escaped our history. By passing H.R. 40, Congress can start a movement toward the national reckoning we need to bridge racial divides. Reparations are ultimately about respect and reconciliation--and the hope that one day, all Americans can walk together toward a more just future. We owe it to those who were ripped from their homes those many years ago an ocean away; we owe it to the millions of Americans- yes they were Americans--who were born into bondage, knew a life of servitude, and died anonymous deaths, as prisoners of this system. We owe it to the millions of descendants of these slaves, for they are the heirs to a society of inequities and indignities that naturally filled the vacuum after slavery was formally abolished 154 years ago. And let me end as I began, noting that this year is the 400th commemoration of the 1619 arrival of the first captive Africans in English North America, at Point Comfort, Virginia. Let us proceed with the cause of this morning with a full heart, with the knowledge that this work will take time and trust. Let us also do with the spirit of reconciliation and understanding that this bill represents. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to help address the harm that slavery has had on our nation by supporting H.R. 40.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2615, the ``United States-Northern Triangle Enhancement Engagement Act.'' H.R. 2615 supports the people of Central America and strengthens United States national security by addressing the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. H.R. 2615 will provide reports on drivers of migration from the Northern Triangle to the United States and will identify methods for the United States to strengthen fragile democracies in the region. Thousands of immigrants flee the Northern Triangle to seek asylum and refuge in the United States of America. The number of asylum seekers worldwide originating from the Northern Triangle reached 110,000 in 2015, a five-fold increase from 2012. Poverty, corrupt police forces, gang violence, political corruption, and economic instability exacerbate living conditions in the Northern Triangle. Homicide rates are extremely high for Central American countries; El Salvador is leading the way with a rate of 82.84 per 100,000 persons. Salvadorans, Hondurans, and Guatemalans leave their homes in search of physical security, democracy, freedom, and civil liberties. They look toward the U.S. as a beacon of hope and prosperity, often traveling miles while battling hardships and risks to pursue the American Dream. This bill seeks to combat corruption among political institutions in the region to reinforce security and lead to the development of civil society. We must address the origins and the structural causes of migration to address the issues that lead to mass migration to our southern borders. Our agencies are unequipped and are incapable of meeting the demand of sheltering and processing immigrants who arrive at our ports of entry. Our nation's security depends on the stability of the Northern Triangle. We must act to ensure that the countries in this region return to a functioning democracy, free of corruption and violence. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2615 to assist in reestablishing democratic and peaceful societies in the countries of the Northern Triangle.