Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3801, the Employer Reporting Improvement Act. This bill streamlines reporting requirements for small businesses when it comes to health insurance coverage information. This bill will reduce administrative burdens and make it easier for businesses to comply with the Affordable Care Act. More specifically, it permits employers to electronically file certain documents related to employees' health coverage if the employee has previously agreed to electronic statements. The bill further streamlines reporting by allowing employers the option to use covered individuals' full name and date of birth if the employer is unable to collect the covered individuals' taxpayer identification number. Currently, small businesses can be left in limbo by the IRS, sometimes for years, without knowing whether they correctly filed their health insurance coverage information. The Employer Reporting Improvement Act reins in the IRS' ability to penalize American small businesses and gives them peace of mind that they won't be unfairly hit with a penalty. Thanks to these streamlined procedures, small businesses will now have more time to focus on running their business, providing opportunities for their employees, expanding their business, and serving their customers. In my home district of Houston, nearly 97 percent of the region's businesses are considered small businesses. These small businesses employ 44 percent of the region's workforce, over 1.2 million employees across the city of Houston. These small businesses continue to rise as over 150,000 new business applications were filed across Houston last year. The city ranks 10th nationally in new businesses per capita and these businesses continue to drive the city's economic growth upwards. Further, nearly 35 percent of these small businesses with 50 or fewer employees are minority-owned and Houston ranks 5th in the nation for minority entrepreneurship. Small businesses are not only vital for Houston, but for our entire nation. Across America, small businesses account for over fifty-nine million jobs, constituting nearly half of the national workforce. Overall, they generate one third of all U.S. business revenue, approximately 13.7 trillion dollars annually. This bill helps to relieve the burdens of complex paperwork and uncertainty on these small businesses and best equips them for success in Houston and across the nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3801 and in supporting small businesses by streamlining reporting processes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3797, the Paperwork Burden Reduction Act. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an alternative process for providing individuals with certain health insurance coverage statements. H.R. 3797 allows American workers to access health insurance tax forms online, rather than mailing this form in excess to American households. While only 1.4 percent of American workers and their families need this form, it gets mailed to millions each year, wasting taxpayer resources, and creating more work for small businesses. This bill recognizes that more Americans than ever fill out their tax returns online and allows them to access this health insurance tax form online as well. This bill saves small businesses owners time and money by relieving them of mailing excess copies of outdated paperwork. As a result, small businesses will now have more time to focus on running their business, providing opportunities for their employees, expanding their business, and serving their customers. In my home district of Houston, nearly 97 percent of the region's businesses are considered small businesses. These small businesses employ 44 percent of the region's workforce, over 1.2 million employees across the city of Houston. These small businesses continue to rise as over 150,000 new business applications were filed across Houston last year. The city ranks 10th nationally in new businesses per capita and these businesses continue to drive the city's economic growth upwards. Further, nearly 35 percent of these small businesses with 50 or fewer employees are minority-owned and Houston ranks 5th in the nation for minority entrepreneurship. Small businesses are not only vital for Houston, but for our entire Nation. Across America, small businesses account for over fifty-nine million jobs, constituting nearly half of the national workforce. Overall, they generate one third of all U.S. business revenue, approximately 13.7 trillion dollars annually. This bill relieves the burden of outdated paperwork on these small businesses and best equips them for success in Houston and nationwide. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3797, the Paperwork Burden Reduction Act, and the economic growth of our Nation, which is fueled by small businesses.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4004, the United States-Taiwan Initiative on 21st Century Trade First Agreement Implementation Act. This bill expresses the approval of Congress for the June 1, 2023, agreement regarding trade between the United States and Taiwan. The bill also imposes requirements on the negotiations of certain further trade agreements between the United States and Taiwan. The bill also imposes requirements on the negotiation of further agreements under the United States-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade, such as requiring the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to: (1) share any U.S. negotiating texts with Congress prior to sharing the text with Taiwan or any parties outside of the executive branch. (2) share any negotiating texts from Taiwan within three days of receipt, and (3) provide daily briefings to certain Members of Congress during negotiating rounds. A further agreement shall not take effect unless (1) the President, at least 60 days before entering into the further agreement, makes the text publicly available on a USTR website; and (2) a bill is enacted into law expressly approving the further agreement. The United States and Taiwan signed a first agreement under the U.S.- Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade, announced in June 2022. The initial 2022 agreement aimed to streamline customs procedures, help smaller businesses navigate the regulatory procedures in both markets, and prevent corruption. This agreement is not a formal free-trade agreement that regulates tariffs, but rather aims to strengthen U.S.-Taiwan trade ties amid heightened tensions. Taiwan and the United States have maintained commercial ties since 1979. Although the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we maintain a strong unofficial relationship that must continue, and H.R. 4004 will allow the United States to do such that.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 461, condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States. This bill is an absurd measure to condemn the facilities of a public elementary or secondary school that serves students to provides shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States. I believe that a comprehensive approach is needed to solving the current immigration crisis. However, using the facilities of a public elementary or secondary school to provides shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States should not be politicized, as this is humanitarian issue and failure of our broken immigration system. As a Member on the Homeland Security committee, and more specifically the Border Security and Enforcement subcommittee, I interact with those at the border and migrants frequently. As such, I think it is essential that migrants are brought and allowed into the country through legal immigration. I am a strong proponent of humanitarian aid efforts in the immigration context, from preventing the breakup of individual families as a result of a wrongful deportation to ensuring that victims of civil wars and national disasters around the globe receive a temporary protected status under the U.S. immigration laws. We should not condemn the use of public elementary or secondary schools provide shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States. I acknowledge that school are places of learning and development for students, but there are time periods when school campuses are not being used, such as during school breaks. Because of this, the space could be used for humanitarian aid purposes, such as allowing migrants to stay there while they wait for legal processing and paperwork to conclude. Other exceptions need to be reviewed, such as whether migrants could stay at schools when school is in-session, but humanitarian aid should not be overlooked in the immigration context. As a leading country on the global stage, it is our duty and responsibility to assist who we can in a legal manner. More importantly when it comes to schools in America, we should be addressing critical issues that are truly impacting our educational system--namely, the hostile state takeovers of majority-minority school districts--as is what is happening in my district with the Texas Education Agency takeover of the Houston Independent School District. State takeovers in other districts have led to school closures, layoffs, and no improvements in test scores. The vast majority of school districts that have been taken over by state agencies (TEA included) have not improved but declined. With data ranging back to the late 1980s, researchers found that most state takeovers don't translate to academic improvements. We have to stop the State from intermeddling and overstepping into our educational systems--causing further harm and damage to our communities. That is why I have called upon President Biden and the Department of Education, to investigate and take immediate action to address the recent systematic and dangerous efforts underway by state and local officials in Texas seeking to undermine and undo decades of civil rights protections and advancements in educational institutions and student populations. And so, I am here today to say that these are the issues that the American people truly care about and want us to be fighting for, for the protection and preservation of their educational rights.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak against H.R. 3564, a harmful bill which seeks to cancel recent changes made by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to the single-family mortgages' framework. First, I'd like to applaud the FHFA for their bold and courageous actions that aim to ensure equity and fairness in the mortgage pricing framework. The title of H.R. 3564 contradicts its content, because in reality, it makes mortgages more expensive for many middle-class American families. Escalating housing prices in recent years have put many families and hardworking Americans out of the bid for homeownership. The median U.S. home sales price stands at about $455,800 dollars as of the first quarter of 2023 representing a whopping 32 percent increase from 2020, just two years ago. In the last 2 to 3 years however, the average American has neither become 32 percent richer nor gained wage increase of 32 percent. Increasing amounts of homes owned by private equity and Wall Street firms, accompanied by high inflation and rising demand have contributed to these price increases. Rising rents make it even more difficult for first-time home buyers to save for a down payment. At an average cost of $455,800 for a home, middle-income American families would need to save roughly $87,500 dollars, an amount which most families simply do not have. Rather than rescinding their bold and courageous action, we should rather applaud and commend the FHFA in its rightful steps toward making mortgages more affordable for first-time homeowners and many creditworthy borrowers who simply cannot afford a 20 percent down payment. The eliminated loan level price adjustment fees would actually help these borrowers to save for their monthly mortgage payments. The upward adjustments in vacation home and investment property mortgages also help to ensure balance, equity, and fairness in the federal housing finance and pricing framework. The FHFA's actions are in the right direction and help to ensure a more equitable mortgage pricing framework that prioritizes middle class home buyers over investors and second-home owners. H.R. 3564 is an attempt to rescind the FHFA's more equitable pricing framework and instead require increased fees for many first-time home buyers and those who do not have a 20 percent down payment. H.R. 3564 will raise the cost of homeownership and make it more expensive for first-time homebuyers and borrowers of color seeking conventional loan. The FHFA's actions are a step toward remedying this inequity and achieving fairness and equal opportunity. It is not Congress' job to set mortgage pricing fees for loans purchased by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). This is the role of the government regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as we move toward the Fourth of July, after celebrating and commemorating Juneteenth, I want to talk a bit about freedom. I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring my legislation, the STOP Fentanyl Now Act, to prevent the rise in the criminal selling of fentanyl and the death that comes to our children and to stop the online sales. Join me in stating to America that we will not give up on the fight against eliminating fentanyl in our streets and in our homes. Then, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to take note that a Member stood on the floor and utilized the Constitution about impeaching the President of the United States, Joe Biden. There is no basis in this Constitution for high crimes and misdemeanors. Isn't it interesting that border crossings are down, but because they disagree with immigration policies that they have helped contribute to, they want to impeach him? Finally, happy Pride Month and happy understanding that we all are created equal. The LGBTQ+ community stands tall as Americans in this Nation. Happy Pride.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and, of course, the chairwoman, as well, for their leadership. Madam Speaker, just a few minutes ago, we were on the floor discussing an impeachment of the President of the United States for protecting and doing his job for the American people. I think we fail to understand that the Statue of Liberty is still in the New York Harbor--bring your forlorn and depressed--and that this is a Nation of laws and immigrants. From the very beginning of ages, this Nation was founded by those who came from somewhere else. They crossed the waters to come. The indigenous people were here, but that was all, and certainly we know the history of slavery. I am stunned by, first, the impeachment order, if you will, attempting to impeach for differences of positions in policies. Now I come to try and understand a misconstrued, misdirected, and really painful resolution--as the gentleman from Virginia said ``nonbinding''--and it seems that what we are doing is showing dislike and contempt for children. I believe in children, and what is being done by local government is to find relief for children. Find relief. These schools in New York--I know them well--are large. They are old and large. They have many different sectors and segments that a city executive can utilize safely for children. This is about children, and for those who just made profile press conference trips to the border, I have been to the border at night, in the day, in the morning over the years. I have held babies in my arms that have gotten off buses.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have seen children wanting their parents. I have seen the Trump era of snatching children away. This is wrongheaded. This is not dangerous to the children in the schools, and our local jurisdictions should be allowed to make determined decisions in response to what is a migrant fever, if you will. However, let me add something that the government should be looking at, which is why the State of Texas has taken over the seventh largest school district, that all the parents, board members, teachers are against? Houston Independent School District is suffering. Is there anyone here or my friends on the other side of the aisle willing to address that ridiculous, ludicrous takeover undermining teachers' and parents' will? I thought we were for parents. Houston Independent School District should not be taken over, and it is a consternation in our community. Because of that, I believe we are doing the wrong thing here. The underlying bill should be opposed, and we should be standing with the people of Houston who refuse to have a takeover of a very effective school district, the Houston Independent School District. Madam Speaker, let's do the right thing on the floor and support our children. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H. Res. 461, condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for aliens who are not admitted to the United States. This resolution condemns using the facilities of a public elementary or secondary school that serves students to provides shelter for non- U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States. As a Member on the Homeland Security committee, and more specifically the Border Security and Enforcement subcommittee, I interact with those at the border and migrants frequently. I believe that a comprehensive approach is needed to solving the current immigration crisis. However, I think it is essential that migrants are brought and allowed into the country through legal immigration. I am a strong proponent of humanitarian aid efforts in the immigration context, from preventing the breakup of individual families as a result of a wrongful deportation to ensuring that victims of civil wars and national disasters around the globe receive a temporary protected status under the U.S. immigration laws. We should not condemn the use of public elementary or secondary schools provide shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States. I acknowledge that school are places of learning and development for students, but there are time periods when school campuses are not being used, such as during school breaks. Because of this, the space could be used for humanitarian aid purposes, such as allowing migrants to stay there while they wait for legal processing and paperwork to conclude. Other exceptions need to be reviewed, such as whether migrants could stay at schools when school is in-session, but humanitarian aid should not be overlooked in the immigration context. As a leading country on the global stage, it is our duty and responsibility to assist who we can in a legal manner.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the courtesies of the chairwoman and the courtesies of the ranking member because I am a recipient of student loans. As we proceed, the minimal amount that each person would get, in many instances, will be life-starting and life-igniting. This is not about deadbeat persons. This is about the excessive overburdening of our students in the 21st century who have been enrolled in schools with excessive fees and tuition. This was not bureaucrats making decisions. This was an analytic assessment of how heavy a burden it is on working persons with student debt. They were not able to make ends meet. Some were not able to purchase first homes. Some were not able to make payments on other necessities or raise their families. I am disappointed that we are at this point of trying to undo the President's thoughtful effort at giving Americans, all Americans across this country, an opportunity to continue their economic growth, to use their education in the service of others. Many of these persons are teachers. Many of these persons are from middle-class working families who are simply trying not to be in debt, and to be responsible for the obligation that they had to make in order to be, in instances, the first person that ever went to college in their family. Mr. Speaker, let me ask my colleagues to allow--in spite of court decisions, and this particular underlying motion--allow these people to begin their life and to contribute, contribute to the economic engine of this Nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. These student loans were well invested because they are now, many of them, in the workforce. I want to add another component. Sometimes in life there are hills and valleys. Many of these individuals may have had some difficulty, may have been unemployed for a period of time. If you talk to these young people, or individuals that have had this student debt who are not young people anymore, some crisis in their life prevented them from making these payments. Mr. Speaker, it topples them. It just doesn't give them a moment to breathe. It is not that they are trying to default on the United States of America or be a deadbeat. We will be better off to give them another lifeline so they can contribute to this society. That is all this effort was. It was not frivolous. It was not selecting people who didn't want to pay. There was an application process, and it is a legitimate way of responding to the outcries of Americans and young people. Let us not approve this disapproval.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for S. 30, Fiscal Year 2023 Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Authorization Act. It is always my honor to address issues related to the wellbeing of the women and men who served and continue to serve our country. As noted by the Congressional Budget Office, this bill authorizes the appropriation of $3.7 billion for fiscal year 2023 for the construction and renovation of seven major VA medical facilities for the Department of Veterans Affairs. With approximately 360,000 employees, roughly 1,600 health care facilities, 144 medical centers, and 1,232 outpatient sites, the Department of Veterans Affairs remains one of the largest and most complex agencies in the U.S. Government. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides health care to approximately 9 million veterans annually. Over the past ten years, more than 60,000 veterans have died by suicide, and 20 veterans die by suicide each day. Between 2005 and 2017, nearly 79,000 veterans killed themselves, more than the total number of troops who have died in the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined (roughly 65,000). There has never been a more urgent time than this that requires the urgent need for rebuilding the department's flailing infrastructure and resolving staffing shortage in VA medical facilities. It is equally important to keep the focus on efforts to reduce wait times and availability by specialty, adequately address the veteran suicide rate, and find lasting solutions to the overall healthcare needs of our veterans. It is therefore appropriate for this House to vote for this bill to ensure that the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) major medical facilities receive the needed attention that they deserve to meet the health needs of our veterans. This bill does not only help with furnishing inpatient and outpatient care and treatment of veterans and their dependents, but also supports the care and treatment in non-VA facilities; community-based outpatient clinics, medical supplies, and equipment. This bill will benefit the operations of VA medical centers (VAMCs) and other medical facilities, such as community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs), Vet Centers, and other veteran-related community care programs. It will also benefit many VA medical facility services like the Community Care Program (VCCP), the Camp Lejeune Family Member Program (CLFMP), CHAMPVA, the Foreign Medical Program (FMP), the Children of Women Vietnam Veterans Health Care Benefits Program (CWVV), and the Indian Health Service (IHS)/Tribal Health Programs (THP) Reimbursement Agreements Program. I applaud President Biden's administration for keeping its promise to adopt a comprehensive public health and crisis sector approach to address suicide among veterans, service members, and their families within his first 200 days in office. Since taking office, the Biden administration has made commendable progress in filling the department's 50,000 empty positions especially in ways that reflect the diversity that exists within the active-duty and veteran community. This bill helps to build on that progress by addressing the department's aging infrastructure, which has been in place for roughly 58 years.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1606, the Veteran Entrepreneurship Training Act. This bipartisan legislation provides statutory authority for the Boots to Business Program, which provides entrepreneurship training to individuals including veterans and active members of the Armed Forces, to be administered by the Small Business Administration. The Boots to Business program provides entrepreneurship education and training, offering a general understanding of entrepreneurship and relevant business ownership principles. Through this program, veterans learn about the abilities, information, and tools required to start a business, such as how to create a business plan and the resources offered by the Small Business Administration. Active-Duty Service members, including National Guard and Reserves, Veterans, and their spouses are eligible to participate in the program. Our veterans dedicated their lives to protecting the freedom of all Americans and it is critical that they are armed with the tools, resources, and training to be successful as they return to civilian life. This bill plays an important role in smoothing that transition and constitutes an important step in preparing veterans to thrive in the private sector. Notably, many of the same skills that are fundamental in entrepreneurship and business ownership have already been developed in veterans through their time in the military, including leadership, problem solving, and discipline. This program will help veterans leverage those skill sets towards career success in civilian life. I am proud to say that Houston is home to over 280,000 veterans and is ranked 10th nationally for the newest businesses per capita. This bill will help connect Houston's veterans with the wealth of opportunities for small business entrepreneurship across the city. Further, this bill will help address the ongoing crisis of homelessness among America's veterans on a national scale. Today, more than 1 in 10 people experiencing homelessness are veterans who fearlessly and selflessly served our Nation. They have kept their promise to serve our Nation; they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all love. We must now ensure that we keep our promises to our veterans and provide them with the support they deserve as they pursue success in civilian life. This bill is an important part of that effort. By providing entrepreneurship training and support, we can help give veterans the tools they need to get back on their feet and achieve greater financial security. Our Nation has a proud legacy of appreciation and commitment to the men and women who have worn the uniform in defense of this country. We must be united in seeing that every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine is welcomed back with all the care and compassion this grateful Nation can bestow. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1606 and in equipping our veterans with the tools, resources, and training for their long-term success.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3672, which designates the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Indian River, Michigan as the ``Pfc. Justin T. Paton Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic.'' This bill honors Private First Class Justin T. Paton and his courageous service to our Nation. Today and every day, I stand with our Nation's veterans and their brave and selfless service in support of our freedoms. Over 280,000 of our Nation's veterans reside in the city of Houston and I am proud to fight every day for the honor, recognition, and appreciation they, and all of our Nation's veterans, deserve. Veterans have kept their promise to serve our Nation; they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all love. We must now ensure that we keep our promises to our veterans by recognizing, remembering, and honoring their service. I urge my colleagues to join me today in recognizing and honoring the service and sacrifice of Private First Class Justin Paton. This bill honors the Indian River native who valiantly served in the United States Army with the 1st Cavalry Division, Delta Company until he was killed in action by enemy fire. Private First Class Justin Paton gave his last full measure of devotion to the United States as he was killed by hostile sniper fire in Iraq in February 2007 at the age of 24. Paton served as unit leader of his Company and was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star for his selfless actions in service to a grateful Nation. As such, I rise in support of this bill, which honors his memory by designating the Department of Veterans Affairs clinic in his hometown as the ``Pfc. Justin T. Paton Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for roll call vote 273, again, with an event with my local law enforcement. It is H.R. 3672, to designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Indian River, Michigan, as the Private First Class Justin T. Paton Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic. Mr. Speaker, I ask to place my ``aye'' vote for roll call 273 in the appropriate place in the Record.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record at the appropriate time that I was unavoidably detained with an event with my local police officers and was not able to vote on the floor for H.R. 1606, Veterans Entrepreneurship Training Act of 2023, roll call vote Number 272. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, a Member stood on this floor to charge the President of the United States with high crimes and misdemeanors and that he failed to faithfully execute his duties. As a member of the Judiciary Committee having participated in several impeachments, differences in policies, differences in parties does not reflect, at any time, a cause for impeachment. Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation on a different topic to the African American Police Officers League that had an outstanding program today of giving to young people scholarships and interacting with those young people. That kind of interaction fosters good police-community relationships. Since this is gun antiviolence month, it was good for these young people to be around police officers who live in their neighborhood, went to their high schools, and care about them and their families. This interaction makes a difference. This is the new policing, and I thank the African American Police Officers League and members of the Houston Police Department for recognizing how we work with our children and how we inspire them. Mr. Speaker, I thank AAPOL for their service.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, June 2023 marks National Reunification Month, honoring those who work tirelessly to keep families together across the nation. Here we are, recognizing the individuals and continuing initiatives that support keeping families together. The topic for this year's reunification is ``Shifting Power and Reconnecting Families All Year Long.'' The three important themes during Reunification Month include: 1. The fact that we should celebrate parents and children who have successfully reunited and understand how challenging an accomplishment it may be. 2. Celebrate child welfare professionals, kin caregivers, and resource families who helped make reunification a reality for parents and children. And lastly . . . 3. Inspire parents and professionals who are currently involved in child welfare to see that Reunification Matters and Reunification Happens. It is also a good time to commit once more to supporting, enhancing, and intensifying these initiatives all year long. By definition, the child welfare system is a collection of programs and services aimed at optimizing children's well-being by ensuring their safety, establishing durability, and aiding their families. The operation and provision of child welfare services may vary from state to state, but all states are accountable for adhering to federal and state laws. And yet, the stress of involvement in the child welfare system and foster care placement instability can contribute to or exacerbate mental health problems, and a child's unmet physical and mental health requirements have been related to placement instability. I want to acknowledge that there are too many, particularly Black and African American children, unnecessarily taken from their homes and placed in foster care. Not only are child protective agencies more likely to investigate Black homes, remove their children, and place them in foster care, but Black children are prone to spend more time in foster care and are less likely to be reunified with their families. Research tells us that Black children are less likely to be reunified than White and Hispanic children, older children are less likely to be reunified and children with health or mental health issues are less likely to be reunited. In addition, more than 200,000 kids entered foster care, and 587,330 of those cases of maltreatment or neglect have been documented nationwide. Every child deserves a village of support. In Houston, there are well over 2,000 children currently in the foster care system. Texas alone response times the hotline to report child abuse, neglect, or exploitation, increased by half a minute, with callers waiting on hold an average of 5.2 minutes, since the January 2022 report. Furthermore, research on kinship care has indicated that children placed with relatives have better behavior, mental health, and well- being than children placed in non-relative foster care, and that children placed with family have higher placement stability. Older foster youth have the same needs as younger children for a safe and loving family that will support them into maturity. It is extremely unfair that youth who age out of foster care are more likely to encounter homelessness, unemployment, early parenthood, and substance abuse. That is why I congratulate the Hay Center for using Federal Block grant funds to build housing for aged out youth with wraparound services in Houston. The needs, experiences, and voices of children and youth in foster care as well as their families and aretakers need to be lifted. Everyone has a part to play in making communities and families stronger and lowering the need for foster care in a secure manner. This year commemorates the fifth anniversary of the Family First Prevention Services Act's passage. I am astounded that the passage of this law, that emphasis on the child alone was replaced with one that included the family as well. Family First made financing available for a variety of authorized evidence-based prevention-focused programs, such as those to address mental health issues, substance use disorders, and to offer parental skills-building. Family First prevention plans have been filed by 45 states including Texas and 4 tribes to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and several have already started putting them into practice. The COVID-19 pandemic brought to light the need for more innovative ways, like telehealth, to provide mental health services to children, youth, and their caretakers. Several state child welfare agencies are co-designing techniques to design with individuals and communities rather than for them. This method elevates the voices and experiences of adolescents, parents, relatives, and foster parents. The Harris County Plan of Safe Care Steering Committee is a cross- sector group of organizations from academia, child welfare, healthcare, justice, public safety, and substance use disorder prevention treatment. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services operates a ``Treatment Foster Family Care'' program to stabilize children at risk of placement in a congregate care setting or psychiatric hospital who experience emotional, behavioral, or mental health difficulties. Transforming the child welfare system will require the development of new policies, practices, and infrastructures that prioritize prevention and the well-being of children and families. As well as meaningful participation of those with lived experience in all stages of reform planning, development, and implementation. Many people find the process of receiving assistance to be unnecessarily difficult. Not to mention the overwhelmingly horrifying number of children who are placed in unlicensed homes. It is illegal to place children overnight in unlicensed facilities, but because of mounting demand, children are sleeping in such places anyway. The harm to faster children goes beyond loneliness and missed meals. It saddens me to know foster children have been subjected to physical and sexual abuse in these temporary placements. Children have gone missing while in state care and some have been groomed for sexual trafficking. CPS workers--trained for case management, not therapeutic care--have their hands tied in how to respond. We are talking about traumatized children who have been subjected to abuse and neglect. Children who are now being housed in temporary residential treatment centers or temporary group homes under the supervision of CPS staff. Placement into foster care is a significant and traumatic experience in the life of a child, and for their family. That is why we need to work to support and strengthen families and prevent unnecessary removals of children from their homes. Too often, the perspectives of children, youth, and families, have been silenced in debates about how communities may improve their approach to child and family well-being. We should all believe in hope. Hope is the belief by a family that despite the challenges they face, the strength and support of neighbors and others in the community will help them to overcome and thrive. Childhood should be some of the most beautiful moments of your life. No one person young or old should endure what many of our nation's people are experiencing. No child left behind means exactly that. Our children are the future, the past and most importantly the present. Do not take your focus off of the important and what some may deem ``touchy'' subjects, because they are the most pivotal in the end. They are all of our children and every one of us is needed to safeguard and protect them. As co-chair of the Children's Caucus, I encourage all of us to continue to dig deeper, love more and reach out to children in need. As Members of Congress, it is our duty to do even more to ensure all safeguards are in place and to uphold laws, and to create or amend laws where needed.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleagues a happy Juneteenth. I hope they will celebrate Juneteenth as we leave for this Juneteenth commemoration. H. Res. 1001, my resolution to recognize Juneteenth, June 19, was introduced on June 15, 2020. The resolution garnered 214 of my colleagues as cosponsors, and it led to the introduction of the first Juneteenth National Independence Act, my bill, H.R. 7232, on June 18, 2020. In the 117th Congress, we introduced again the Federal holiday on February 25, 2021. I was asked by Senator Markey to introduce the Senate companion to my bill in the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, that year was the golden year. That led to both Houses supporting the legislation and being signed by the President of the United States. How significant this was that General Granger made a visit to Galveston 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation to indicate to those slaves--still slaves--you are free. This is a day of jubilation. This is a day of freedom. It is a holiday for all Americans. The 12th holiday here in the United States; 38 years after the last holiday. I encourage the Nation to celebrate it. I thank Reginald Adams for a wonderful mural. I thank Representative Edwards for putting that forward in the State of Texas. Happy Juneteenth. Celebrate it. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and the principal sponsor in the House of the Juneteenth National Independence Day Federal Holiday. I stood in strong and enthusiastic support of S. 475, the Senate companion to the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act I introduced on February 25, 2021, which establishes June 19 as a federal holiday. Research by the Library of Congress looking back to the beginning of the Congress's existence as a legislative body could find no bill that sought to make Juneteenth a federal holiday, prior to the bill I introduced on June 18, 2020. I have introduced the Juneteenth resolution annually since 2013. In 2020, the resolution received 214 sponsors in the House of Representatives. This surge in support let me know that the nation was ready for a new holiday, and therefore I introduced H.R. 7232, the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act which received 158 sponsors in the 116th Congress. I applauded the U.S. Senate for passing S. 475, Juneteenth National Independence Day Act in the 117th Congress, which was a companion bill to H.R. 1320, which I introduced to make Juneteenth a federal holiday to commemorate the end of chattel slavery, America's Original Sin, and to celebrate the perseverance that has been the hallmark of the African American struggle for equality. I thank Senator Markey of Massachusetts for contacting my office with his request to introduce the Senate companion to H.R. 1320 for this Congress, and to my senior senator, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, for his steadfast support of the Juneteenth holiday over the years, and others who spearheaded this effort in the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Schumer for his support and for using his legislative skills to ensure the bill was voted on and passed. Mr. Speaker, the process that has brought us to this day has been bipartisan, bicameral, cooperative, and constructive beginning with my collaboration in the 116th Congress with former Senator Doug Jones of Alabama and Senator Cornyn of Texas to coordinate the introduction and cultivate the necessary support for the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act. That partnership has continued through the 117th Congress with the addition of Senator Markey of Massachusetts as the lead Democratic sponsor in the Senate. The bipartisan H.R. 1320, the House version of S. 475, is sponsored by 166 Members from all regions of the country, including two of my Republican colleagues from Texas, Congressman Van Taylor and Congressman Randy Weber. Mr. Speaker, now it is time for the House of Representatives to act swiftly and bring to the floor, vote on, pass the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act, and send it to the desk of President Biden for signature. With the President's signature, the federal government will join 47 states in recognizing as a holiday Juneteenth, the day that has been celebrated by African Americans for 156 years and has been called rightly as ``America's second Independence Day.'' Let me extend on behalf of all of us who have labored to pass this important legislation our deep appreciation to the House leadership, particularly Majority Leader Hoyer, for their support which paved the way for the House last year to pass by unanimous consent H. Res. 1001, the resolution I introduced recognizing Juneteenth Independence Day. As I have said many times, Juneteenth is as significant to African Americans as July 4 is to all Americans because on that day, June 19, 155 years ago, General Gordon Granger, the Commanding Officer of the District of Texas, rode into Galveston, Texas and announced the freedom of the last American slaves; belatedly freeing 250,000 slaves in Texas nearly two and a half years after Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. When General Granger read these words of General Order No. 3 set off joyous celebrations of the freedmen and women of Texas: ``The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection therefore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired laborer.'' Juneteenth thus made real to the last persons living under the system of chattel slavery, of human bondage, the prophetic words of President Abraham Lincoln delivered November 19, 1863, at Gettysburg `that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.' Juneteenth was first celebrated in the Texas state capital in 1867 under the direction of the Freedmen's Bureau and remains the oldest known celebration of slavery's demise, commemorating freedom while acknowledging the sacrifices and contributions made by courageous African Americans towards making our great nation the more conscious and accepting country that it has become. As the nation prepares to celebrate July 4th, our nation's independence day, it is a time to reflect on the accomplishments of our nation and its people. The celebration of Juneteenth followed the most devastating conflict in our country's history, in the aftermath of a civil war that pitted brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor and threatened to tear the fabric of our union apart forever that America truly became the land of the free and the home of the brave. Juneteenth honors the end of the 400 years of suffering African Americans endured under slavery and celebrates the perseverance that has been the hallmark of the African American experience in the struggle for equality. But as the poet Langston Hughes reminds us in his famous poem, ``Mother to Son,'' life in America for African Americans ``ain't been no crystal stair.'' The post-bellum period in America was marked by violence and terrorism against African Americans as they sought to make real the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. General Granger's reading of General Order No. 3 ended the remaining vestiges of the system of chattel slavery, a form of perpetual human bondage that held generations of Africans in captivity in the United States for two-hundred and forty-eight years and opened a new chapter in American history. Recognizing the importance of this date, former slaves coined the word ``Juneteenth'' to celebrate the occasion, the first of which occurred in the Texas state capital in 1867 under the direction of the Freedmen's Bureau. Juneteenth was and is a living symbol of freedom for people who did not have it. Juneteenth remains the oldest known celebration of America's freedom from slavery. It commemorates freedom while acknowledging the sacrifices and contributions made by courageous African Americans in the quest to make our more perfect. The celebration of Juneteenth followed the most devastating conflict in our country's history, in the aftermath of a civil war that pitted brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor and threatened to tear the fabric of our union apart forever that America truly became the land of the free and the home of the brave. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, ``Freedom is never free,'' and African American labor leader A. Phillip Randolph often said ``Freedom is never given. It is won.'' Truer words were never spoken. We should all recognize the power and the ironic truth of those statements, and we should pause to remember the enormous price paid by all Americans in our country's quest to realize its promise. In recent years, a number of National Juneteenth Organizations have arisen to take their place alongside older organizations--all with the mission to promote and cultivate knowledge and appreciation of African American history and culture. I am reminded that the first legislation introduced in Congress recognizing Juneteenth occurred a quarter century ago, in 1996, when H.J. Res. 195 was introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Rose Collins of Michigan and I have introduced similar legislation annually since the 109th Congress. So it has been a long road we have travelled to get to this day, even longer than the 15-year journey taken to pass the bill making the Birthday of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a national holiday. Juneteenth celebrates African American freedom, and in so doing celebrates America's history and promise, while encouraging self- development and respect for all cultures. But it must always remain a reminder to us all that liberty and freedom are precious birthrights of all Americans, which must be zealously guarded and preserved for future generations. In conclusion, I wish to take a moment to salute two of the unsung heroes who helped bring us to this day: the late Texas State Representative Al Edwards and nonagenarian Opal Lee, known affectionately as the ``Grandmother of Juneteenth.'' In 1852, Frederick Douglass famously asked: ``What to the slave is the 4th of July?'' In 2021, we can reply that it is the beginning of the American Promise that would be fulfilled and made real for all Americans, including the descendants of slaves, on June 19, 1865, ``Juneteenth Day.'' That is why we celebrate Juneteenth, and the nation joins in this celebration this weekend.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reassert my opposition to H.R. 277, the ``Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act'' and H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023.'' H.R. 277, the REINS Act, is a measure that has been offered by Republicans dating back to 2012, is and has always been a problematic bill that would restrict agency rulemaking procedures and undermine public health and safety. Because it would require both houses of Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a joint resolution of approval for any major rule before they can take effect, this bill would effectively act as a chokehold on Federal agency rulemaking. I, along with my colleagues, have attempted to address many of the ills these bills purport by offering common sense amendments that Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration. My amendment to H.R. 277, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment No. 30, would have exempted from the bill the congressional approval requirement for any proposed rule that is made to ensure the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2. Without such an amendment, the REINS Act cripples the Federal government's ability to protect our children and prioritize their safety. As it stands, this bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it comes to pressing issues of public health and safety. It is deeply troubling that REINS Act will delay the implementation of integral new public health and safety safeguards, putting our children at risk. As such, the REINS Act will ultimately fail to protect the public as it places an expertise-based process into the hands of the government, allowing the political games we have seen in the House this Congress to continue. Because of the special vulnerability of young children and the distinct threat that the implementation of the REINS Act poses to the current regulatory process, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 277. H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023'' purports to address constitutional and statutory deficiencies in the judicial review of agency rulemaking. Yet, this bill is a long-repeated effort to shift the scope and authority of judicial review of agency actions away from federal agencies by amending Section 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to ``require that courts decide all relevant questions of law, including all questions of the interpretation of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions, on a de novo basis without deference to the agency that promulgated the final rule, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute. Effectively, H.R. 288 would abolish judicial deference to agencies' statutory interpretations in federal rulemaking and create harmful and costly burdens to the administrative process. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the ability for agencies to act in times of imminent need to protect citizens. In particular, H.R. 288 would make sweeping and dangerous changes that would jeopardize the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to protect our nation in times of urgent and imminent need. My amendment to H.R. 288 listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment No. 3, would have been a simple but necessary revision that would remedy this concern by excluding from the bill cases with rules made by the Secretary of Homeland Security and pertaining to any matter of national security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand the many challenges the Department of the Homeland Security (DHS) already faces and its critically important role in preventing terror threats and keeping Americans safe. The Department is the first line of defense in protecting the nation and leading recovery efforts from all-hazards and threats which include everything from weapons of mass destruction to natural disasters. We do not need to be reminded of the heightened state of security our nation is in and the ever-increasing demands imposed upon our government agencies tasked with keeping our borders and citizens safe. Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of DHS and its ability to address growing threats and active acts of terrorism. The overall mission of DHS is too critical and its functions indispensably essential, such that it would be impugned to do anything that will slow down the process that allows DHS to do its job. Given the absence of my essential amendment and the fact that H.R. 288 would cripple Federal agency's ability to act in times of imminent need, I urge opposition to H.R. 288.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove Protection Freedom Act and H.R. 1640, the Save our Gas Stoves Act. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for protecting children and other consumers from unreasonable risk of injury or death from consumer products. The CPSC carries out its mission by investigating allegations that consumer products pose an unreasonable safety risk, working with industry to develop voluntary product safety standards, issuing, and enforcing mandatory standards on hazardous consumer products, and recalling unsafe consumer products or arranging for their repair. The CPSC has a history of protecting children and adults from safety risks across a wide range of products, including removing hazardous infant sleep products from the market, adopting corded window coverings standards to prevent strangulation of children, and working with industry to reduce the risk of fires from micro mobility devices like hoverboards and e-scooters. Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public with this legislation, which is designed to scare consumers and, unfortunately, Republicans are ignoring the reasonable steps the CPSC has taken to study and address the hazards posed to our children by gas stove emissions. Legitimate concerns have been raised about the health impact, particularly on children, of the nitrogen dioxide emitted by gas stoves. Observational studies have found that children living in households that use gas stoves are 42 percent more likely to have asthma. In December 2022, CPSC issued a recall on a specific gas stove product that was found to be a serious risk of injury or death from carbon monoxide poisoning. H.R. 1615 would prohibit CPSC from using its rulemaking authority to ban all such hazardous products to protect to Americans. As the Chairman of the CPSC explained earlier this year, the Commission does not have a proceeding to ban gas stoves but is researching gas stoves and exploring ways to address health risks. The Republicans' bill peddles the lie that the Biden Administration is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply are not on their side. H.R. 1615 will stifle scientific investigation into health hazards and create bad precedent when it comes to protecting our children from health and safety hazards. Protecting and improving the health and well-being of our children should not be a partisan issue. On a bipartisan basis, we should be encouraging the CPSC to explore all allegations that appliances or other consumer products put our children's health at risk and give the CPSC more, not fewer, tools for eliminating or mitigating safety risks they uncover. It is unconscionable to limit the CPSC's options for addressing the potential risks of gas stoves--a product found in homes across America--before the CPSC has fully explored the risks posed by gas stoves and potential solutions. Efficiency standards are not bans. Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from fulfilling its statutory obligations and finalizing an efficiency standard that will save consumers money. H.R. 1640 prohibits the Secretary of Energy from finalizing or enforcing a February 2023 proposed rule that would improve the efficiency of electric and gas stoves, ultimately saving families money on their energy bills. The Republicans' bill simply peddles the lie that the Biden Administration is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply are not on their side. DOE cannot ban gas stoves. DOE is simply proceeding with a Congressionally mandated efficiency standard. The proposed efficiency standard will save Americans money through lower energy bills while cutting harmful indoor air pollution that disproportionately impacts children's health. DOE's proposed rule is one of their statutorily required standards-- and it follows years of inaction and missed statutorily mandated standards deadlines by the Trump Administration. In the Fall of 2020, multiple organizations and states filed lawsuits asserting Trump's DOE was in violation of deadlines for the review of 25 of its energy conservation standards. This Republican bill doubles down on that legacy by obstructing DOE from doing what Congress and a court settlement have required it to do. Republicans' fearmongering over gas stoves is nothing more than a cheap political stunt designed to scare consumers and protect their fossil fuel friends. H.R. 1640 prioritizes profits for Big Oil and Gas over the health and economic well-being of everyday Americans. Efficiency standards save Americans money, while the Republicans' bill will only increase energy costs for Americans and pad the pockets of their fossil fuel friends. Republicans' scare tactics include pushing a false narrative about how ``96 percent of gas stoves on the market don't meet the proposed standard.'' This is simply not true. This deliberate fearmongering is the result of Republicans purposefully misrepresenting DOE data to serve their own political goals. The statistic Republicans are referencing comes from a DOE test of high-end models that they anticipated would not meet the standard. The test, by design, was not representative of the entire market. The truth is, nearly half of products on the market today are already in compliance with the proposed rule, including all entry level models. In a testament to just how far Republicans are willing to go to prop up their polluter friends, H.R. 1640 goes beyond an amendment offered by Rep. Palmer (R-AL) that was added to H.R. 1 by significantly limiting future DOE rulemaking. This bill does not include a sunset clause--it could forever limit DOE from taking substantive action to improve the energy efficiency of Americans' cooktops. While the Palmer Amendment would prevent DOE from moving forward with one standard related to cooktop efficiency, H.R. 1640 goes even further by amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to restrict DOE from taking similar action in the future. This bill sets a bad precedent that polluters could seek to exploit. DOE is already prohibited from banning products based on their fuel source, but H.R. 1640 adds yet another hurdle: it requires DOE to prove that a conservation standard is not likely to result in the unavailability of a product based on the fuel it consumes. This added condition could significantly weaken and slow down DOE's ability to issue future energy conservation standards. DOE's proposed energy efficiency standard for gas and electric stoves is smart, commonsense policy that would cut pollution, improve Americans' health, and lower energy bills. And it can be achieved using readily available design changes. DOE's commonsense proposal will benefit Americans' health and pocketbooks. DOE estimates the proposal will: Save consumers as much as $1.71 billion and slash nearly 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 245 thousand tons of methane. These benefits would come without imposing any undue burdens on manufacturers. DOE's proposed rule gives manufacturers three years after the date of the rule's publication to comply. Nearly half of products on the market today are already in compliance with the proposed rule, and there are readily available design changes available for those that don't. Energy efficiency standards are popular: three out of five Americans support stricter energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings. It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coming together to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the betterment and growth of our country.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the right to contraception for all Americans. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence to the Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health decision called for the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the right to contraception. Emboldened by this statement, Republican-controlled state legislatures across the Nation began limiting access to birth control. Nine states have already adopted restrictions to emergency contraception. I stand with my colleagues, Congresswoman Manning and Senator Markey, as they reintroduce the Right to Contraception Act. Last year, this bill passed the U.S. House with a bipartisan vote of 228-195. I am proud to be a part of the effort to bring this important issue into legislative focus and protect women's health. This bill sets out statutory protections for an individual's right to access and a health care provider's right to provide contraception and related information. Generally, the bill prohibits measures that single out and impede access to contraception and related information. However, a party may defend against a claim that a measure violates the bill's prohibitions by demonstrating, through clear and convincing evidence, that the measure significantly advances access to contraception and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. The Department of Justice, individuals, or health care providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations. This Act would codify into law a person's right to obtain contraceptives and to engage in the use of contraception. It would also define and protect a health care provider's corresponding right to prescribe contraception and to provide information about the use of contraception to their patients. The ability to make personal choices about one's own body is a fundamental human right. The right to contraception is internationally recognized by the World Health Organization, and by the United Nations as intrinsically linked to women's health, economic mobility, and self-governance. Birth control pills, IUDs, and other forms of contraception are all forms of safe and essential healthcare. They are central to women's ability to participate equally in the workplace, in academia, and in society. Contraception allows individuals, couples, and families to be in control of their own futures. Contraception can allow a young woman to achieve her dreams of earning a college degree. It can allow a young couple to prioritize their careers before raising a child. It can allow parents to focus their financial and emotional resources on the care of a special needs son or daughter. It is a tool that allows those who wish to become parents, and those who do not, the agency to make the decision that is best for them. A 2010 study found that access to contraceptive care resulted in approximately one million fewer unplanned conceptions per year. That is one million fewer children born into families who are unprepared to support them. When access to contraceptives is limited, more children are born into lives of difficulty and hardship. The ``Right to Contraception Act,'' would help ensure that children are born into families who are eager, equipped, and prepared for their arrival. The right to contraceptives has long been an expectation held by the American people. In 1965, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Griswald v. Connecticut affirmed a married couple's right to birth control. In 1972, Eisenstadt v. Baird protected that right for single people. Then in 1977, the right to contraception for minors was secured in Carey v. Population Services International. For more than 50 years, the right to contraception has been settled law. That is, until the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, when five conservative Justices chose to let their personal opinions and beliefs supersede decades of established precedent by overturning women's right to abortion. Since then, the American people have witnessed the abhorrent consequences of Republicans' radical agenda to criminalize women's reproductive health decisions. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made it very clear that the extremist ruling that ended Roe v. Wade could be used to chop away at other rights--including the right to access contraception. Reproductive rights opponents are now including emergency contraception, IUDs, and other forms of birth control in their anti- abortion legislation. These anti-abortion laws shackle women to unwanted pregnancies. Conservative lawmakers now seek to stop women from exerting agency over the prevention of pregnancy, as well. If a woman is not permitted to end a pregnancy, and she is not permitted to prevent a pregnancy, I ask, what rights to her body does she have left? Even before the barbaric Dobbs ruling, conservative lawmakers across the country have been moving to limit women's ability to make decisions about their own healthcare and bodies. In 2021 alone, at least 4 states attempted to ban access to some or all contraceptives by restricting public funding for these products and services. Those laws work in conjunction with actions conservative legislators in red states have taken to curtail funding for family planning services at reproductive health centers like Planned Parenthood. Such actions would limit access to birth control, particularly for Black and Brown low-income women. We cannot allow human rights to be so callously stripped away from the American people. We must fight back and codify these rights into law.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am excited this week to introduce H. Res. 505, a bill to again commemorate and honor Juneteenth. Juneteenth should be a holiday that brings all Americans together because it is about freedom, freedom of a people. It was when General Granger came to Galveston, Texas, with General Order No. 3, to release the slaves who had been held an extra 2 years because a State would not listen. It is a holiday that brings us together. There will be commemorations in Galveston. There will be commemorations in Houston, Texas, proudly bringing people from all ethnic backgrounds together, from Friday all the way to the Juneteenth holiday. I am very proud to acknowledge Opal Lee, the grandmother of Juneteenth, who brought a million petitions here to say that we need a Federal holiday. I am proud to honor the late Representative Al Edwards, who introduced the first bill to make it a State holiday in Texas. I was very glad to be inspired by him and mentored by him to introduce the Federal legislation, introducing the resolution for 10 years and then finally achieving my goal, our goal, to have a Federal holiday. It is a holiday for all people. Let us celebrate Juneteenth on June 19. Do something in your community that heals, welcomes, and joins each community together. It is about freedom of a people, freedom of America, and our wonderful democracy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. This really is about saving lives. Eight children a day die from gun violence. In addition, 40,000 Americans die from gun violence throughout the year. I thank Congressman Thompson of California for making clear what we are saying here today. A veteran can buy a brace any day of the year. We love, respect, and admire our veterans. However, at the same time, we respect our first responders, police officers, firefighters, and others who are on the front line or former combat officers who say that we don't need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians. There is no hunting purpose. There is no purpose. You haven't lived until you see a shoot-out in your district between a criminal with a ghost gun against police officers. That is what we are trying to prevent. I don't want to see that in Houston, Texas, ever again. A person can buy the brace without a background check. When it becomes a dangerous weapon, when that brace changes the gun's legal status and makes it, in essence, the same that caused a mass shooting at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket, then the stabilizing brace and a shorter barrel made a pistol under Federal gun regulations. Saving lives is why I am standing here on the floor. Protecting police officers and protecting firefighters is why I am on the floor. The highest calling that I have on the floor is protecting children and stopping Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Santa Fe, and the list goes on. A brace can be bought without a background check, and the rule that is being overturned simply says the ATF is doing the right thing. Mr. Speaker, vote for the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 1615--the Gas Stove Protection Freedom Act and H.R. 1640--the Save our Gas Stoves Act. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for protecting children and other consumers from unreasonable risk of injury or death from consumer products. The CPSC carries out its mission by investigating allegations that consumer products pose an unreasonable safety risk, working with industry to develop voluntary product safety standards, issuing, and enforcing mandatory standards on hazardous consumer products, and recalling unsafe consumer products or arranging for their repair. The CPSC has a history of protecting children and adults from safety risks across a wide range of products, including removing hazardous infant sleep products from the market, adopting corded window coverings standards to prevent strangulation of children, and working with industry to reduce the risk of fires from micro mobility devices like hoverboards and e-scooters. Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public with this legislation, which is designed to scare consumers and, unfortunately, Republicans are ignoring the reasonable steps the CPSC has taken to study and address the hazards posed to our children by gas stove emissions. Legitimate concerns have been raised about the health impact, particularly on children, of the nitrogen dioxide emitted by gas stoves. Observational studies have found that children living in households that use gas stoves are 42 percent more likely to have asthma. In December 2022, CPSC issued a recall on a specific gas stove product that was found to be a serious risk of injury or death from carbon monoxide poisoning. H.R. 1615 would prohibit CPSC from using its rulemaking authority to ban all such hazardous products to protect to Americans. As the Chairman of the CPSC explained earlier this year, the Commission does not have a proceeding to ban gas stoves but is researching gas stoves and exploring ways to address health risks. The Republicans' bill peddles the lie that the Biden Administration is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply are not on their side. H.R. 1615 will stifle scientific investigation into health hazards and create bad precedent when it comes to protecting our children from health and safety hazards. Protecting and improving the health and well-being of our children should not be a partisan issue. On a bipartisan basis, we should be encouraging the CPSC to explore all allegations that appliances or other consumer products put our children's health at risk and give the CPSC more, not fewer, tools for eliminating or mitigating safety risks they uncover. It is unconscionable to limit the CPSC's options for addressing the potential risks of gas stoves--a product found in homes across America--before the CPSC has fully explored the risks posed by gas stoves and potential solutions. Efficiency standards are not bans. Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from fulfilling its statutory obligations and finalizing an efficiency standard that will save consumers money. H.R. 1640 prohibits the Secretary of Energy from finalizing or enforcing a February 2023 proposed rule that would improve the efficiency of electric and gas stoves, ultimately saving families money on their energy bills. The Republicans' bill simply peddles the lie that the Biden Administration is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply are not on their side. DOE cannot ban gas stoves. DOE is simply proceeding with a Congressionally mandated efficiency standard. The proposed efficiency standard will save Americans money through lower energy bills while cutting harmful indoor air pollution that disproportionately impacts children's health. DOE's proposed rule is one of their statutorily required standards-- and it follows years of inaction and missed statutorily mandated standards deadlines by the Trump Administration. In the Fall of 2020, multiple organizations and states filed lawsuits asserting Trump's DOE was in violation of deadlines for the review of 25 of its energy conservation standards. This Republican bill doubles down on that legacy by obstructing DOE from doing what Congress and a court settlement have required it to do. Republicans' fearmongering over gas stoves is nothing more than a cheap political stunt designed to scare consumers and protect their fossil fuel friends. H.R. 1640 prioritizes profits for Big Oil and Gas over the health and economic well-being of everyday Americans. Efficiency standards save Americans money, while the Republicans' bill will only increase energy costs for Americans and pad the pockets of their fossil fuel friends. Republicans' scare tactics include pushing a false narrative about how ``96 percent of gas stoves on the market don't meet the proposed standard.'' This is simply not true. This deliberate fearmongering is the result of Republicans purposefully misrepresenting DOE data to serve their own political goals. The statistic Republicans are referencing comes from a DOE test of high-end models that they anticipated would not meet the standard. The test, by design, was not representative of the entire market. The truth is, nearly half of products on the market today are already in compliance with the proposed rule, including all entry level models. In a testament to just how far Republicans are willing to go to prop up their polluter friends, H.R. 1640 goes beyond an amendment offered by Rep. Palmer (R-AL) that was added to H.R. 1 by significantly limiting future DOE rulemaking. This bill does not include a sunset clause--it could forever limit DOE from taking substantive action to improve the energy efficiency of Americans' cooktops. While the Palmer Amendment would prevent DOE from moving forward with one standard related to cooktop efficiency, H.R. 1640 goes even further by amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to restrict DOE from taking similar action in the future. This bill sets a bad precedent that polluters could seek to exploit. DOE is already prohibited from banning products based on their fuel source, but H.R. 1640 adds yet another hurdle: it requires DOE to prove that a conservation standard is not likely to result in the unavailability of a product based on the fuel it consumes. This added condition could significantly weaken and slow down DOE's ability to issue future energy conservation standards. DOE's proposed energy efficiency standard for gas and electric stoves is smart, commonsense policy that would cut pollution, improve Americans' health, and lower energy bills. And it can be achieved using readily available design changes. DOE's commonsense proposal will benefit Americans' health and pocketbooks. DOE estimates the proposal will: Save consumers as much as $1.71 billion and slash nearly 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 245 thousand tons of methane. These benefits would come without imposing any undue burdens on manufacturers. DOE's proposed rule gives manufacturers three years after the date of the rule's publication to comply. Nearly half of products on the market today are already in compliance with the proposed rule, and there are readily available design changes available for those that don't. Energy efficiency standards are popular: three out of five Americans support stricter energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings. It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coming together to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the betterment and growth of our country. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reassert my opposition to H.R. 277, the ``Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act'' and H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023.'' First in addressing, H.R. 277, the REINS Act, is a measure that has been offered by Republicans dating back to 2012, is and has always been a problematic bill that would restrict agency rulemaking procedures and undermine public health and safety. Because it would require both houses of Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a joint resolution of approval for any major rule before they can take effect, this bill would effectively act as a chokehold on Federal agency rulemaking. I along with my colleagues have attempted to address many of the ills these bills purport by offering common sense amendments that Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration. My amendment to H.R. 277, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment #30 would have exempted from the bill the congressional approval requirement for any proposed rule that is made to ensure the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2. Without such an amendment, the RAINS act cripples the Federal government's ability to protect our children and prioritize their safety. As it stands, this bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it comes to pressing issues of public health and safety. It is deeply troubling that REINS Act will delay the implementation of integral new public health and safety safeguards, putting our children at risk. As such, the REINS Act will ultimately fail to protect the public as it places an expertise-based process into the hands of the government, allowing the political games we have seen in the House this Congress to continue. Because of the special vulnerability of young children and the distinct threat that the implementation of the REINS poses to the current regulatory process, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 277. Second in addressing H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023'' which purports to address constitutional and statutory deficiencies in the judicial review of agency rulemaking. Yet, this bill is a long-repeated effort to shift the scope and authority of judicial review of agency actions away from federal agencies by amending Section 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to ``require that courts decide all relevant questions of law, including all questions of the interpretation of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions, on a de novo basis without deference to the agency that promulgated the final rule, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute. Effectively, H.R. 288 would abolish judicial deference to agencies' statutory interpretations in federal rulemaking and create harmful and costly burdens to the administrative process. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the ability for agencies to act in times of imminent need to protect citizens. In particular, H.R. 288 would make sweeping and dangerous changes that would jeopardize the ability of the Department of Homeland Secuirty to protect our nation in times of urgent and imminent need. My amendment to H.R. 288, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment #3 would have been a simple but necessary revision that would remedy this concern by excluding from the bill cases with rules made by the Secretary of Homeland Security and pertaining to any matter of national security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand the many challenges the Department of the Homeland Security (DHS) already faces and its critically important role in preventing terror threats and keeping Americans safe. The Department is the first line of defense in protecting the nation and leading recovery efforts from all-hazards and threats which include everything from weapons of mass destruction to natural disasters. We do not need to be reminded of the heightened state of security are nation is in and the ever-increasing demands imposed upon our government agencies tasked with keeping our borders and citizens safe. Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of DHS and its ability to address growing threats and active acts of terrorism. The overall mission of DHS is too critical and its functions indispensably essential, such that it would be impugned to do anything that will slow down the process that allows DHS to do its job. Given the absence of my essential amendment and the fact that H.R. 288 would cripple Federal agency's ability to act in times of imminent need, I urge opposition to H.R. 288.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Under this regulation, they will still be allowed to do so. Let me be very clear. It is for veterans, and under the regulation of ATF, who is full of combat veterans themselves doing their duty to this Nation, who looked at this and said they cannot stand for more children being murdered by someone taking a brace--not disabled at all--but to make a steady aim to kill and take innocent lives. I commend the ATF for its fortitude. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the work we need to be doing right now, passing the Kimberly Vaughn Firearm Safe Storage Act, extreme risk protection laws, and an assault weapons ban that more than 200 persons voted against but the right people voted for, this is not an injury to our veterans. It is saving lives. Who would stand up here against a veteran? Nobody. However, I am going to stand up here against the killing of children. Mr. Chairman, I rise in Opposition to H.J. Res. 44, which opposes regulation of stabilizing braces--one of the modifications the shooter used to blast their way into Covenant School in Nashville and murder three nine-year olds and three staff members. After this shooting occurred, the Judiciary Committee postponed the markup of this resolution of disapproval, which was originally scheduled to take place the day after the shooting. For some reason, which I do not claim to know, Republicans didn't want to talk about stabilizing braces then. But less than a month after more Americans learned that children would never again come home or go to school, Republicans decided that the time was right to hold a markup of this resolution. It took just twenty-two days for Republicans to move on from the tragic loss of life--of children--and get back to the business of supporting and protecting the gun lobby. Now here we are today--while the wounds of that tragic day are still fresh--not to vote on a bill to make sure this deadly modification never ends up in the wrong hands again but to make it easier to purchase and possess them. Instead of offering legislation to address the problem of gun violence or to tackle public safety issues, Republicans are here today to shake their disapproving fingers at the ATF for doing its job and to uplift the very modification used to slaughter nine people and injure 17 in downtown Dayton, Ohio; to massacre ten people, including a police officer, at a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado; to murder five people and injure 19 at a club in Colorado Springs; and as I said--most recently--in Nashville, to kill children and the people who cared for them. Had the rule on stabilizing braces been in place at the time, these murderers might have been deterred--and lives saved--by the National Firearms Act registration requirements, which include an enhanced background check. Although my Republican colleagues see fit to abolish or defund ATF or ``zero out their salaries''--when it became obvious that stabilizing braces had become a workaround against the short barreled rifle rules, the subject-matter experts at ATF exercised their statutory authority-- granted by Congress--as a regulatory agency--to implement, clarify, and interpret the terms and requirements within its jurisdiction, including application of the National Firearms Act. I should point out that it was under the previous administration that ATF first concluded that stabilizing braces were being designed to avoid NFA requirements. And it was the creator of the SB Tactical stabilizing brace who acknowledged in a 2017 interview with the editor of The Firearm Blog, that many who bought the braces did so to avoid NFA registration. He also said during our joint hearing last month to discuss the ATF--that the stabilizing brace was ``originally designed to allow a disabled veteran'' shoot a pistol more accurately and safely. Under this regulation, they will still be allowed to do so. I commend the ATF for having the fortitude to press forward despite the unfair attacks and bullying by House Republicans--including their December 2020 letter to then Attorney General Barr and ATF Acting Director Lombardo--to provide guidance to prevent the harm created by certain stabilizing braces that convert firearms into concealable, killing machines. And let me be clear. We all know that this resolution is not particularly about the ATF, disabled veterans, or even stabilizing braces. This resolution is about allowing more guns on the street and in our communities. Our divisions could not be clearer--as Republicans continue to put more guns, that are more dangerous, in more hands. They want unfettered access to more guns--to be used against women; more guns to be used against children in their homes and in their schools; more guns to be used against law enforcement--against people shopping in grocery stores--and against people enjoying a night out with friends. Democrats, on the other hand, will continue to support the ATF in its efforts to address gun violence and to promote commonsense laws that keep Americans safe--like the Kimberly Vaughan Firearm Safe Storage Act, Extreme Risk Protection laws, and an Assault Weapons ban that more than 200 Republicans voted against and could have yielded a much different result in mass shootings that have become an American way of life. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote no to this dangerous resolution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member and certainly the distinguished Member who is managing, my friend from Texas. Let me be very clear. I support a stabilizing brace for disabled Americans and veterans. Could anybody stand here and disagree with that? They were wounded in combat, and they are fighters for our freedom. It is my honor to have represented the Houston National Cemetery in Texas over a number of years. Let me be very clear on what we are debating here today. Might I say that there are veterans in the ATF, men and women who served in the United States military who have come home to serve again. Their desire is not to violate the Second Amendment, neither is their desire to take innocent Americans in. You can get a brace for those disabled veterans, and it is a legal process. This provision specifically is to deal with when you make it a lethal weapon to be used like an assault weapon to kill people. I don't know why we can't be clear. Let me tell you why it is very clear. It is because we started out with this bill so many days and weeks ago, but in the midst of it, someone used the exact same brace to go into the Covenant School in Nashville and murder three 9-year-olds and three staff members. That is what the ATF is against. Eight children are dying every day and 40,000 Americans are dying throughout the year through gun violence, not your Second Amendment. Mr. Speaker, who would even think that you could tamper with the Second Amendment? It is in the Bill of Rights. However, we do believe that when you have this weapon being created to be the kind of dangerous and lethal weapon to kill, Americans will stand up and say: It is not about the Second Amendment, it is about saving lives. In Dayton 2019, 9 killed, 17 injured; Boulder 2021, 10 killed; Colorado Springs 2022, 5 killed and 19 injured; Nashville 2023, 6 killed, and children are amongst them. This is the procedure that is used, not at a shooting range where our veterans may go, but for criminal acts that kill people. Mr. Speaker, let's hear from the person who actually designed it. It was the creator of the SB tactical stabilizing brace who acknowledged in a 2017 interview with the editor of The Firearm Blog that many who bought the braces did so to avoid National Firearms Registration. They were going to do bad, not those good veterans. He also said during our joint hearing last month--in answer to a question where I asked him to discuss the ATF order--that the stabilizing brace was originally designed to allow a disabled veteran to shoot a pistol more accurately and safely.