Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just to commemorate the landmark achievement of 53 years ago but to inform our colleagues and the nation of the need to redouble and rededicate our efforts to the work that remains to be done to protect the right of all Americans to vote free from discrimination and the injustices that prevent them from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship. On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol and in the presence of such luminaries as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Ralph Abernathy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Roy Wilkins of the NAACP; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; James Foreman of the Congress of Racial Equality; A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis of the Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee; Senators Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen; President Johnson addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter discrimination violations that historically left millions of African Americans disenfranchised. In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans registered to vote in Texas and only about 3 percent of African Americans living in the South were registered to vote. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major causes of these racially discriminatory results. After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than 1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote. In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the South. Because of the Voting Rights Act, today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest number ever. Because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on this day 53 years ago, I stand before you as the first African American woman Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. 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. Since 1982, Section 5 has stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes right here in Texas. And it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in Houston that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to all Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also represented this historic 18th Congressional District of Texas, introduced, and the Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of Section 4(a) and Section 5 to language minorities. During the floor debate on the 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman Jordan explained why this reform was needed: There are Mexican-American people in the State of Texas who have been denied the right to vote; who have been impeded in their efforts to register and vote; who have not had encouragement from those election officials because they are brown people. So, the state of Texas, if we approve this measure, would be brought within the coverage of this Act for the first time. When it comes to extending and protecting the precious right vote, the Lone Star State--the home state of Lyndon Johnson and Barbara Jordan--can be the leading state in the Union, one that sets the example for the nation. But to realize that future, we must turn from and not return to the dark days of the past. We must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge or dilute the precious right to vote. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that the right to vote--that ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''--is facing grave threats. The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements. According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down Section 4(b) was that ``times change.'' Now, the Court was right; times have changed. But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed. Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in stymieing the practices that resulted in the wholesale disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did eliminate them entirely. The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still needed to prevent another polio epidemic. However, officials in some states, notably Texas and North Carolina, seemed to regard the Shelby decision as a green light and rushed to implement election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime. My constituents remember very well the Voter ID law passed in Texas in 2011, which required every registered voter to present a valid government-issued photo ID on the day of polling in order to vote. The Justice Department blocked the law in March of 2012, and it was Section 5 that prohibited it from going into effect. At least it did until the Shelby decision, because on the very same day that Shelby was decided officials in Texas announced they would immediately implement the Photo ID law, and other election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime. The Texas Photo ID law was challenged in federal court and 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. 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. Mr. Speaker, on this day, the 53rd anniversary of the landmark Voting Rights Act signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965, I call upon House Speaker Ryan to bring legislation intended to protect the right to vote of all Americans to the floor for debate and vote. Specifically, I call for the passage of the Voting Rights Advancement Act, (H.R. 2978) of which I am an original co-sponsor, which repairs the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court's Shelby decision. This legislation provides even greater federal oversight of jurisdictions which have a history of voter suppression and protects vulnerable communities from discriminatory voting practices. Mr. Speaker, before concluding there is one other point I would like to stress. In his address to the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Johnson said: Presidents and Congresses, laws and lawsuits can open the doors to the polling places and open the doors to the wondrous rewards which await the wise use of the ballot. But only the individual Negro, and all others who have been denied the right to vote, can really walk through those doors, and can use that right, and can transform the vote into an instrument of justice and fulfillment. In other words, political power--and the justice, opportunity, inclusion, and fulfillment it provides--comes not from the right to vote but in the exercise of that right. And that means it is the civic obligation of every citizen to both register and vote in every election, state and local as well as federal. Because if we can register and vote, but fail to do so, we are guilty of voluntary voter suppression, the most effective method of disenfranchisement ever devised. And in recent years, Americans have not been doing a very good job of exercising our civic responsibility to register, vote, and make their voices heard. 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 on this 53rd anniversary of that landmark law, let us rededicate ourselves to honoring those who won for us this precious right by remaining vigilant and fighting against both the efforts of others to abridge or suppress the right to vote and our own apathy in exercising this sacred right.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in remembrance of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ushered in the nuclear age 73 years ago this week. The atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 thankfully represent the only instances where the awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons were unleashed. While it is true that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped to bring a speedy and decisive end to the conflict in the Pacific theater during World War II, it is also true that devastation and carnage wrought by those explosions was a vivid reminder and compelling reason for the international community to work in concert to prevent the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons. And for 73 years, the international community, led by the United States, has deterred every nation on earth from using nuclear weapons although it has been less successful in deterring several nation-states from developing their nuclear weapons capability. So while we pause to remember the victims who perished in, and the lives that were saved by, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is critically important that we take this moment to redouble our commitment towards nuclear nonproliferation and banishing the threat of nuclear annihilation from the earth. Mr. Speaker, since 1945 preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology has been a pillar of the U.S.-led, rules-based international order that has brought an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity the United States and its allies in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific. It is this commitment to nuclear non-proliferation that has led the United States to work with the international community to keep rogue nations from developing their own nuclear arsenals, the most recent achievement in this regard is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated with the Iranian government in 2015. Multilateral efforts like the JCPOA were made possible by responsible, level-headed leadership that did not needlessly engage in brinksmanship. Today, the world faces a grave threat from the rogue and hostile regime in Pyongyang in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we continually seek to reduce the risk of war, and this is not accomplished through the use of overheated, reckless, and bombastic rhetoric, or foolish and short- sighted actions like the current President's decision to withdraw from the JCPOA. It is vitally important that the President learns the importance of using restrained and judicious rhetoric in trying to diffuse this delicate situation. Mr. Speaker, blustery statements and bombastic tweets will not defuse the tense situation on the Korean peninsula or frighten the regime in North Korea. Instead, we must employ the full arsenal of America's smart power assets--diplomacy, economic sanctions--to persuade North Korea that it is in its self-interest to turn away from the dangerous path it is traveling. The United States does not harbor hostile intentions toward North Korea and is seeking to overthrow the regime in Pyongyang. Mr. Speaker, thoughtful, sober, carefully calibrated diplomatic engagement with North Korea represents America's best option and holds the promise of a favorable and peaceful outcome, just as was achieved with the JCPOA and the 1994 Agreed Framework reached with North Korea that stopped North Korea's nuclear weapons program for nine years. On July 16, 1945, after witnessing the first test of the atomic bomb in Alamagordo, New Mexico, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Manhattan Project, remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita: ``Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'' Mr. Speaker, for more than 70 years the international community, led by the most indispensable of nations, the United States, has kept the nuclear genie in the bottle. We have been successful to date in no small part due to the thoughtful, persistent, judicious, restrained application of American power by responsible, sober, determined, informed Presidents of the United States, from Harry Truman through Barack Obama. When he took the oath of office on January 20, 2017, that torch, and the burden of leadership, was passed to Donald Trump and all Americans are anxiously still waiting and praying he can rise to the occasion.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Johnny Harris, Jr., a great American, who dedicated his life in service to making this great country a better place and educating the next generation of leaders. Living by the creed that knowledge and education could change your life and perceptions making you a better person, Mr. Johnny Harris Jr. obtained his bachelor's degree in business and two master's degrees in business and education. During his life he sold insurance and owned his own businesses, but later returned to his passion of educating and coaching the next generation of future leaders. His love for football extended to him coaching football at Zaragoza Air Base in Spain and later at Estacado High School in Lubbock, Texas. In addition, he also taught at Lincoln Middle School, Edison Middle School, and Lee Middle School respectively. In life and work, he was committed to inspiring excellence in all people. He exuded love, friendship and compassion. Mr. Johnny Harris Jr. loved mentoring local high school students and founded the non-profit Center for Athletic and Academic Placement (CAAP), of which he was extremely proud, to help high school student athletes improve their academics and obtain scholarships for college. During the past 20 years, Mr. Johnny Harris Jr. and his wife helped mentor hundreds of students and assisted them into college. Mr. Johnny Harris Jr. believed no child should suffer and even in his last days sought to empower and enrich causes dedicated to helping eradicate diseases prevalent among children, and terminal diseases generally. He lived by the quote ``God, family, and education'' and it was evident in all the he did. On April 26, 2018, he succumbed to illness, but not without inspiring a new generation of leaders. As we go forward, it is of the upmost importance to provide experimental treatment to those facing terminal diagnoses. As we have seen, it can literally mean the difference between life and death or essential comfort during the final days of life. Mr. Johnny Harris Jr. is survived by his wife, Regina, of 38 years; children, including his daughter Zenobia Harris Bivens--a brilliant and formidable attorney in the Houston area--her husband Darvell, and their lovely son Dean. He has another daughter, LaGina, and a son, Johnny III, and a daughter-in-law, Jessica. Mr. Johnny Harris is also survived by his parents, Johnny Sr. and Flora Mae Harris, as well as a full and loving extended family. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating Johnny Harris Jr.'s life and legacy. America is a better place, and Texas is a better state, because of Mr. Harris and his service. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Johnny Harris Jr.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to remember and pay tribute to Ronald V. Dellums, the pioneering, legendary, brilliant, and dynamic former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who represented the residents of California 9th Congressional District in this body for 27 years. Ronald Dellums died peacefully on July 30, 2018, at his home in Washington D.C. after waging a heroic but losing battle against prostate cancer; he was 82 years old. Born November 24, 1935 in Oakland, California, to Verney and Willa Dellums, Ronald Vernie Dellums would go on to lead a consequential life marked by public service, active engagement, and passionate leadership. These qualities--service, engagement, passionate commitment--were Dellums family traits; Ron's father was a longshoreman and active in the labor movement and his uncle, Cottrell Laurence Dellums, helped A. Philip Randolph organize the Brother of Sleeping Car Porters, before being elected President of the union in 1966. In 1954, after graduating from high school, and during the height of the Cold War, Ronald Dellums enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and served two years before being honorably discharged in 1956. His honorable service to the nation enabled him to attend college on the G.I. Bill and in 1958 he earned an Associate of Arts degree from Oakland City College, followed by a Bachelor of Science degree in 1960 from San Francisco State University, an M.S.W. from the University of California at Berkeley in 1962. Upon graduation from UC-Berkeley, Ronald Dellums worked as a psychiatric social worker for the California Department of Mental Hygiene and taught at San Francisco State University and the University of California at Berkeley, work which soon led him to become involved in local politics. In 1967, at the age of 32, Ronald was elected to the Berkeley City Council, where he served until 1970, when he was elected to Congress as an anti-Vietnam War activist, defeating the incumbent in the primary, and winning the general election in a landslide. In 1972, Ronald Dellums was reelected to the 93rd Congress and to the succeeding Congresses, never winning election with less than 57 percent of the vote. During his tenure in Congress, Ronald Dellums served on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, the District of Columbia, Post Office and Civil Service, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Armed Services, which he chaired from 1993 to 95 and was Ranking Member from 1995 until his retirement from the House in 1998. Throughout his congressional career, Ronald Dellums, who cofounded the Congressional Black Caucus in 1971 and the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 1991, was one of the Capitol's leading authorities and voices challenging the underlying assumptions of the U.S. military budget. Ronald Dellums also led the congressional opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa, winning passage of the Comprehensive Anti- Apartheid Act of 1986 by congressional override of President Reagan's veto, the first override in the 20th century of a presidential foreign policy veto. Ronald Dellums championed for equal rights for Americans and was one of the first to call for the integration of gays and lesbians into the military. In addition to championing equal rights, Ron Dellums was a strong supporter of historic preservation. He emerged as one of the most radical and outspoken Congressmen in Washington, and a spokesperson for African American community affairs and for his radical political beliefs. After retiring from Congress in 1998, Ronald Dellums served as president of Healthcare International Management, an organization that worked with the newly democratic South African government to develop low cost, affordable healthcare and bring awareness, prevention and treatment in response to the AIDS epidemic. Mr. Speaker, Ron Dellums lived a long and fulfilling life and made his mark in the world by making a difference in the lives of untold numbers of individuals. I hope that Ron's family and loved ones are comforted by the fact that the lives of millions of people here at home and around the world were touched by the service of one of the great social activists, political leaders, and statesmen of the 20th century. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Ronald V. Dellums, a tireless and eloquent voice for justice and equality, who did so much to ensure that America always strives to live up to the promise of its founding ideals and remain a beacon and example for the world.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 53rd Anniversary of the passage of Medicaid and Medicare, two of the most beneficial and consequential government programs ever launched. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law as part of the Social Security Act and in the process made good on the commitments made by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy to provide health security to Americans in their old age. Medicare is a promise kept to those who have contributed a lifetime to our nation so they could enjoy their golden years with peace of mind and the security of reliable, affordable, and high quality healthcare. Likewise, Medicaid created a crucial partnership between the government and the people to provide a basic health care safety net for the most vulnerable Americans: children of adults with low incomes, persons with disabilities, and the poor. Mr. Speaker, 53 years later, the legacy of these programs have proven how effective and critical government action can be to the life and wellbeing of our nation's most vulnerable. In 1965, almost half of all Americans aged 65 and older had no health coverage, living in fear that the colossal healthcare costs would drive them and their families into poverty. Today, because of Medicare, over 98 percent of seniors have health insurance, which has led to a five-year increase in life expectancy for those over 65. Today, 55 million Americans rely on Medicare for health care, ranging from preventive services, hospital visits, lab tests, to critical medical supplies, and prescription drugs. It is difficult for some to imagine what 1965 was really like, when today affordable, accessible and available health insurance is a reality for so many people living with disabilities. Before Medicaid was enacted, children from poor families, pregnant women, and low-income working Americans were not able to afford even the most basic medical care they needed to remain healthy and productive. When the legislation was first passed, many claimed that Medicaid would not live up to its promise; but today, because of expansion of Medicaid through passage of the Affordable Care Act, the program provides comprehensive coverage for over 70 million children, pregnant women, low-income adults, and people living with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, it cannot be seriously disputed that Medicare and Medicaid have changed our country and made it better. In my home state of Texas and in communities across the country, both programs have significantly changed the lives and improved health outcomes of many Americans over the past century and represent the best of American values. Unfortunately, Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation, and Texas' refusal to participate in the Medicaid expansion created by the Affordable Care act puts the poor residents of my state in jeopardy. So the 53rd anniversary of Medicaid is bittersweet for Texans because while we celebrate a program that has saved lives, helped people live longer, expanded care to marginalizes communities, and reduced disparities in access to healthcare, thousands of low income Texans still do not have the peace of mind that comes with access to affordable, quality health care enjoyed by low-income residents of states that have expanded their Medicaid program with funds made possible by the Affordable Care Act. In the 18th Congressional District of Texas there are 195,400 persons with Medicaid and 74,704 with medical care provided by Medicare. Mr. Speaker, my constituents favor the Affordable Care Act because they understand the insecurity and feeling of helplessness of being uninsured or underinsured. Like Medicare and Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, or ``Obamacare,'' was vehemently opposed and derided by its adversaries, who said it was too costly, would not work, was unnecessary, or would change the character of America for the worse. Like the critics of Social Security, Medicare, and the G.I. Bill, all of whom are silent now, they are wrong. The Affordable Care Act has been an unqualified success. This historic legislation has extended affordable health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, and has helped to bring and peace of mind to many of those for whom relief seemed far out of reach. The Affordable Care Act was driven by a simple premise: that citizens of the most prosperous nation on earth should not be forced to choose between their health and their financial security. Since the passage of the ACA in 2010, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen by nearly one-third, or roughly 16 million people. These Americans come from all walks of life. They are women, who can no longer be denied coverage or be force to pay exorbitant amounts for coverage simply because of their sex. They are nine million seniors and persons with disabilities, who have saved an average of $1,600 on expensive and lifesaving prescription medication. And they are this country's most at risk citizens; people who are working hard and struggling make ends meet while living in near- poverty, and who have been covered by Medicaid expansion in 32 states and the District of Columbia. These benefits have been felt across the country, especially in my home state of Texas: 1. 10.7 million individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children--no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher prices because of their health status or history; 2. 4.9 million uninsured Texans have new health insurance options through Medicaid or private health plans in the ACA Marketplace; and 3. 5.2 million persons on private insurance have gained coverage for at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In addition to the tangible healthcare benefits for millions of families, the ACA has had powerful effects on the financial state of our nation. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have extended the solvency of the Medicare Trust fund by more than a decade, and helped save taxpayers $116 billion through new Medicare efficiencies. The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that hospitals saved more than $5.7 billion in costs that would have normally gone unpaid by patients without insurance. Contrary to the claims of the ACA's critics, private insurance companies have leaped at the opportunity to compete for business among the newly insured, and the healthcare industry has boomed. Through all of these successes, however, House Republicans remain obsessed with destroying this law, and with unraveling the security it provides to millions of Americans. Medicare and Medicaid also continue to drive innovation and are set the standard for coverage, quality, and innovation in American healthcare. Mr. Speaker, Medicare and Medicaid continue to play crucial roles in providing equitable and affordable healthcare, leading innovation in payment and delivery reform, carrying out outreach to the most vulnerable communities, and reshaping the delivery of care for the future. Because of these programs, more Americans have access to affordable, equitable health care today than at any point in our history. And I am committed to making sure that number will continue to grow. On this 53rd anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, we should remember that a healthy America is a prosperous America. And as we look ahead to the next half century, we can celebrate that what was put in place in 1965 has given us the foundation for a healthy and prosperous future for all Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my colleagues in condemning the President's cruel and inhumane family separation policy and its failure to reunite children with their families. Over two months ago, the Attorney General of the United States announced this administration's inhumane and cruel child separation policy. This policy was the function of hasty political considerations and incomplete calculations of the ramifications of what such an abhorrent policy would do to the children implicated, the parents who brought them to our country in the hopes of a better life, a nation that has watched in horror, and a global community aghast at the measures being taken pursuant to this ``zero tolerance'' policy. I have returned from my second trip to the Southern border in as many months. I was there to conduct effective oversight to reexamine whether families are being reunited and to determine what due process is available to these individuals in the United States Courts and where these individuals can seek corrective action for that which confronts them. When I visited the border last month and the federal detention facilities that housed parents and children quarantined from one another, what I witnessed was horrific and unforgettable. One baby, 9-month-old Roger, had been taken from his 19-year-old sister after she was prosecuted for crossing the border illegally. Their mother is dead, and they were coming here to find family. Little Leah, just one year old, was taken from a grandmother and a sister. The pain was no less visceral when speaking with mothers wondering where their children have gone. In South Texas I met Gabby, from Honduras, who had a 45 day-old baby taken from her, and while housed at the facility had not yet been treated or given medical attention. To be sure, these children are not alone. To date, thousands of children remain separated from their parents. In fact, once this administration realized that the optics of this child separation policy were not favorable, the administration attempted to disperse the quarantined children to faraway corners from where they were separated--South Texas--and away from their parents. Indeed, one of the locations proposed to house these children was a shelter in my congressional district--the 18th District of Texas-- ironically, on Emancipation Avenue. The goodness and decency of the residents of my district, gleaned from their opposition to this policy, was immediately and abundantly clear. Citizens organized throughout our community to make their opposition to this plan known loud and clear. Congressional action must reflect the passionate activism of our fellow Americans. Upon returning to the Congress, together with my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee, and its Ranking Member Jerry Nadler, we introduced H.R. 6135, ``Keep Families Together Act.'' This bill promotes family unity by prioritizing keeping families together. It would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') from separating children from their parents except in extraordinary circumstances. The bill requires an independent child welfare agent official to review any such separation and return the child if no harm to the child is present. Thereafter I wrote to the President and was joined by 57 of my colleagues, asking him to end this policy, but also additionally to: Order the immediate cessation of the zero-tolerance policy for criminal illegal entry; Reinstate the highly successful family case management program, which avoids the cascading ills associated with the President's child separation policy, while accounting for the law enforcement concerns at the heart of border enforcement; Conduct a census of all accompanied immigrant children as well as a count of all unaccompanied immigrant or refugee children housed at facilities unknown to Congress; Restore eligibility for asylum status for those fleeing gang violence or domestic violence; And prohibit federal agencies from assisting any State from terminating the parental rights of any person whose child was removed. To date, the President has not responded to this letter. Indeed, it appears as if the President's lack of response to the letter I led is indicative of the administration's overall tact towards legitimate inquiries for oversight, like that which is prescribed by Article I of the Constitution. Despite the fact that a federal judge ordered the reunification of children under age 5 by a date certain, last week the Department of Homeland Security indicated that only about 50 percent of these children were reunited by the date prescribed by the court, and that at least 2,551 of all of children remain separated from their parents. The lack of empathy and compassion symbolized by both the policy and the failure to reunite these children with their parents is wrong, but sadly consistent with other instances where the administration lacked compassion towards those seeking asylum. Notably, last month also brought news that the administration plans to foreclose the ability of asylum seekers to cite gang violence or domestic violence as an acceptable reason to seek asylum. While this policy shocks the conscience, it is of no surprise that it would emanate from an administration which boasts as its Attorney General a stalwart opponent of immigration and a Chief of Staff who, while he was DHS Secretary, believed that separation of children from their parents was an effective means of deterring immigration writ large. The ad hoc procedures the government has created to respond to the judicial decree to unite these families offer further proof that it never intended for families to be brought back together. It is unconscionable that there had been no plan for the orderly reunification of these children with their families. As we face the July 26 deadline for the Federal Government to reunite the thousands of innocent separated children, we must stand fast in continuing to demand justice. Yesterday, the Trump administration told the court that it had reunited or ``appropriately discharged'' 1,187 of the 2,551 children ages five and older who were forcibly separated from their parents. The administration has also reunited 58 out of 103 children who are under the age of five and whose reunions were required by the first deadline, July 10. The administration identified 1,634 class members who are eligible for reunification and are in various stages of the process. However, in the same federal court filing, the Trump administration has claimed that the separated children of 917 parents are either not eligible, or ``not yet known to be eligible,'' for reunification. For parents whose eligibility the government is challenging based on a prohibitive criminal history or unfitness finding, more information is clearly needed. As the ACLU have argued in court--the government's word alone on this determination is not sufficient, which is why they have asked the court to order the government to provide details about the nature of the charge, conviction, or warrant for each parent. As of July 20, the Trump administration reported that it had 37 children in government custody who have ``not yet been matched'' to a parent from whom they were taken. Additionally, when asked in court, the administration was not able to provide a count of the number of parents who were released from ICE custody and whose locations are still unknown. This is the all-important question: where are the parents whom the government has already deported? For the separated children under five years old, there were an estimated 12 parents who had already been deported by the time of the court's June 26 order requiring reunion. In a status update on the ongoing court-ordered family reunifications filed Monday, the government said 463 parents of separated children aged five and older are indicated as no longer in the U.S. according to their files. These cases are apparently ``under review.'' As a mother, I am devastated and disappointed that the administration represented what they did not know and could not do. They did not know the true number of the children separated, they could not reunite these children, and there is still no plan for their reunification. It is beyond comprehension that a governing body in this nation could create a humanitarian crisis and be so uninformed as to abdicate its responsibility to rectify the situation. Beyond any future government measures that reunite the separated families, Human Rights Watch reports that making any of these families truly whole, including by addressing the trauma our government callously inflicted on them, will take much longer. Is this review from a leading human rights body truly reflective of our nation, which just a half-century ago declared never to ``witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world?'' Did the President plan to make orphans of thousands of children who came here with loving parents? These are question that should haunt this country for years. Under no circumstance can we allow the barbaric separation of families to continue. This policy is one of the most un-American policies implemented under the Trump Administration in our name. This policy must galvanize the country to act. Americans from all walks of life must band together to say with one voice: not in my name. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to denounce the President's unjustified assault on our nation's thousands of dedicated federal employees. In his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy proclaimed a call to duty--``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'' Millions from all corners of our nation throughout our history--in peace and in war, in prosperity and in hardship--have answered this call with their full measure of dedication. They are our public servants. They showed up to serve and to lead. They work long hours ensuring that our government has the greatest wealth of knowledge and expertise to best address the needs of our citizens. They risk lives at the front lines of disaster zones so that no American is left in distress. They lead the way while making sure nobody falls behind. By any stretch of the imagination, these men and women should be celebrated as heroes for their altruistic dedication to service. But the President, far short of ensuring that these federal employees have the best environment for which to carry out their commitment to serving their nation, has gone great lengths to attack these servants as part of a faux ``swamp.'' As a candidate, Trump falsely told voters that the federal bureaucracy was awash in ``waste, fraud and abuse.'' By abusing his power to issue executive orders, the President ordered to roll back civil-service protections that federal employees have enjoyed for a generation, making it easier to fire poor performers, curtailing time employees can be paid for union work, and directing agencies to negotiate tougher union contracts. The orders require agencies to negotiate union contracts in less than a year. They direct managers to move more aggressively to discharge employees involved in even minor misconduct, limiting to one month a last-chance grace period for improvement that now can last up to 120 days. The orders also require agencies to begin charging unions for space in federal buildings they now use for free. And, the orders limit federal employees to spending no more than a quarter of their workday on ``official time''--paid time to do union business, a benefit Congress approved for federal unions in 1978, when the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed the Civil Service Reform Act. According to the Civil Service Reform Act, the U.S. government allows employees to ``organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them.'' The rationale is that such participation promotes the public interest, contributes to the effective conduct of public business, and enables the amicable settlement of disputes between employees and employers. Section 7131 of that bill provides federal employees with ``official time'' to engage in representational activities, discussions of grievances, dispute resolution, labor relations training, labor- management relations, and new department initiatives, among other things. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implemented the legislation by adopting rules that ``require managers and supervisors to allow complainants who are employees 'a reasonable amount of official time, when in official duty status, to prepare their EEO complaint and to respond to agency and EEOC requests for information.' '' In one fell swoop, Trump cut the federal union representatives of their time assisting colleagues with filing grievances, addressing sexual harassment claims, and resolving workplace problems. For a president who has been the object of numerous grievance complaints and sexual harassment claims, the hypocrisy of limiting time to pursue such claims is shocking. As a sign of the concerted war on federal employees, there also have been several other efforts to limit unions. This year, for example, the U.S. Department of Education eliminated official time as part of its new labor contract. Organizations representing these federal employees have argued this contract is completely unfair. In this spirit I would like to commend the efforts of one such organization, the American Federation of Government Employees, or AFGE. As the largest union for government employees, they have risen to the occasion to provide federal employees with the passionate defense that they deserve. AFGE has challenged the executive order on official time as a violation of the right to freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. I was proud to have joined the amicus curiae brief in support of AFSCME's position in the case of Janus v. AFSCME, which supported and defended the need for unions and collective bargaining. Eighty years ago the American labor movement was little more than a group of dreamers, and look at it now. From coast to coast, in factories, stores, warehouse and business establishments of all kinds, industrial democracy is at work. Employees, represented by free and democratic trade unions of their own choosing, participate actively in determining their wages, hours and working conditions. Their living standards are the highest in the world. Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages, shortened hours and provided supplemental benefits. Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor. But their work goes beyond their own jobs, and even beyond our borders. Our unions have fought for aid to education, for better housing, for development of our national resources, and for saving the family-sized farms. They have spoken, not for narrow self-interest, but for the public interest and for the people. Unions are as important as they ever were--because corporations are just as dedicated to their bottom line, regardless of the consequences for workers. David Cox Sr., President of the AFGE, understood that ``Federal employees understand what is needed to improve the internal workings of their agencies far better than private consultants. ``Federal workers and their representatives should play an important role in the development of organizational changes involving federal agencies and the services they provide.'' ``Neglecting to seek input from employee representatives in the development of government-wide reorganization plans is counterproductive to any genuine effort to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government.'' AFGE General Counsel David Borer astutely remarked that ``These executive orders are clearly at odds with what Congress has mandated by law,'' and that ``These directives from the White House display a shocking lack of respect for the Constitution and represent a serious overreach of the president's executive powers.'' Indeed, these executive orders are not merely an affront to the blood and sweat of America's public servants--as great as that may be. AFGE has also challenged the President's executive orders on the grounds that they exceed the president's authority under the U.S. Constitution by violating the separation of powers and exceeding current law. The president has used our federal employees not only to frame them as a scapegoat for our nation's problems, but also to subvert Congress' place as an equal branch of government--an attack on our system of checks and balances befitting of a banana republic. This constitutional crisis should concern us all. This attack on our federal employees disrupts the effectiveness of our government, labor rights across the nation for all professions, and the integrity of our very system of government. I urge all of my colleagues to reflect the dedication that these federal employees have shown in serving our nation, and work to resist the arbitrary, despotic attacks that the President has levied against them.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5385, the GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2018. H.R. 5385 amends the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program of payments to children's hospitals that operate graduate medical education programs. Americans across our nation need care, and the Children's Hospital GME (CHGME) program has been utilized by hospitals across our country to train doctors who can provide that necessary aid. I represent the 18th District of Texas which is home to the Methodist Hospital System, one of the largest medical institutions in the world. H.R. 5385 will allow Houston to continue to recruit and train many talented doctors. CHGME was created in 1999 because Congress recognized that a dedicated source of support for training in children's hospitals was necessary to strengthen the pediatric workforce. Since then, CHGME funding has enabled children's hospitals to dramatically increase training overall, and in particular grow the supply of pediatric specialists--the area of greatest shortage in children's health care. If CHGME is allowed to expire, we will lose the progress we have made in this field. According to data from a 2017 Children's Hospital Association survey, pediatric specialty shortages continue to affect children's ability to receive timely, appropriate care. The funds generated from this legislation. will help train the medical professionals we desperately need. In a time when there are growing health disparities within our nation, it is important to address the needs of underserved urban areas. The more medical professionals we train, the greater the likelihood that these underserved communities will have access to proper medical care. CHGME funds the training of pediatric providers at eligible children's hospitals. The 58 children's hospitals that receive CHGME funding train approximately half of the nation's pediatricians, more than 7,000 annually. We should provide the funds necessary to train students in a profession that will benefit society. We must train the very professionals who will one day save the life of a child. I support this legislation because it will increase the quality of medical training in the United States. I believe that H.R. 5385 improves upon a system that sets the bar for medical care internationally. By passing H.R. 5385, CHGME can continue to succeed in bolstering research potential at these institutions as well as helping to cure a problem that supersedes political boundaries: children's illness. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 5385.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate four outstanding Houston residents on their reception of the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship. I offer my sincere congratulations to Ms. Jessica Espaillat, Ms. Daphne Hernandez, Ms. Maria Palomares Carranco, and Ms. Nereyda Reyes for their remarkable achievement of receiving the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship. The Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship builds young, well- rounded and diverse leaders who have the skills to contribute to our national security and public diplomacy efforts. The scholarship program was established with the support of the late Congressman Benjamin A. Gilman of New York, whose leading contributions to study abroad educational programs continue to help many students develop the ability to communicate and understand the economic, social and political connections among nations. The scholarship was established to provide recipients with the tools to develop international knowledge and language skills, as well as gain valuable career-enhancing experiences in their experiences abroad. The Gilman program has enabled more than 25,000 outstanding Americans of diverse backgrounds to engage in a meaningful educational experience abroad, providing them with skills critical to our national security and economic competiveness. Houston's contribution to this impressive list of talented individuals includes: Ms. Jessica Espaillat, of the University of Houston, who studied abroad in Japan; Ms. Daphne Hernandez, of Colby College, who studied abroad in Japan; Ms. Maria Palomares Carranco, of the University of Texas at Austin, who completed her studies in Mexico; and Ms. Nereyda Reyes, of Texas A&M University at College Station, who spent her time abroad studying in Belgium. This is truly a wonderful accomplishment for the recipients, and I offer them my best wishes as they embark on the next steps of their educational journeys. My office is always open to the scholarship recipients, and I encourage them to contact me for any help they may need with their future educational goals.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4100, the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2017. H.R. 4100 amends title 36 of the United States Code to revise the Federal charter for the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association, to prohibit the use of race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, or national origin in determining eligibility for service as an officer or director. The Federal Bar Association is the nation's premiere association for practitioners of federal law and as such should be open to all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, the FBA recognizes the importance of nondiscrimination and has adopted a diversity statement that includes race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Diversity statements are valuable but they do not carry the weight of law. The addition of a nondiscrimination provision to the FBA Charter is an important action and when gender identity is an enumerated protected characteristic in the law, transgender people will be protected from discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of gender identity is a form of sex discrimination, and laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex protect transgender people. Numerous federal circuit and district courts opinions have held that our nation's nondiscrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex protect transgender people from discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The EEOC determined in Macy v. Holder that Title VII's prohibitions on sex discrimination also prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. This decision is binding on the federal government with respect to employment practices. Our laws work best when there are clear expectations. While gender identity will be covered by the sex nondiscrimination provision, it is better to enumerate gender identity. Listing out protected characteristics helps those making determinations about membership understand their obligations and those seeking membership understand their rights. By passing H.R. 4100, we can prevent discrimination by ensuring gender identity is a protected characteristic. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 4100.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. 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, 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. Mr. 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 13 extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are: Callie Lucia from Texas Christian University; Kelly Clifford from New York University; Matthew Marion from the University of Colorado; Farah Mechref from Texas Tech University; Chaniqua Nelson from Howard University; Zohair Alam from the University of Houston; Sabri Siraj from Arizona State University; Naomi Stelivan from Fisk University; Andy Hong from Brown University; Mariam Boguifo from Texas Tech University; Rishal Jagtap from Langley High School; Ritwik Jagtap from Langley High School; and Fangxin `Amy' Yu from The Madeira School. Mr. 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. Mr. 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.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be a great day. We will introduce the reauthorization of the historic Violence Against Women Act. We are excited about this introduction because so many women had an opportunity for almost a year and a half, close to 2 years, to discuss, to invest, to make suggestions, and to bring together this collaboration endorsed by the national task force, a bipartisan group of 35 organizations, from religious organizations, to Native American organizations, to organizations that have been on the front lines of protecting women or seeking to stop the violence against women. We have expanded the rape prevention section, for the rising need for that section as it relates to the #MeToo movement, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. We are excited by the confidentiality provisions that indicate that Federal and State agencies that are receiving grants must maintain the confidentiality of those who have been victims. Mr. Speaker, we invite the entire House of Representatives to join us on this historic occasion and support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which will be introduced in the very near future, tomorrow.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1376, the ``Electronic Message Preservation Act of 2017,'' which helps ensure the preservation of federal agency electronic messages. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we are able to preserve records of activities and to have appropriate systems to manage and preserve those reports relating to Presidential records, and for other purposes. According to CBO, enacting H.R. 1376 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029. First, such regulations as a minimum must require the electronic capture, management, and preservation of such electronic records in accordance with the Federal Records Act. Second, they must also require such records to be retrievable through electronic searches. Third, it is imperative to include timelines for federal agency implementation of the regulations that ensure compliance as expeditiously as practicable. Mr. Speaker, enacting H.R. 1376 will help preserve records of activities by requiring NARA to oversee and issue guidance on managing federal records, including email messages. CBO estimates that any net changes in direct spending by those agencies would be insignificant. Enacting this bill would not affect revenues. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1376 and standing true to our nation's commitment to advancing security in managing and preserving records.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3906, the ``Innovative Storm water Infrastructure Act of 2018.'' H.R. 3906 directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a stormwater infrastructure funding task force to study and develop recommendations to improve the availability of public and private sources of funding for stormwater infrastructure. Houston area residents understand the importance of infrastructure that can mitigate the effects of storm water. After making landfall, circled back and held in place for nearly four days, Hurricane Harvey dropped an unprecedented amount of rain in the Houston area--so much rain, in fact, that the flood area itself began to act like an inland sea, feeding moisture back into the storm to be dropped as yet more rain. Hurricane Harvey brought more than 64 inches of rain to the Houston area, flooding 203,000 homes, 13 Superfund sites, and more than 800 wastewater treatment facilities. The damage caused by Hurricane Harvey exceeds $125 billion. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, second only to Hurricane Katrina. Nine out of 19 of the official river gauges in Harris County, Texas, recorded all-time-high water levels. Nederland, Texas recorded 60.58 inches of rainfall, making Hurricane Harvey the highest total rainfall ever recorded in the continental United States. Rainfall within a tenth of an inch of that total was recorded in Groves, a neighboring community. These both exceed the previous U.S. rainfall record of 52 inches, set by Hurricane Hiki in Hawaii in 1950. Eighteen locations in southeastern Texas broke previous tropical rainfall records in the contiguous United States, which was set by Tropical Storm Amelia in Medina, Texas in 1978. Six to ten feet was the maximum water levels above the ground, which occurred near the areas where Harvey made landfall. Fifty-seven tornadoes were reported during the Hurricane Harvey storm, about half of which occurred near or south of the Houston metro area. At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was underwater. Over 300,000 structures flooded in southeastern Texas, where extreme rainfall hit many areas that are densely populated. Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. in our nation's history. Hurricane Harvey damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were completely destroyed. Texans continue to work to recover, but thousands still are not able to return to flood damaged homes. Next month marks a year since floodwaters swamped America's fourth- largest city, the extent of this environmental assault is beginning to surface, while questions about the long-term consequences for human health remain unanswered. As disasters become more frequent and populations living in vulnerable areas increase, interest in the health effects of exposure to the combination of natural and technological disasters has grown. According to experts, when rain falls on the roofs of our homes, streets, and parking lots in cities and their suburbs, the water is unable to soak into the ground as it should. When a rainstorm occurs, rainwater hits the streets and gravity takes it on the path of least resistance. Stormwater drains through gutters, storm sewers, and other engineered collection systems and is discharged into nearby water bodies. Across the country, in every community, rain mixes with chemicals, oils, and other harmful pollutants to flood into our waterways. Further, higher flows resulting from heavy rains can also cause erosion and flooding in urban streams, damaging habitat, property, and infrastructure. H.R. 3906 will establish a stormwater infrastructure funding task force program such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Program (NPDES). This program is designed to prevent stormwater runoff from washing harmful pollutants into local waterbodies. Some 500 chemical plants, 10 refineries and more than 6,670 miles of intertwined oil, gas and chemical pipelines line the nation's largest energy corridor. Nearly 500 Million gallons of industrial wastewater mixed with storm water surged out of just one chemical plant in Baytown, east of Houston, on the upper shores of Galveston Bay. Benzene, vinyl chloride, butadiene, and other known human carcinogens were among the dozens of tons of industrial toxic substances released into surrounding neighborhoods and waterways following Harvey's torrential rains. In addition, NPDES will study and develop recommendations to improve the availability of public and private sources of funding for stormwater infrastructure. The EPA Administrator will ensure that these programs promote the use of innovative stormwater control infrastructure in and coordinate the integration of innovative stormwater control infrastructure into permitting programs, planning efforts, research, technical assistance, and funding guidance. Mr. Speaker, a stronger investment in stormwater prevention programs allows for the implementations of cutting edge solutions and puts our communities in a path to healthier waters. I urge my colleges to join me in voting for H.R. 3906.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5238, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1234 Saint Johns Place in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Major Robert Odell Owens Post Office.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill is an opportunity for us all to pay tribute to a great American, a fighter for justice and equality, one of the most passionate advocates for educational opportunity, and a man who served in this body with distinction, Major Owens of New York. Major Owens was born June 28, 1936, in Collierville, Tennessee. He was educated at Morehouse College, from which he received his baccalaureate degree, and Atlanta University from which he earned a Master of Science degree. Major Owens later moved to New York where he worked as a librarian before accepting an appointment from Mayor John V. Lindsay to serve as Director of the New York City Community Development Agency. He also served as a faculty member in the Department of Public Administration at Medgar Evers College. In 1974, Major Owens was elected to the New York State Senate and was reelected to serve a second term in 1978. In 1982, Major Owens won a competitive primary to fill the seat of retiring Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman elected to the House of Representatives and the first woman ever to seek the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. As the Member of Congress for the 11th Congressional District of New York, Major Owens represented a diverse district centered in Brooklyn, including low income areas of Brownsville and parts of Bedford- Stuyvestant, the large Hasidic community of Crown Heights, the heavily Caribbean areas of Flatbush and East Flatbush, and the more affluent neighborhoods of Park Slope and Prospect Park. Affectionately known as the ``Education Congressman'' by his constituents, Major Owens fought tirelessly throughout his twelve terms in Congress to protect and expand educational opportunity for all Americans, especially those from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds. As he often reminded his colleagues in the House, education was ``the kingpin issue.'' In an article he published in Black Issues in Higher Education, he wrote: ``We have to believe that all power and progress really begins with education.'' Major Owens served on the House Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. As the Ranking Member on the Education and Workforce Subcommittee for Workforce Protections, Congressman Owens helped lead the fight for minimum wage increases, blocked the attempt to eliminate cash payments for overtime, fought against efforts to roll back or repeal Davis- Bacon, and to weaken the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. As Chairman of the Education Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights (1988 to '94), Congressman Owens was one of the earliest and strongest supporters of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which was enacted into law in 1991. In recognition for his work to pass the ADA, Major Owens was awarded an honorary degree by Galludet University, the world's premier higher education institution serving deaf an hard of hearing people. Major Owens loved serving in this body and he was a valued member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus. As Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus Task Force on Haiti, he led the successful three-year fight which restored the democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Owens was a legislator's legislator. Major Owens touched so many lives in so many helpful ways that he will always be remembered by people he served so ably and selfless for more than thirty years. H.R. 5238 will honor the memory of this great man by enshrining his legacy on a public building in his district. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5238, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1234 Saint Johns Place in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Major Robert Odell Owens Post Office.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the 49th anniversary of the first Apollo Moon landing. On July 20, 1969, the spaceship was a long way from home. Blasting off from Cape Kennedy four days prior, Commander Neil Armstrong, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, and Lunar Module Pilot Edwin ``Buzz'' Aldrin had been hurled from the cosmic shores of our orbit at an escape velocity of 24,200 miles per hour. With them were cameras, scientific instruments, and the now famous three-by-five foot U.S. flag to be planted on the surface of the Moon. They also carried two other U.S. flags--to be brought back and flown over the houses of Congress--the flags of the 50 States, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, the United Nations flag, as well as those of 136 foreign countries. But what they carried that fateful day was more than a collection of instruments and national symbols. They carried the faith of mankind--of going where no human had gone before. They also carried courage--not only the courage that is the absence of fear, but rather the resolute determination to fulfill the national destiny. And more than courage they carried hope--that despite the bloodshed and weapons of mass destruction that defined the Cold War, humanity could stand together with bated breath for this new, brave step into the future. On the afternoon of July 20, at 3:08 PM Eastern, more than 200,000 miles away from Earth, Aldrin and Armstrong fired the lunar module's descent engine for the first time. While Armstrong flew the landing craft, Aldrin gave him altitude readings: ``Seven hundred and fifty feet, coming down at 23 degrees . . . 700 feet, 21 down . . . 400 feet, down at nine . . . Got the shadow out there . . . 75 feet, things looking good . . . Lights on . . . Picking up some dust . . . 30 feet, 2 1/2 down . . . Faint shadow . . . Four forward. Four forward, drifting to the right a little . . . Contact light. Okay, engine stop.'' When the 68-inch probes beneath three of the spacecraft's four footpads touched down, Armstrong shut off the ship's engine. At 4:18 PM, the craft settled down at an angle of no more than four or five degrees on the right side of the Moon as seen from Earth. From Tranquility Base, Armstrong immediately radioed Mission Control: ``Houston, the Eagle has landed.'' At 10:56 PM, Armstrong put his left foot to the Moon. It was the first time in history that man has ever stepped on anything that has not existed on or originated from Earth. ``That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind,'' Armstrong radioed. Mr. Speaker, we gather here today not only to chronicle the extraordinary voyage of Apollo 11, but also to remember the efforts of thousands of America's brightest who stretched the bounds of human imagination with this accomplishment. I am tremendously proud to say Houston's very own Johnson Space Center, then named Manned Space Center, was pivotal in guiding the spaceships Columbia and Eagle to their place in history. Even after the Gemini and Apollo Missions, Houston has been the international hub of manned space flight ever since. Johnson Space Center scientists, engineers, astronauts and other staff members have been tasked with controlling flights from Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz missions through the Shuttle program and beyond. Johnson Space Center is the training base and home for our nation's astronauts and the site of Mission Control, where a talented cadre of flight controllers monitors the work of our women and men in space. Mr. Speaker, I remind this body that the American space flight program is not merely a collection of scientific achievements. I celebrate the legacy of Mary Jackson, NASA's first black female engineer who joined the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia in 1958. Her pioneering work not only contributed immensely to the success of the Mercury space program--the predecessor to Gemini and Apollo--but also to influenced the hiring and promotion of women and people of color in NASA's science, engineering, and mathematics careers. Not only African American women were involved, but also men and women of all races and trades--White, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American engineers, physicists, manufacturers, mathematicians, physicians, divers, sailors, and thousands more. Armstrong and Aldrin may have walked on the moon, but all of America was with them in spirit. I celebrate the legacy of President John Kennedy, who in 1961 in my home city of Houston declared to the world that ``We choose to go to the moon within the decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard.'' I invoke the words of astronomer and writer Carl Sagan, who eloquently wrote on the scope and audacity of the President's proclamation: ``The Moon was a metaphor for the unattainable: `You might as well ask for the Moon,' they used to say. For most of our history, we had no idea what it was. ``We would use rockets not yet designed and alloys not yet conceived, navigation and docking schemes not yet devised, in order to send a man to a world not yet explored--not even in a preliminary way, with robots--and we would bring him safely back, and we would do it before the decade was over. ``This confident pronouncement was made before any American had even achieved Earth orbit.'' To anyone who might doubt America's ability to make good on this commitment, President Kennedy said, ``this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.'' He, like the Apollo program, represented the best of America's can-do spirit; an idea of tomorrow, a relentless march toward achieving the full promise of America, and an understanding that we, the people--all of us--have a place in that future and a role to play in bringing it about. The Apollo program was certainly a pinnacle of American scientific triumph. In that summer of 1969, we decided to use technologies developed to hold humanity captive under the specter of nuclear war to capture the imagination of humanity. In that summer of 1969, we conveyed to the world an optimism about technology and an enthusiasm for the future. In that summer of 1969, we reached for the stars and three Americans--Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins--nearly had them in their grasp. But our best days are not behind us. For as long as we have been able to stand on two legs, we have been voyagers. We had emerged from the caves and come down from the trees; we conquered continents; weathered oceans; we have connected the world in no way it had ever been connected before. So you ask today, Mr. Speaker, what comes next? I urge my colleagues on this most special anniversary to continue supporting our space program, celebrate the sciences, and encourage innovation and international scientific cooperation. I ask that we work together, like that moment on July 20th, 1969, and stand together, arm in arm, to take the next small step forward--a giant leap for mankind.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 16, 2018, I was unavoidably detained attending to representation duties in district and state and was not present for Roll Call Votes 329 and 330. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On Roll Call 329, I would have voted AYE. (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 4946, designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1075 North Tustin Street in Orange, California, as the ``Specialist Trevor A. Win'E Post Office.'') On Roll Call 330, I would have voted AYE. (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 4406, designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 511 East Walnut Street in Columbia, Missouri, as the ``Spc. Sterling William Wyatt Post Office Building.'')

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2345, the ``National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act,'' which provides resources to improve suicide hotlines in the United States. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we address the public heath crisis of suicide in the United States. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States--each year, 44,965 Americans die by suicide, more than half by firearm. On average, 123 Americans commit suicide each day. The 2016 annual age-adjusted suicide rate in my state of Texas was 12.57 per 100,000 individuals, which was similar to the national average for that year. However, there has been a steady increase in suicides in the decade since 2007, when the suicide rate was 10.48 per 100,000. Suicides in Texas have increased by 23 percent over the past 15 years. The steady increase coincides with new data that names suicide as the second leading cause of death among people ages 10-34 in America. Even more alarming are rates of suicide among our veterans--those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and deserve protection tantamount to their service. According to a Veterans Affairs study released last year, risk for suicide was 22 percent higher among veterans when compared to U.S. non- veteran adults. After adjusting for differences in age, risk for suicide was 19 percent higher among male veterans when compared to U.S. non-veteran adult men. After adjusting for differences in age, risk for suicide was 2.5 times higher among female veterans when compared to U.S. non-veteran adult women. But the victims of suicide are more than mere statistics. They are our parents, children, siblings, and loved ones. They are our co-workers, our peers, and our servicemen and women. They deserve more. There are many organizations and individuals working tirelessly to ensure all of our fellow citizens receive the aid they need. I commend the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, a network of 161 crisis centers that provides a 24/7, toll-free hotline available to anyone in suicidal crisis or emotional distress. There are five such centers in Texas, including one in my home city of Houston. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline reports that it experienced an increase of 100 percent in calls between 2014 and 2017, revealing just how prevalent suicide has become. The helpline answered more than 2 million calls in 2017, up from approximately one million calls in 2014. In 2015 and 2016, the helpline answered more than 1.5 million calls each year. Those on the front lines of the suicide prevention efforts deserve more help. H.R. 2345, the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act, would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to coordinate with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and consult with the Department of Veterans Affairs for suicide prevention efforts. The Act would lead to the examination of the feasibility of designating a three-digit dialing code for a national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system. Further, the Act directs the FCC to study and report to Congress on the effectiveness of the current National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, including how well it addresses the needs of veterans. Mr. Speaker, our citizens and our suicide prevention centers deserve decisive action against suicide. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 2345 to reduce the incidence of suicides in America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 959, the Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act of 2018. It is undeniable that nurses play a critical role in our society's function, as they are trusted healthcare professionals who are the heart and soul of the healthcare system. H.R. 959 amends the Public Health Service Act by extending support for nursing workforce programs and grants through the fiscal year 2022. This bill will reauthorize the Title VIII nursing workforce development programs. Further, eligibility for advanced nursing education grants will be expanded to include education programs for clinical nurse leaders and all combined registered nurse and graduate degree programs. The Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act bolsters nursing education at all levels, strengthens nursing education and funds institutions educating nurses to practice in rural and medically underserved communities. For nearly six decades, the nursing workforce development programs have helped fortify the workforce by increasing the number of students, faculty, and practicing nurses. Unfortunately, health inequities, inflated costs, and poor health care outcomes are intensifying because of today's shortfall of appropriately prepared licensed vocational/practical nurses (LVNs/ LPNs), registered nurses (RNs), advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and nurse faculty. This trend must be ameliorated, as the importance of nurses cannot be understated. Nurses are extremely vital components to quality healthcare and patient education. Nurses are the primary professionals delivering quality health care in the nation, as there are over 4.2 million Registered Nurses in practice today. Moreover, the nurse workforce is expected to continue to grow, due to the current technological advancements for treatments, preventive care needs, and the rising demand from new health reform enrollments. It is imperative that the nursing shortage in society be eliminated, as the need for qualified, experienced nurses is rising and will continue to do so. Insufficient federal investments in nursing education, training, and the overall workforce will only be a detriment to our nation's quality of healthcare. H.R. 959 ensures that nursing workforce development programs will continue to address the specific needs of the nursing and nurse faculty workforce as well as patients in our communities. By modernizing the current nursing workforce development programs, through technical training and further financial funding, nurses will be able to fulfill the needs of their patients at the highest level. Further funding and training for nurses at all levels ensures that all types and levels of nurses have concrete training and are able to deliver high quality healthcare. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 959, which will strengthen the future of nursing and the health of the nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5954, the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018, which amends title 18 of the United States Code to clarify the meaning of the terms ``act of war'' and ``blocked asset.'' Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we correctly classify terrorist activities. H.R. 5954 (1) clarifies ambiguities in the Anti-terrorism Act of 1992 (ATA's) ``act of war'' exception that allow designated foreign terrorists and their supporters to avoid liability; (2) closes a loophole that prevents victims of narco-terrorism from enforcing their judgments against terrorist assets that have been blocked by the Treasury Department; and (3) addresses lower court decisions that have allowed entities that sponsor terrorist activity against U.S. nationals overseas to avoid the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. This will amend the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) to make it easier for plaintiffs to pursue claims under that statute. H.R. 5954 has three principal provisions. First, it would clarify and narrow the ``act of war'' exception to liability under the ATA. Second, the bill would provide that ATA plaintiffs may reach the assets of a defendant That have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act to satisfy an ATA judgment. Third, H.R. 5954 would establish that for purposes of any ATA civil action, a defendant is ``deemed to have consented'' to personal jurisdiction in such civil action regardless of when the act of international terrorism at issue took place if the defendant accepted U.S. foreign assistance funds or, in certain circumstances, the defendant maintains an office or other facilities within U.S. jurisdiction. H.R. 5954 legislation is necessary to allow injured persons to pursue their claims and I offer my support. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5954.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, there are three items that I think are important for our colleagues. A number of Members traveled to Texas to physically assess where we were in the reunification of these children and their families. Let me just say that those who are tasked with trying to do this dastardly, difficult task are putting their best foot forward, but they are dealing with a policy that is broken and chaotic. I witnessed the attempt to reunify families. There were about 20 children in the room, and we witnessed four reunifications, and each of us would have our heart broken, because children are still in shock, some didn't recognize their parents. I believe that this is a chaotic system that this administration must fix immediately. I also want to bring to the attention of my colleagues about the Medicare payments to doctors, unequal payments. I am absolutely opposed. Give doctors a fair assessment of their treatment. And, finally, do we realize, Mr. Speaker, that those immigrants who joined the military are now being kicked out? Do we have any heart? They have sacrificed their lives to wear the uniform. We need to stand up against it, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my colleagues in unequivocally condemning the President's gross assault on the independence of the federal judiciary by stacking the federal courts with unqualified nominees. Since his inauguration a year and six months ago, the President and his supporters in the Senate have proceeded at breakneck speed to nominate ideological, often-unqualified candidates. In his first 330 days in office, the President had won confirmation for 12 of his appeals court nominees--the most in an administration's first year since creation of the circuit court system in 1891. The President's appellate nominees were approved by the Senate in an average of just 20 days after being voted out of the committee--which is eight times faster than President Obama's nominees. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I am concerned by the pervasive lack of oversight and partisanship that has poisoned our judiciary far more than the collection of highly publicized incidents would have us believe. We must remember that the judiciary abuses of this Administration are the continuation of the shameless partisanship of Senate Republicans first began with the theft of the seat of Judge Merrick Garland. Judge Garland had long been considered a prime prospect for the high court, serving as chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit--a frequent source of justices that is sometimes called the ``little Supreme Court.'' Widely regarded as a moderate, Judge Garland had been praised in the past by many Republicans, including influential senators such as Orrin Hatch of Utah. But even before President Obama had named Judge Garland, and in fact only hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared in February 2016 that any appointment by the sitting president would be null and void. Senator McConnell foreclosed any consideration of a nominee for the vacancy until after the 2016 election, nearly a year away. Mr. Speaker, Supreme Court picks have often been controversial. There have been contentious hearings and floor debates and contested votes. But never has a nominee been ignored entirely, as if no vacancy existed. A federal lawsuit was filed to compel Senator McConnell to hold a vote on Judge Garland, but it was dismissed because the plaintiff lacked stand-ins. This president has used the levers of his office to continue to divide, rather than unite. When confronted with a replacement to the Supreme Court's swing vote, the President has chosen an ideologue and a foot soldier of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. To be sure, Brett Kavanaugh has acceptable credentials and has enjoyed an undistinguished tenure as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But, it is not his credentials or his pedigree which is worrisome. Rather, throughout his entire career--as a deputy in the right-wing's crusade against President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, as a political operative fighting to prevent the recount in Florida in 2000, which paved the way for the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, and thereafter a decade as a stalwart conservative on the country's most important federal appellate court--Brett Kavanaugh has used his legal acumen in the service of decidedly and uncompromisingly conservative causes. Instead of ensuring that the court will protect the rights of minorities, women, children, and society's most vulnerable, the President has chosen to politicize our halls of justice. This President has used his Constitutional powers to push down on the scales of lady justice. Both of the President's Supreme Court appointees--Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh--have drawn withering criticism from respected organizations across the nation. Marc Morial, the president of the National Urban League, the oldest and largest community-based nonpartisan civil rights organization of its kind, condemned Neil Gorsuch's nomination and the regression of the Supreme Court on civil rights issues. More recently, the National Urban League, National Action Network, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense Fund & National Coalition on Black Civic Participation urged citizens to contact Senators to delay confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonprofit formed in 1963 at the request of President Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services addressing racial discrimination, explicitly denounced Kavanaugh's nomination. President and executive director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke remarked that in this critical time for civil rights protections under attack by the administration, ``it would be an abdication of [the Senate's] constitutional responsibility to merely rubber stamp Kavanaugh's nomination'' on partisan grounds. Rev. Al Sharpton, civil rights leader and President of National Action Network (NAN), released the following statement following President Donald Trump's announcement of the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh: Some will pass this off as a middle of the road pick. Don't be fooled. On every issue, Kavanaugh has proven to be an ideologue who will ignore our rights . . . This is a fight for the soul of our country, and we at National Action Network call on the Senate to stop Kavanaugh's nomination at any cost--his confirmation would be a disastrous attack on basic human rights. The NAACP--with its cherished heritage of struggling for fair-minded justice, including when it was instrumental in defeating a Herbert Hoover nominee to the Supreme Court, John Parker--characterized the Kavanaugh nomination as an effort to ``re-make the Court in President Trump's own image.'' Fatima Goss Graves, President and CEO of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) expressed strong concern that Kavanaugh's nomination could put women's health, equality, dignity, and even lives on the line: ``it will shift the balance of the Court, and could roll back rights for an entire generation.'' The backlash has not only to do with the abandonment of the pursuit of justice for blatant partisanship, but also the flagrant breach of protocol in nominating Kavanaugh. Usually, the White House Counsel's office maintains a list of potential nominees on hand, along with some basic information about them, long before an opening appears. An informal working group is assembled from several sections of the White House, including not just the counsel's office but legislative affairs, the vice president's office, the chief of staff, and the Attorney General. Congressional leaders from both parties are consulted, as well: GOP strategist Ken Duberstein, who helped shepherd half a dozen Supreme Court nominees, said in an interview that it is critical the administration reaches out to both parties on Capitol Hill, as ``there has to be some consultation, on both sides of the aisle, coming from the White House.'' Instead of this time-honored, bipartisan process, the President has relied heavily on the Federalist Society--a nationwide organization of conservative lawyers that openly seeks to ``reorder priorities within the legal system to place a premium on conservative values.'' Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, went as far as to take leave from the Society to construct a list of nominees for the President: granting such unprecedented access to an unashamedly partisan organization is a departure from convention. This approach--partisanship above justice; loyalty above protocol-- should be concerning and insulting to every American whose civil liberties are at stake. But more disturbing than partisanship in judicial nominations is the deliberate appointment of unqualified candidates. Thomas Farr, the Raleigh attorney nominated for a judicial appointment to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, received the wholehearted support of the President and North Carolina's two U.S. senators, while two qualified African- American women could not even get a hearing. Farr has been the lead attorney in a series of recent legislative efforts to suppress political participation by African Americans in the state. In 2010, Farr advised the General Assembly in what federal courts later termed a ``racial gerrymander'' of North Carolina House, Senate and U.S. Congressional districts. In separate lawsuits, each redistricting plan was proven to have intentionally discriminated against African-American voters. In 2013, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a bill that shortened early voting, required voters to present government-issued IDs and eliminated same-day voter registration and out-of-precinct voting--all of which are forms of marginalization and voter suppression. Farr advised the legislature on the bill and then became lead counsel in a three-year battle to defend it. Federal courts ruled the law unconstitutional and an attempt to disenfranchise African-American voters ``with almost surgical precision.'' Farr began his notorious in voter suppression and race-baiting career as a campaign aide to Senator Jesse Helms, who entered public life in campaigns that urged ``White People Wake Up'' and smeared the University of North Carolina as ``the University of Negroes and Communists.'' Helms was infamous for his diatribes against ``Negro hoodlums'' and ``forced integration,'' and for touting the ``purely scientific statistical evidence of natural racial distinction in group intellect.'' Helms became the state's most vociferous opponent of the civil rights movement, which, as late as 2005, Helms railed had ``ripped away at the customs and institutions people cared about.'' During Farr's time on the campaign, the Helms Campaign Committee sent more than 105,000 post cards to African Americans falsely warning that they were ineligible to vote and could be arrested for voter fraud if they appeared at the polls. Farr denied having any knowledge of this effort, but a former Department of Justice official said the Helms disciple ``absolutely'' was involved in this and earlier illegal voter suppression tricks that the campaign described as ``ballot security efforts.'' A 1992 consent decree prohibited the campaign from tactics ``to intimidate, threaten, coerce, deter, or otherwise interfere with a qualified voter's exercise of the franchise''--and Thomas Farr signed the decree. More than 20 years later, during Farr's defense of the election law that the Fourth District Court ruled targeted African-American voters ``with almost surgical precision,'' the judge in Winston-Salem asked Farr, ``Why don't y'all want people to vote?'' A track record that continues to raise this question should prevent anyone from being appointed to the federal bench. But the problem is compounded by the fact that Farr would preside over the Eastern District, which contains a majority of the state's counties with the highest percentages of African-American residents. Despite being home to North Carolina's ``Black Belt,'' the Eastern District has never had an African-American judge in its nearly century and half of existence. Senator Burr says Farr will ``serve North Carolina well,'' and Senator Tillis--a supporter of the massive voter suppression and racialized redistricting that allowed Republicans to take a super majority in the state legislature--calls the President's nominee ``impeccably qualified.'' In doing so while blocking the hearings of May-Parker and Timmons- Goodson, these Senators insist North Carolina be revealed as backward- looking and bitter during nationally televised Senate hearings for a morally stained and unrepentant figure like Thomas Farr. Being a conservative is not the same thing as spending almost 40 years fighting to block full citizenship for all Americans. This nomination is not just about what Thomas Farr stands for--it is about what America stands for. Some nominations have been entirely inconsiderate of any standards of qualification that judicial nominees would otherwise be subject to. Matthew Petersen, a Trump nominee to a lifetime appointment on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, withdrew from consideration for the seat in December 2017 days after a video clip showed him unable to answer basic questions about legal procedure. Petersen, a graduate of the University of Virginia Law School, was a member of the Federal Election Commission since 2008 but had no trial experience. His only connection to the Trump Administration was that his tenure on the FEC overlapped with that of White House counsel Don McGahn for about five years. Petersen was one of three judicial nominees picked by President Trump to have withdrawn in that week amid criticism about their qualifications. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley told the White House to ``reconsider'' the nominations of the other two nominees, both of whom were reported to have endorsed positions or groups that embrace discrimination. A day later, both nominations were pulled. This gross disregard for competence is inconceivable in any profession, much less our government. One of the two withdrawn for discrimination was Brett Talley. Talley had been rated ``unanimously unqualified'' for the post by the American Bar Association after an evaluation that questioned his experience. Talley had never argued a case, or even a motion, in federal court, he testified. Mr. Talley nevertheless won preliminary approval from the Judiciary Committee's Republican majority to be a judge. Even after Talley's nomination advanced through the Senate Judiciary Committee on an 11-9 party-line vote, media reports and good government groups cast doubt on his credentials for the spot on the U.S. District Court in Alabama. As he was awaiting a Senate floor vote, it emerged that Mr. Talley had not disclosed that he was married to White House Counsel Don McGahn's chief of staff. It was further publicized that he had failed to disclose that he had apparently written thousands of pseudonymous posts on a University of Alabama sports fan website, including one defending the early Ku Klux Klan. Talley's withdrawal is celebrated as a case in which civic awareness and activism by various groups from media to good governance organizations pressured the government to do the right thing. One such organization that is critical to safeguarding fairness of justice in our courtrooms is the American Bar Association, which gave Talley the ``unanimously unqualified'' rating. Since 1953, this venerable legal organization has played a critical, behind-the-scenes role in assessing judicial nominees and their fitness to serve on the bench. By the end of President Trump's first year, the ABA deemed at least four of Trump's judicial nominees ``not qualified.'' But with the ABA emerging as a major stumbling block in President Trump's effort to transform the courts, our colleagues in the GOP accused the nonpartisan group of holding a liberal slant and is seeking to sideline it. Instead of being equally concerned of the quality of judicial nominees put forth by this Administration, our colleagues chose to ignore the ABA and discredit the century-old group. ABA President Hilarie Bass said the group is a ``nonpartisan organization that has focused on legal issues and not politics'' and that it has vetted thousands of judicial nominees ``fairly and in a nonpartisan fashion'' under both Republican and Democratic administrations. However, our colleagues are engaged in a desperate charge against factual truth itself. ``The ABA's record on judicial nominations has been highly questionable,'' said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, ``it has demonstrated over past decades repeatedly partisan interests and ideological interests.'' Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee and is a vocal GOP critic of Trump, added: ``Not a big fan of the ABA.'' ``It's blatantly political,'' Flake said. ``Often. Not always.'' In a shift from the Obama Administration and a return to the policy of President George W. Bush, the administration decided earlier this year not to allow the ABA to review potential candidates before they were nominated. Trump officials are abandoning the practice so Republicans can push through younger, conservative attorneys who may not have as much--if any--experience to a lifetime position on the bench. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in opposition of the Trump Administration's misguided and foolish judicial nominations. I stand today as a woman, who fears for my fellow woman's right to choose. I stand today as a granddaughter of immigrants, who recognizes the value of immigration to our, society and national identity. I stand today as an African American, who celebrates the progress our community has made in expanding civil rights in our nation, but recognizes the struggle yet left ahead. I stand today as a mother and grandmother, who is determined to hold our courts accountable to safeguarding our nation's civil liberties for generations to come. I stand today as an American, because a judiciary that dispenses evenhanded justice is what defines who we are and what we stand for. Mr. Speaker, fellow members of Congress, let us be unequivocally clear that it is our responsibility and our high call of service to our fellow citizens to defend the rule of law and preserve our courts as the bastion of justice in our nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect corrective actions by this body and the other body, and so I rise today to reinforce the importance of the translators' notes as it relates to the meeting between the President of the United States and President Putin. If there is anything more important for the American people, it is to know whether we are safe, whether our military is safe, and whether we are secure. Secondarily, I am so disturbed that there is some thought of providing our public servants--Ambassador McFaul's name was mentioned as being an exchange target, if you will, for President Putin to play with. I will be introducing legislation to protect all our ambassadors from foreign nations that may desire to undermine their leadership here in the United States. Also, I am intending to announce next week my introduction of a temporary protective status to help those Central Americans and others who this administration has precipitously taken away their TPS and jeopardized them in 2018. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must reunite the children, and we must do it now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, viewing Monday's display in Helsinki as a devastating manner is not exaggeration. It is not hyperbole. It is not exaggerating. Frankly, I think it is important for the Congress to adhere to its responsibilities in Article I, which indicates that all legislative powers herein are vested in this Congress. We must do our job on behalf of the American people. So let me read: ``President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you, sir, is: Who do you believe?'' This is a reporter from the AP. ``My second question is: Would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin--would you denounce what happened in 2016, and would you warn him to never do it again?'' The answer of the President of the United States: ``So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee? I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months, and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server, and what is the server saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. ``My people came to me. Dan Coats came to me, and some others, and they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be. ``But I really do want to see the server. But I have confidence in both parties. I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server.'' He goes on to say: So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. And what he did is an incredible offer. He offered to have his people working with our people. Thank you. In response, Senator John McCain, a POW, said these words: ``Today's press conferences in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American President in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump's naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.'' ``President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seem to be speaking from the same script, as the President made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.'' Let me remind you that the question of the reporter was: My first question to you, sir, is, who do you believe, Mr. President? My second question is: Would you now, with the world watching, tell President Putin would you denounce what happened in 2016? It is clear that the Russians invaded and altered the election of 2016. It has been stated by our intelligence community, Director Coats, that at least they invaded and impacted and that they are doing it now. It is time for the Congress to ask or subpoena the translator's notes. It is time for us to have a detailed relaying to the Congress, in a classified manner, what were the contents, what were the discussions, what were the agenda items, what was said in the meeting singularly by our President and President Putin. Then we must pass legislation for extreme sanctions on anyone that even thinks of interfering with the elections of 2018 and those who interfered with 2016. Finally, I believe it is important for a full-throated apology of the White House to the intelligence community and the American people. I remind you that I do not stand here singularly by myself. I stand here standing on a constitutional democracy which is the United States of America. Article I powers of this Congress is that we must act. We cannot correct it with a typographical correction--wouldn't over would. The reporter directly asked: Who do you believe? It was never answered that it was the American people in the intelligence community, Mr. Speaker. It was indicated that Mr. Putin gave a strong response of denial, and it was implied in that, that I believe Mr. Putin, and I am not going to answer the question to say that I believe my intelligence community. Therefore, I would indicate it is time for the Congress to act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to eliminate the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership, or programs, that are for the reforestation of urban areas. In fact, I celebrate and support the increase in funding. This amendment is particularly helpful, I hope, to create the legislative history of the importance of the urban reforestation program. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member as well as the chairman of this committee for recognizing the importance of urban reforestation. This amendment emphasizes the importance of the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership in urban forests and preserves our ability to return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children. I have offered similar amendments because I want an ongoing creation of legislative history to ensure that this program is kept. In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all of our urban trees, a loss of over 600 million trees. Eighty percent of the American population lives in dense quarters of the city. Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to concrete areas that can help remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars in stormwater management costs. I have certainly seen the devastation of droughts right in large cities. In particular, Houston, a couple years ago, lost many, many trees in a severe drought that we experienced over the summer. It took many community investors--when I say that, nonprofits--and Federal dollars to restore green life to Houston. We know that asthma is on the rise. In people below the Federal poverty threshold, we see asthma increasing. Asthma comes when children have to be subjected to polluted air. Some of the reasons individuals at lower income may have increased risk of asthma are increased exposure to indoor and outdoor pollutants, cigarette smoking, secondhand smoke exposure, and nearby industrial pollutants and highway traffic. The good news is that trees provide the source of oxygen that is so necessary, and it comes about through a scientific process that I will discuss a little bit later. We have a headline here from Science Daily that says: ``Cities and Communities in the U.S. Losing 36 Million Trees a Year.'' And then another headline: ``Researchers Suggest Reforestation Around Urban Areas to Reduce Ozone Levels,'' which enhances, creates, makes worse the asthma that many of our children suffer from. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to Division A of H.R. 6147, the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and to commend Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their leadership in shepherding this bill through the legislative process. Among other agencies, this legislation funds the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution, which operates our national museums including the National Zoo. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important message from the Congress of the United States. The Jackson Lee Amendment emphasizes the importance of Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships and urban forests, and preserves our ability to return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children. Similar amendments were offered and accepted in the Interior and Environment Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Year 2018 (H.R. 3354), Fiscal Year 2017 (H.R. 5538), Fiscal Year 2016 (H.R. 2822), Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 2643), and Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5386), and were adopted by voice vote. Mr. Chair, surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious danger. In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our urban trees--a loss of over 600 million trees. Eighty percent of the American population lives in the dense quarters of a city. Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete area that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars in storm water management costs. I have certainly seen neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban reforestation. In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real estate. Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban sprawl and deterioration. Mr. Chair, a real commitment to enhancing our environment involves both the protection of existing natural resources and active support for restoration and improvement projects. Several years ago, American Forests, a leading conservation group, estimated that the tree cover lost in the greater Washington metropolitan area from 1973 to 1997 resulted in an additional 540 million cubic feet of storm water runoff annually, which would have taken more than $1 billion in storm water control facilities to manage. Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen. People breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. A typical person consumes about 38 pounds of oxygen per year. A healthy tree, say a 32 ft tall ash tree, can produce about 260 lb of oxygen annually--two trees supply the oxygen needs of a person for a year. Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and pollen with their leaves. A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 pounds of the small particles and gases of air pollution. Trees help combat the effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels that is causing our atmosphere to ``heat up.'' Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt, concrete and metal surfaces. Buildings and paving in city centers create a heat-island effect. A mature tree canopy reduces air temperatures by about 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit. A 25 foot tree reduces annual heating and cooling costs of a typical residence by 8 to 12 percent, producing an average annual savings of $120 per American household. Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds, and reduce annual energy use for home heating by 4-22 percent. Mr. Chair, trees play a vital role in making our cities more sustainable and more livable. The Jackson Lee Amendment simply provides for continued support to programs like Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships that reforest our urban areas. For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee Amendment and thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together this legislation. [From Science Daily, Apr. 18, 2018] Cities and Communities in the US Losing 36 Million Trees a Year Source: USDA Forest Service--Northern Research Station Summary: Nationally, urban/community tree cover declined from 42.9 percent to 42.2 percent between 2009-2014. This translates to losing an estimated 36 million trees or approximately 175,000 acres of tree cover annually. Scientists with the USDA Forest Service estimate that between 2009 and 2014, tree cover in the Nation's urban/ community areas declined by 0.7 percent, which translates to losing an estimated 36 million trees or approximately 175,000 acres of tree cover annually. Pavement and other impervious cover increased at a rate of about 167,000 acres a year during the same period, according to research by USDA Forest Service scientists. Nationally, urban/community tree cover declined from 42.9 percent to 42.2 percent. Twenty-three states had a statistically significant decrease in tree cover, with a total of 45 states showing a net decline. Trees improve air and water quality, reduce summer energy costs by cooling homes, reduce noise, mitigate runoff and flooding, and enhance human health and well-being, making them important to human health and urban and community infrastructure. The annual benefits derived from U.S. urban forests due to air pollution removal, carbon sequestration, and lowered building energy use and consequent altered power plant emissions are estimated at $18 billion. The study by Dave Nowak and Eric Greenfield of the USDA Forest Service's Northern Research Station, ``Declining urban and community tree cover in the United States,'' was published in the journal Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. A table showing tree cover and impervious cover change by state is available at: https://www.nrs.fsis.fed.us/news/ release/resources/cities-communities-losing-tree-cover/ ``Urban forests are a vital part of the nation's landscape,'' said Tony Ferguson, Director of the Forest Service's Northern Research Station and the Forest Products Laboratory. ``Forest Service research puts knowledge and tools into the hands of urban forest managers that supports stewardship and the wise allocation of resources.'' States or districts with the greatest annual net percent loss in urban/community tree cover were Rhode Island and the District of Columbia (minus 0.44 percent), Georgia (minus 0.40 percent), and Alabama and Nebraska (minus 0.32 percent each). States with the greatest annual net loss in tree cover were Georgia (minus 18,830 acre/year), Florida (minus 18,060 acre/year) and Alabama (minus 12,890 acre/year). Three states--Mississippi, Montana and New Mexico--had slight, nonsignificant increases in urban/community tree cover. Nationally, Maine has the highest percent tree cover in urban/community areas with 68 percent tree cover. At 10 percent tree cover, North Dakota ranked as having the lowest percent urban/community tree cover. ``Urban forests are an important resource,'' said Nowak. ``Urban foresters, planners and decision-makers need to understand trends in urban forests so they can develop and maintain sufficient levels of tree cover--and the accompanying forest benefits--for current and future generations of citizens.'' As of 2010, urban land occupied 3 percent, or 68 million acres, of the United States, while urban/community land occupied just over 6 percent of the United States, or 141 million acres. Overall, urban/community impervious cover had a statistically significant increase from 14.5 percent to 15.1 percent (an increase of o.6 percent), States with the greatest annual net percent increase in impervious cover were Delaware (0.28 percent), Iowa (0.26 percent), and Colorado, Kansas and Ohio (0.24 percent each). States with the greatest annual net increase in impervious cover were Texas (17,590 acre/year), Florida (13,900 acre/year) and Ohio (8,670 acre/ year).