Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the text of an op-ed that was published yesterday in The Hill, entitled ``When It Comes to Leading the Justice Department, the Senate Should Just Say No To Sen. Sessions,'' whose headquarters building is named after Robert F. Kennedy, by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

[From The Hill, Feb. 8, 2017]

When It Comes to Leading the Justice Department, the Senate Should Just

Say No to Sessions

(By Sheila Jackson Lee)

Many people think the role of the U.S. Attorney General is

simply to be the nation's chief prosecutor. This seriously

understates the responsibility, power, and moral authority of

the office. The attorney general is the lawyer for the

American people. He is not the president's lawyer. The

Attorney General leads the Department of Justice and justice

is his client and his mission. As a member of the President's

Cabinet, it is important that the Attorney General have the

trust of the President, but as the ``People's Lawyer,'' it is

essential that he or she have the trust and confidence of the

American people.

The nomination of U.S. Sen. Jefferson Beauregard ``Jeff''

Sessions III of Alabama to be the next Attorney General of

the United States does not inspire the required trust and

confidence.

Many of the senator's supporters, ranging from his

Republican colleagues in the Senate to current and former

staffers to home state friends and constituents, praise the

senator for his modesty and courtesy and manners. The four-

term senator and former state and federal prosecutor is, we

are told, learned in the law, a person of deep faith, a good

man who loves his family, his state, and his country.

We can, as the lawyers say, stipulate that these assertions

are true. But that does not make him an appropriate and

deserving candidate to be Attorney General of the United

States. And that is because the office of Attorney General

and the Department of Justice he or she leads is different in

a very fundamental way from every other Cabinet department.

Unlike, say, the secretary of Transportation or Commerce or

Education, or even the secretary of Defense or State, the

Attorney General leads a department that is charged with

administering the laws and enforcing the Constitutional

guarantees and protections that directly affect every

American, all 320 million of us.

Sen. Sessions may be a courtly and courteous Southern

gentleman but those qualities, charming and desirable as they

may be in a senator, simply are not nearly enough to make one

fit to serve as Attorney General of the United States of

America.

The position of Attorney General is unique because he or

she is the only Cabinet officer who owes a stronger

allegiance to the American people than to the president who

nominated him or her. This is not true even for the

secretaries of State, of Defense, or of the Treasury because

while they are all charged with upholding the Constitution,

their views regarding the fundamental rights and civil

liberties of the American people are not essential to the

execution of their governmental duties.

One of the major reasons why the nomination of a sitting

four-term senator to be Attorney General is unprecedented is

that the role of a senator is to be a partisan advocate for

specific legislative outcomes while the role of the Attorney

General is to enforce the law. It is dangerous to combine

this partisan zeal with the power and discretion vested in

the Attorney General to shape legal policy in the federal

judiciary. As Attorney General, Sen. Sessions will have an

outsized role in determining which cases will be brought and

what position the United States will take in cases decided by

the Supreme Court.

An alarming case in point is the Executive Order issued by

the president banning Muslims from predominately Muslim

countries from entering the United States, which has been

denounced by leading national security and foreign policy

experts, deemed unconstitutional by scores of law professors

and other scholars, sparked peaceful mass demonstrations

across the nation, and is opposed by a majority of the

American public. The president's ban on Muslims entering the

United States was deemed such a clear and egregious violation

of the Constitution that then Acting Attorney General Sally

Yates announced that she could not, consistent with her oath,

defend the order in court.

Sen. Sessions, however, appears not be troubled in the

slightest by the cavalier rejection of the principle of

religious liberty implicit in the executive order. This is

hardly surprising since Sen. Sessions was one of the

earliest, most influential, and enthusiastic backers of the

Trump presidential campaign and its unconscionable and

unconstitutional immigration policies, including the ``total

and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States''

announced by candidate Trump in December 2015. As Sen.

Sessions told ABC News in May 2016: ``I don't think Trump has

gone too far, . . . we should have a temporary ban on entry

of people into the country from the Muslim world, but that's

because we have an ineffective screening process . . . so I

think we're moving in the right direction.''

As noted by the more than 1,000 State Department employees

who have registered their dissent to the executive order,

because there has been a virtual absence of terror attacks

committed in recent years by Syrian, Iraqi, Irani, Libyan,

Somalia, Sudanese, and Yemeni nationals living in the United

States, the president's Muslim ban will have little practical

effect in improving public safety.

What it will do, however, is despoil our relations with

these countries, and much of the Muslim world, which sees the

ban, rightly, as religiously-motivated. So instead of

strengthening relations with countries that should be our

allies and partners in the fight against terrorism, we

alienate them, inflame sentiment against the United States

among their citizens, and deprive ourselves of vital

intelligence and resources needed to fight the root causes of

terror.

Adoption of this wrong-headed policy appears to mean to

Sen. Sessions that ``we're moving in the right direction.''

That any member of the President's Cabinet could hold these

views is very troubling. That such views are held by the

person who could be the Attorney General is frightening and

disqualifying.

After all, the U.S. Attorney General and Justice Department

is not only the instrument of justice but also the living

symbol of the Constitution's promise of equal justice

under law. The nation's greatest Attorney Generals

conveyed this commitment to equal justice by their prior

experience, their words and deeds, and their character.

Think Herbert Brownell, Attorney General for Republican

President Eisenhower, who oversaw the integration of Little

Rock's Central High School. Think Robert Jackson, Attorney

General for Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who led

the prosecution team at the Nazi War Crimes trial in

Nuremburg, Germany. Think Robert F. Kennedy, for whom the

Main Justice Building is named, bringing to bear the

instruments of federal power to protect Mississippi Freedom

Riders and to stare down Gov. George Wallace in the

successful effort to integrate the University of Alabama.

Think Elliot Richardson, Attorney General under Republican

President Richard Nixon, who stood for fidelity to the U.S.

Constitution and the rule of law in the infamous `Saturday

Night Massacre' during the Watergate scandal.

Those who argue the Sessions' nomination is no different

than those of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch are simply wrong.

The difference is stark--Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch came

to the office of Attorney General as career professionals

with no history or record of partisan political advocacy.

Unlike Sen. Sessions, neither of them ever served in a

legislative body or voted to pass or defeat the legislation

the Department of Justice is charged with administering.

Nothing in Sen. Sessions' 70 years inspires any confidence

that he possesses the qualities of any of our distinguished

former Attorneys General and there is less reason for

optimism that he will grow in office.

As a U.S. senator from Alabama, the state from which the

infamous Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder

originated, Sen. Sessions has failed to play a constructive

role in repairing the damage to the Voting Rights Act caused

by that decision. He was one of the leading opponents of the

reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Sen.

Sessions's record in support of efforts to bring needed

reform to the nation's criminal justice system is virtually

non-existent. And his Senate voting record and rhetoric has

endeared him to white nationalist websites and organizations

like Breitbart and Stormfront.

Sen. Sessions was the first federal prosecutor in the

country to bring charges against civil rights activists for

voter fraud and has called the landmark Voting Rights Act ``a

piece of intrusive legislation.'' He is one of the Senate's

most hostile opponents of comprehensive immigration reform

and was a principal architect of the draconian and incendiary

immigration policy advocated by the current president during

the 2016 campaign. When it comes to the effort to diversify

the federal judiciary in his home state of Alabama and the

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Sen. Sessions has at best

been missing in action.

As Attorney General of the state of Alabama, Sen. Sessions

fought to continue practices that harmed schools

predominantly attended by African-American students,

including leading the fight to uphold the state of Alabama's

inequitable school funding mechanism after it had been deemed

unconstitutional by the Alabama circuit court. Although Sen.

Sessions has publicly taken credit for desegregation efforts

in the state of Alabama, there is no evidence of his

participation in the desegregation of Alabama schools or any

school desegregation lawsuits filed by then-Attorney General

Sessions.

Sen. Session's lengthy public record makes it difficult to

place much faith in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary

Committee. After staunchly opposing the Violence Against

Women Act, the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' the

expansion of anti-hate legislation to include sexual

orientation, and fighting the removal of the Confederate flag

from public buildings, the long-time opponent of voluntary

desegregation in Alabama now claims to be committed to the

cause of equal opportunity for all Americans. The proponent

of overruling Roe v. Wade now presents himself as a defender

and protector of a woman's right to choose. The outspoken

advocate of unfettered Second Amendment rights now says he

can be trusted to enforce the nation's gun violence

prevention laws.

Actions speak louder than words, and in the case of Sen.

Sessions his 30-year record of intense opposition on so many

critical issues involving civil rights, women's rights,

voting rights, criminal justice and immigration reform, and

equal educational opportunity is the most compelling and

powerful evidence that he should not be confirmed by the

Senate to be the nation's 84th Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 57, the CRA Resolution for Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Education Relating to Accountability and State Plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).

I oppose this legislation because the regulation Republicans seek to rescind is intended to reduce educational opportunities in student achievement, quality of instruction, college readiness and other important outcomes.

ESEA, the national education law, represents a longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students.

ESEA authorizes state-run programs for eligible schools and districts eager to raise the

academic achievement of struggling learners and address the complex challenges that arise for students who live with disability, mobility problems, learning difficulties, poverty, or transience, or who need to learn English.

The original goal of the law, which remains today, was to improve educational equity for students from lower-income families by providing federal funds to school districts serving poor students.

Typically, these school districts receive less state and local funding than those serving more affluent children.

Local property taxes are typically the primary funding source for schools, and property values are much lower in poorer areas, making the funds critical to children demonstrating greater educational need.

ESEA is the single largest source of federal spending on elementary and secondary education.

ESEA demands accountability in state plans addressing deficiencies in high needs educational policy in return for the taxpayer dollars.

Because of this regulation states and districts must now show that they are working to meet the needs and providing a quality education to all of their students.

When education policy folks talk about accountability, this is what they mean.

Recognizing the continuing vital need for this landmark legislation, the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act, with strong bipartisan majorities and it was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015.

The joint resolution before us today, would nullify the rule finalized by the Department of Education on November 29, 2016, relating to accountability and state plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

H.J. Res. 57 is the latest Republican attempt to dismantle the oversight and enforcement authority of the Department of Education and undermine public education.

Thus far:

The Trump Administration nominated Betsy DeVos, a candidate for Secretary of Education with no practical education experience who pledges to redirect $20 billion in federal funding to private school voucher programs;

Administration sources leaked plans to eliminate the Under Secretary position and outsource higher education policy to a task force headed by the controversial Jerry Falwell, Jr., the President of Liberty University;

The Department removed all Every Student Succeeds Act technical assistance resources to the states from the public domain; and

Republicans have filed two joint resolutions of disapproval to block and prevent re-regulation of key equity protections for students and educators--this bill and H.J. Res. 58, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) Resolution for Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Education Relating to Teacher Preparation Issues.

Mr. Speaker, current education law and policy builds on key areas of progress in recent years, made possible by the efforts of educators, communities, parents, and students across the country.

Today, high school graduation rates are at all-time highs:

Graduation rate of U.S. public high schools: 83.2 percent for the 2014-15 school year, an all-time high; pre-Obama: 75 percent

By race and ethnicity:

African Americans: 73 percent; pre-Obama: 61 percent

Hispanics: 76 percent; pre-Obama: 64 percent

Whites: 87 percent; pre-Obama: 81 percent

American Indian/Alaska Native: 70 percent: pre-Obama: 64 percent

Asian/Pacific Islander: 89 percent; pre-Obama: 91 percent

Dropout rates are at historic lows.

And more students are going to college than ever before.

These achievements provide a firm foundation for further work to expand educational opportunity and improve student outcomes under ESSA.

ESSA includes provisions that will help to ensure success for students and schools. Below are just a few benefits provided by the

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 58, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) Resolution for Disapproval of the Rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to Teacher Preparation Issues, because the regulation Republicans seek to rescind will have the effect of reducing educational opportunities in student achievement, quality of instruction, college readiness and other important outcomes.

Teaching is a very noble profession that shapes the character, caliber, and future of an individual and for many of our nation's children, a teacher affects eternity; he or she can never tell where his influence stops.

Teachers cannot however succeed in shaping the lives of our children if we as a society fail to equip them with the tools necessary to master and hone the craft they pass along to our youth.

This joint resolution would nullify the Teacher Preparation Issues rule finalized by the Department of Education on October 31, 2016, tying the hands of any and all future administrations in improving the transparency and quality of teacher preparation programs until the Higher Education Act (HEA) is successfully reauthorized.

The Teacher Preparation Issues rule established indicators that States must use to report on teacher preparation program performance, to help ensure that the quality of teacher preparation programs is judged on reliable and valid indicators of program performance.

Section 205 of the HEA requires States and institutions of higher education (IHEs) annually to report on various characteristics of their teacher preparation programs, including an assessment of program performance.

Under the rule that this menacing legislation would obliterate requirements in the collection and dissemination of more meaningful data on teacher preparation program quality.

These reporting requirements exist in part to ensure that members of the public, prospective teachers and employers (districts and schools), and the States, IHEs, and programs themselves have accurate information on the quality of these teacher preparation programs.

These requirements also provide an impetus to States and IHEs to make improvements where they are needed.

The Department's existing title II reporting system framework has not, however, ensured sufficient quality feedback to various stakeholders on program performance.

A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that some States are not assessing whether teacher preparation programs are low- performing, as required by law, and so prospective teachers may have difficulty identifying low-performing teacher preparation programs, possibly resulting in teachers who are not fully prepared to educate children.

In addition, struggling teacher preparation programs may not receive the technical assistance they need and, like the teaching candidates themselves, school districts, and other stakeholders, will not be able to make informed decisions.

The final regulations also link assessments of program performance under HEA title II to eligibility for the Federal TEACH Grant program.

The TEACH Grant program, authorized by the HEA, provides grants to eligible IHEs, which, in turn, use the funds to provide grants of up to $4,000 annually to eligible teacher preparation candidates who agree to serve as full-time teachers in high-need fields at low-income schools for not less than four academic years within eight years after completing their courses of study.

Thousands of novice teachers enter the profession every year and their students deserve to have well-prepared teachers.

Current educational policy is committed to ensuring that the measures by which States judge the quality of teacher preparation programs reflect the true quality of the programs

and provide information that facilitates program improvement and, by extension, improvement in student achievement.

H.J. Res. 58 is just another step in Republicans' plan to dismantle the oversight and enforcement authority of the Department of Education and undermine public education.

H.J. Res. 58 flies in the face of Congressional intent, removing any sense of transparency related to teacher preparation program quality, and leaving these important equity provisions without checks and balances indefinitely.

H.J. Res 58 would ensure that there are no serious attempts to improve the quality of teacher preparation programs, since the CRA prevents future Departments of Education from regulating on a similar issue.

If unhappy with the final rule, the Trump Administration should use administrative tools at its disposal to amend and revise the regulation. Use of CRA is a political gimmick that harms students, teachers, and taxpayers.

Republicans want blanket deregulation of federal education programs in an attempt to stall implementation of equity-focused provisions and allow states and districts the ultimate flexibility to ignore laws and federal requirements intended to protect disadvantaged students.

The CRA has been used only once in Congressional history.

Using it to block regulatory action to improve teacher preparation program quality is extreme and a gross abuse of power.

When we fail our teachers, we rob our children of long fought for opportunities to expand their horizons in classrooms and achieve in life the hope we have vested in them for the future.

I urge you to oppose this bill

Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat my concern, when the United States is compared to the thuggish behavior of Russian leadership, the attempt to poison individuals who are activists and opponents to that kind of oppression.

But I want to speak today to what is impacting our neighbors, Mr. Speaker, and that is the executive order that has been issued by the President of the United States. I want to dispel any myth that Members of this body who oppose the executive order are against security for this Nation.

I am a years'-long member of the Homeland Security Committee, the Transportation Security Committee, the Border Security Committee, and work hard to write a stiff border security bill. But, frankly, this is a Muslim ban, and when a 17-year-old, 16-year-old from my community, from Jordan, was stopped and held for 48 hours and shipped to Chicago, that is a Muslim ban.

What I say to those who have executed it is that you have to realize that the order that you tried to copy from President Obama was not the same. It was stringent review; it was not rejection. You are rejecting Muslims and allowing others.

As a Christian, I know that Christians are not being subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. This is a Muslim ban. I ask the White House, as we go to court this evening: Why don't you reconsider and pull that Muslim ban down?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 588, Securing Access to Networks in Disaster Act, which requires the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress and publish on the FCC website a study on the public safety benefits, technical feasibility, and cost of providing the public with access to 9-1-1 services during times of emergency when mobile service is unavailable.

As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am well aware of the importance of telephone service during disasters.

The Securing Access to Networks in Disasters (SANDy) Act seeks to ensure the resiliency of the nation's communications networks during emergencies.

Acquiring cellphone service during a massive natural or manmade disaster is often difficult, if not impossible, and this is why this piece of legislation is so essential.

During the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City, cellphone service was severely disrupted, forcing many callers to repeatedly dial to get through to 9- 1-1 emergency services.

On that day, some of the most tragic, heart wrenching calls came from those trapped in the Twin Towers.

It is not only during terrorist attacks that cellphone services are severely disrupted, but also natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, which claimed the lives of over 1,800 people.

The SANDy Act would ensure that during an emergency, consumers' cell phones work on other carriers' networks if a consumer's own network goes down.

H.R. 588 would give priority to calls to 9-1-1 services and emergency alerts.

It also would increase coordination between wireless carriers, utilities, and public safety officials by creating a directory of the contact information for relevant disaster response officials.

The bill would require the FCC to report to Congress regarding whether additional outage data should be provided in times of emergency.

In addition, the bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on the viability of providing 9-1-1 services over Wi-Fi hotspots during emergencies.

H.R. 588 would be of immense benefit to the 18th Congressional District and the greater Houston area.

On April 17-18, 2016, Houston experienced a historic flood event that claimed the lives of eight people, damaged over 1,150 households, disrupted hundreds of businesses, closed community centers, schools, and places of worship due to flood waters.

On April 25, President Obama granted the request for federal Individual Assistance for Harris County residences and business owners who were affected by severe weather and flooding.

Unfortunately, that was not the end of the story of flooding in Houston for 2016--in early June another record setting rainfall led to catastrophic flooding throughout the Houston area.

I am grateful to President Obama and the great work of those at the Department of Homeland Security who worked tirelessly to help people after both 2016 flood events.

I spoke on the House Floor several times about the Floods and the suffering caused by the waters that came through our communities-- damaging homes, our schools, places of business, and our places of worship.

The flooding problems in the Houston area are frequent, widespread, and severe, with projects to reduce flood risks in place that are valued at several billion dollars.

In 2015, the Houston and surrounding area experienced widespread historic flooding.

The importance of being able to contact emergency responders in the case of natural disasters is critical in order to save the lives of those directly affected by such events.

The SANDy Act would provide telecommunication access to victims of natural and man-made disasters.

The SANDy Act amends the Stafford Act to ensure that all communications providers:

1. Have the ability to access relevant disaster stricken areas during emergencies to restore service; and

2. Are included in the universal credentialing program for essential service providers

The SANDy Act would recognize the critical role that all communications providers--broadcasters, cable, and telecommunications-- serve in emergencies, but most notably, the bill would ensure consumers have access to wireless service even if their cellphone service provider's wireless network goes down.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 588, the Securing Access to Networks in Disaster Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 587, the Fair Ratepayer Accountability, Transparency, and Efficiency Standards Act (Fair RATES Act), which amends the Federal Power Act to permit administrative and judicial review of any rate change filed by a public utility that takes effect without the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The need for this change became evident in the wake of a New England Forward Capacity Market Auction in 2014, which occurred at a time when FERC only had 4 Commissioners.

When the New England Forward Capacity Market Auction issue was addressed by FERC, the Commissioners split evenly over the question of whether the auction results were just and reasonable.

Since FERC did not disapprove the auction results, wholesale electricity prices in New England increased dramatically.

So, while rates went up, none of the affected parties could challenge the decision or resulting rate increase, and, therefore, no rehearing or judicial review was possible.

H.R. 587 provides those who want to challenge a similar rulings or non-decisions by FERC the ability to challenge the decision administratively or in the courts.

The bill ensures that stakeholders have recourse when a non-decision by FERC has very real consequences for consumers, producers and others.

This bill would also improve the process by which FERC votes are reconsidered.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 587.

Mr. Speaker I rise in support of H.R. 423, the Anti- Spoofing Act of 2017, which amends the Communications Act of 1934, to make it unlawful to cause a caller identification service to knowingly transmit inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to:

defraud,

cause harm, or

wrongfully obtain anything of value.

Spoofing is a practice in which a phone number shown on a phone or caller identification device deliberately is falsified.

Spoofing is a commonly used tool for a number of illegal practices, including ``phishing'' for personal information and ``swatting''-- calling in a fictitious crime in progress in order to generate a police response.

The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 prohibits spoofing of voice caller identification information. However, as communications methods and consumer habits continue to evolve, so do the attempts by third parties to gain personal information for criminal use.

Many Americans now rely on text messaging to stay connected.

According to CTIA, in 2015, Americans sent over 156 billion text messages per month.

H.R. 423, the Anti-Spoofing Act, will extend the provisions of the Truth in Caller ID Act to include text messaging and text messaging services.

The legislation adds a definition of ``spoofing service'' to the statute, addressing the growth of services that allows a user to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information.

In addition, it extends the prohibitions to any person or service placing an international call to a recipient within the United States.

Additionally, H.R. 423 will revise the definitions of ``caller identification information'' and ``caller identification service'' to include text messages sent using a text messaging service.

It defines ``text message'' as real-time messages consisting of text, images, sounds, or other information transmitted from or received by a device identified by a telephone number.

It also includes in the definition both, real-time and two-way voice or video communications, addressing the emerging law enforcement issue of ``swatting'' by which people can purposefully misdirect valuable, police efforts and resources.

This bill takes the right approach targeting behavior, while protecting innovations that are important to the digital economy.

As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, I understand the vital need to safeguard against caller identification spoofing.

For example, women's abuse shelters and law enforcement officers working undercover have a need to protect their clients' identities.

This bill seeks to target those who have the intent to cause harm or commit a crime.

I support this legislation because it protects the consumer from criminal behavior, while protecting our fundamental right to privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 582, the Kari's Law Act of 2017, which amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require multi-line telephone systems to have a configuration that permits users to directly initiate a call 9-1-1 without dialing any additional digit, code, prefix, or post-fix.

As a senior member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and Judiciary, I am well aware of the importance of 9-1-1 services and some of the challenges of E-9-1-1 to ensure that those seeking emergency assistance receive the help they need.

H.R. 582 would create parity for landline 9-1-1 services and smartphone E9-1-1 services so that emergency assistance request from either is treated the same.

The bill requires that those engaged in the manufacturing, importation, sale, and lease of telecommunication service or devices pre-configured technology to dial 9-1-1.

The goal of H.R. 582 is to ensure that all emergency calls regardless of the source are routed properly to emergency services.

Kari's Law is not intended to alter the authority of State commissions or other State or local agencies with jurisdiction over emergency communications.

The establishment of the Kari's Law Act acknowledges the importance of the configuration of multi-line telephones systems for direct dialing for 9-1-1.

Over the past two decades, the personal communications of Americans have changed.

The Wireless Association reported that the penetration of cellular devices surpassed 100 percent in 2012, and as of the latest 2014 report, penetration is now at 110 percent.

According to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of U.S. adults have a smartphone, up from 35 percent in 2011, and tablet computer ownership has edged up to 45 percent among adults, according to newly released survey data from the Pew Research Center.

Smartphone ownership is nearing the saturation point with some groups: 86 percent of those ages 18-29 have a smartphone, as do 83 percent of those ages 30-49 and 87 percent of those living in households earning $75,000 and up annually.

With so many mobile devices deployed the majority of calls to 9-1-1 emergency public safety answering points (PSAP) originate from them.

U.S. emergency dispatch agencies report that wireless callers are responsible for at least 80 percent of their emergency call volume.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to Support H.R. 582, Kari's Law Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 460, the Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2017, which amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require voice communications that charge users to register with the FCC and comply with service quality standards to be established by the FCC.

The bill, should it become law, prohibits long-distance providers from using an internet provider to transmit voice communications and signals unless the intermediate provider is registered.

H.R. 460 would require the FCC to:

1. Ensure the integrity of voice communications to all customers in the United States

2. Prevent unjust or unreasonable discrimination across areas of the United States in the delivery of voice communications; and

3. Make a registry of intermediate providers publicly available on the FCC website.

H.R. 460, the Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2016, would seek to ensure that calls to Americans living in the rural areas of our country actually make it through to the intended receiver.

Making sure a call goes through, regardless of where it is being made, is fundamental to our communications system.

H.R. 460 that would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish basic quality standards for providers that transmit voice calls to consumers, among other things.

The Senate Commerce Committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute (AINS) that made the following changes:

1. Extends deadlines for service quality standards for intermediate providers from 180 days to one year,

2. Exempts intermediate providers that have been certified as a safe harbor provider; and

3. Amends the definition of intermediate provider.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 460, the Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 511, the Power and Security Systems Act of 2017, which will revise energy conservation standards for devices operating in standby mode.

In the early 1970s, I, recall, as many of my colleagues do, the impact to our nation's economy when OPEC nations withheld oil from the United States, causing one of the greatest peace-time energy shortages in United States history.

One of the remedial steps taken by the Carter Administration was the promulgation of regulations that required large appliances and equipment that used electricity to default to a power down mode when not in use.

Today, we take for granted that machines power down when not in use, but this one change in energy policy over the last 40 years has saved taxpayers, which includes businesses and private homes, billions of dollars in energy costs.

This was only one policy solution that was used to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil so that energy could go to vital services like fuel for electricity generation, gasoline, heating fuels, and diesel oil.

H.R. 511, the bill before us, would extend energy conservation to digital technology that can operate in standby mode.

Most digital device technology manufacturers already provide sleep mode on their devices to assist their users in conserving power on cellphones, smartphones, MP3 players, e-book readers, as well as desktop and laptop computers.

Today, 68 percent of U.S. adults own a smartphone, up from 35 percent in 2011, and tablet computer ownership has edged up to 45 percent among adults, according to newly released survey data from the Pew Research Center.

Considering not just smartphones, but all types of mobile phones, Pew notes that cellphones continue to top the list.

Roughly nine-in-ten American adults or 92 percent own a mobile phone of some kind.

Although these mobile devices are ubiquitous today, the share of adults who own one has risen substantially since 2004.

Smartphone ownership is nearing the saturation point with some groups:

1. 86 percent of those ages 18-29;

2. 83 percent of those ages 30-49; and

3. 87 percent of those living in households earning $75,000 and up annually own smartphones.

These facts highlight the importance of energy conservation for mobile communication users.

The battery life for these devices is limited and without power they are of no use to the user.

This bill will help users remain connected as long as possible because the energy consumption on their cellphones and other digital devices will be minimized when they are not in use.

Energy conservation will also assist consumers during times when power outages may occur due to weather or other electricity disruption.

The longer power life for cellphones will benefit consumers by reducing the amount of electricity needed to recharge their personal devices.

This bill will also benefit businesses that often have many computers that when in use can consume electricity if left on after business hours--especially over weekends.

For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 511.

Mr. Speaker, I know this Nation's values. Many of us study it in the Constitution, and as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, we review that document on many occasions. We are a nation that stands for principles of democracy; so I am very disturbed by an interview that was given by the White House this weekend that defended Putin--a man who invades to dominate, to kill, a man who supports a despot in Syria who has killed and gassed his own people--and compared his acts to any that the men and women in the United States military or in the United States may have done. It is not comparable to or even equal or even anywhere near the kind of despotism of Russia under Putin.

I am offended, and I apologize to the American people for any comparison. I believe it to be appropriate for the White House to clarify and to apologize for suggesting that our values and the efforts we take to protect people who may encounter efforts of war in any way can be compared to Putin, who is, in fact, someone who kills--and kills to dominate, not to help.

America is a defender, not an offender. I stand here proudly, supporting the values of the United States of America, a country that believes in the blessings of God and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, this February we recognize and celebrate the 40th commemoration of Black History Month.

This month we celebrate the contributions of African Americans to the history of our great nation, and pay tribute to trailblazers, pioneers, heroes, and leaders like the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama; Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; U.S. Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce; U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan; U.S. Congressman Mickey Leland; Astronauts Dr. Guion Stewart Bluford, Jr. and Mae C. Jemison; activists, intellectuals, authors, and artists like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, James Baldwin, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Gwendolyn Brooks just to name a few of the countless number of well-known and unsung heroes whose contributions have helped our nation become a more perfect union.

The history of the United States has been marked by the great contributions of African American activists, leaders, writers, and artists.

As a member of Congress, I know that I stand on the shoulders of giants whose struggles and triumphs made it possible for me to stand here today and continue the fight for equality, justice, and progress for all, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

The greatest of these giants to me are Mrs. Ivalita ``Ivy'' Jackson, a vocational nurse, and Mr. Ezra A. Jackson, one of the first African Americans to succeed in the comic book publishing business.

They were my beloved parents and they taught me the value of education, hard work, discipline, perseverance, and caring for others.

And I am continually inspired by Dr. Elwyn Lee, my husband and the first tenured African American law professor at the University of Houston.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly wish to acknowledge the contributions of African American veterans in defending from foreign aggressors and who by their courageous examples helped transform our nation from a segregated society to a nation committed to the never ending challenge of perfecting our union.

A few years ago about this time, I was honored to join my colleagues, Congressman John Lewis and Congressman Charles Rangel, a Korean War veteran, in paying tribute to surviving members of the Tuskegee Airmen and the 555th Parachute Infantry, the famed ``Triple Nickels'' at a moving ceremony sponsored by the U.S. Army commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The success of the Tuskegee Airmen in escorting bombers during World War II--achieving one of the lowest loss records of all the escort fighter groups, and being in constant demand for their services by the allied bomber units--is a record unmatched by any other fighter group.

So impressive and astounding were the feats of the Tuskegee Airmen that in 1948, it helped persuade President Harry Truman to issue his famous Executive Order No. 9981, which directed equality of treatment and opportunity in all of the United States Armed Forces and led to the end of racial segregation in the U.S. military forces.

It is a source of enormous and enduring pride that my father-in-law, Phillip Ferguson Lee, was one of the Tuskegee Airmen.

Clearly, what began as an experiment to determine whether ``colored'' soldiers were capable of operating expensive and complex combat aircraft ended as an unqualified success based on the experience of the Tuskegee Airmen, whose record included 261 aircraft destroyed, 148 aircraft damaged, 15,553 combat sorties and 1,578 missions over Italy and North Africa.

They also destroyed or damaged over 950 units of ground transportation and escorted more than 200 bombing missions. They proved that ``the antidote to racism is excellence in performance,'' as retired Lt. Col. Herbert Carter once remarked.

Mr. Speaker, Black History Month is also a time to remember many pioneering women like U.S. Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm; activists Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks; astronaut Mae C. Jemison; mathematicians like Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson; authors Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Gwendolyn Brooks; all of whom have each in their own way, whether through courageous activism, cultural or intellectual contributions, or artistic creativity, forged social and political change, and forever changed our great Nation for the better.

It is also fitting, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to those national leaders whose contributions have made our nation better, we honor also those who have and are making a difference in their local communities.

In my home city of Houston, there are numerous great men and women. They are great because they have heeded the counsel of Dr. King who said:

``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.''

By that measure, I wish to pay tribute to some of the great men and women of Houston:

1. Rev. F.N. Williams, Sr.

2. Rev. Dr. S.J. Gilbert, Sr.

3. Rev. Crawford W. Kimble

4. Rev. Eldridge Stanley Branch

5. Rev. William A. Lawson

6. Rev. Johnnie Jeffery ``J.J.'' Robeson

7. Mr. John Brand

8. Ms. Ruby Moseley

9. Ms. Dorothy Hubbard

10. Ms. Doris Hubbard

11. Ms. Willie Bell Boone

12. Ms. Holly HogoBrooks

13. Mr. Deloyd Parker

14. Ms. Lenora ``Doll'' Carter

As we celebrate Black History Month, let us pay tribute to those who have come before us, and pay forward to future generations by addressing what is the number one issue for African American families, and all American families today: preserving the American promise of economic opportunity for all.

Our immediate focus must be job creation, and enacting legislation that will foster and lay the foundation for today's and tomorrow's generation of groundbreaking activists, leaders, scientists, writers and artists to continue contributing to the greatness of America.

We must continue to preserve the American Dream for all.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here in celebration of the heroic and historic acts of African Americans and their indispensable contributions to this great Nation.

It is through our work in creating possibilities for today and future generations that we best honor the accomplishments and legacy of our predecessors.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is going to be a devastating day for so many. For decades, America has been engaged in resettling refugees. I remember the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, and the people from Afghanistan. More importantly, I remember the excitement I had in visiting the Statue of Liberty and being reminded of what a great country this is.

Tomorrow, with the 120-day suspension, we will literally devastate refugee families, some of whom waited 10, 12, 15 years, who have sold all their goods and who are good people who want to come to this country, and, as well, their documents will expire.

I am asking the administration to have mercy and to be as the Chaplain ordered us to do: to find our grounding in being able to be servants.

I would ask that we not devastate these families causing them to completely be derailed from moving toward being refugees in this country. No terrorist has been found in refugees.

I believe it is crucial that we show mercy in the spirit of prayer, as in the prayer breakfast this morning. Let us show mercy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing debate on H.J. Res. 40, and the underlying legislation, because in a nation that leads the civilized world in deaths by gun violence, the last thing we should be doing is making it easier for persons suffering from a very severe, long-term, mental disorder that makes them incapable of managing their financial benefits and unable to do any kind of work in the U.S. economy, even part-time or at very low wages to obtain deadly firearms.

The Republicans have brought to the floor this week a Congressional Review Act (CRA) of Disapproval to overturn Social Security Administration (SSA) regulations to comply with existing federal law governing the submission of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

H.J. Res. 40, would vacate an important rule issued by the Social Security Administration implementing the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

That law, which we adopted in the wake of the tragic mass shooting at Virginia Tech, requires federal agencies to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) records of individuals who are statutorily prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.

The statute was enacted with bipartisan support, and we should stand together to defend efforts to see that it is fully implemented.

Let us be clear what a submission vote on this legislation is about: the Republican's goal is to weaken our firearms background check system.

The shootings at Virginia Tech in April 2007 presented the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history.

On April 16 2007, the violence began around 7:15 a.m., ending in the deaths of 32 students and teachers after being gunned down on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University by Seung Hui Cho, a student at the school, who later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Only four months prior, on December 13, 2005, Cho had been ordered by a judge to seek outpatient care after making suicidal remarks to his roommates and was subsequently evaluated at Carilion-St. Alban's mental health facility.

On February 9, 2007, Cho picked up a Walther P-22 pistol that he purchased online, just days before, on February 2 from an out-of-state dealer at JND Pawn shop in Blacksburg, across the street from Virginia Tech.

In March of 2007, Cho purchased a 9mm Glock pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition from Roanoke Firearms for 571 dollars.

The attack, resulting from these preventable actions, left 30 people dead and another 17 wounded.

In all, 27 students and five faculty members died as a result of the actions of a known mentally unstable individual who was nonetheless allowed to purchase a firearm.

On December 14, 2012, Lenny Pozner dropped off his three children, Sophia, Arielle, and Noah, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Noah had recently turned 6, and on the drive over they listened to his favorite song, for what turned out to be the last time.

Half an hour later, while Sophia and Arielle hid nearby, Adam Lanza walked into Noah's first-grade class with an AR-15 rifle.

Noah was the youngest of the 20 children and seven adults killed in one of the deadliest shootings in American history.

Depending on whom you ask, there were twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight victims in Newtown.

It is twenty-six if you count only those who were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School; twenty-seven if you include Nancy Lanza--Adam's own mother; twenty-eight once Adam turned the gun on himself.

There are twenty-six stars on the local firehouse roof.

On the anniversary of the shootings, the governor of Connecticut asked churches to ring their bells twenty-six times.

Americans have spoken and they are outraged by the countless, needless gun related deaths claiming the lives of their children.

To ensure the continued safety of American families, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain categories of individuals from possessing firearms, including those who, using outdated terminology, are ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' (This is referred to as the ``federal mental health prohibitor.'')

The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires federally licensed firearms dealers to run background checks on prospective gun purchasers through NICS.

NICS includes records from various databases on individuals who are prohibited by law from purchasing and possessing firearms.

In response to the mass shootings at Virginia Tech, prior to which the shooter's mental health prohibitor should have been, but was not, reported to NICS, Congress in 2007 unanimously approved legislation to adopt the NICS Improvement Amendments Act.

As senior member of the House Committees on Judiciary and Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, I supported the 2016 Social Security Administration (SSA) rule, which committed the SSA to submit records to the gun background check system for social security recipients prohibited from possessing guns due to severe mental illness.

It is a critical process for enforcing the law that bars prohibited people from passing background checks and purchasing firearms.

The only way we are going to prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who should not have them, people who pose a known and documented danger to themselves and others, is through a system based on robust, accurate and complete information.

Prior to the new SSA rulemaking, the agency had no process for submitting records of prohibited people to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

NICS therefore, has been missing records for those prohibited individuals.

NICS is only as good as the records it contains.

With those records missing from the system, these individuals are able to pass a background check and complete a purchase even though they are legally prohibited from purchasing guns under longstanding federal law.

The SSA regulation closes this gap by committing the agency to begin submitting prohibiting records into the gun background check system.

The rule does not impact any beneficiaries who are not already prohibited under law, and does not impact people based on disability findings that have been made prior to the rule taking effect.

Americans have spoken and they are outraged by the countless, needless gun related deaths claiming the lives of their children.

Under the regulation, only individuals with the most severe mental impairments, who are (1) unable to earn any income due to their mental incapacity, and (2) have been found incapable of managing their own benefits meet the NICS reporting system cautionary criteria to report the names of certain individuals who are prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

SSA has evaluated legal, medical and lay evidence and determined that these individuals are not capable of managing their own benefits.

SSA estimates that about 75,000 people per year will meet these criteria for reporting to NICS.

Disability examiners make the determination based on medical and other evidence, but physicians or psychologists review the evidence and sign off on the cases.

An individual who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, suffers from hallucinations and delusions, and most days cannot care for herself-- feeding, dressing, communicating with those around her.

Her symptoms and medical history meet the criteria in the listing for schizophrenia.

She receives disability benefits and has a representative payee.

She would meet the criteria for reporting.

An individual who has significant intellectual disability that prevents him from working at any level (i.e., he meets the listing for intellectual disability), and is unable to understand how to pay rent or use his benefits to buy food.

He qualifies for disability benefits and has a representative payee.

He would meet the criteria for reporting.

Placing anyone into the NICS as a ``prohibited person'' is not something we should take lightly, but it is a task that must be done in limited circumstances and as required by statute.

The circumstances addressed by this rule require that we work together on this serious and unfortunate issue.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of Disapproval would, if passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President, deem the rule to have not been in effect at any time and would also prohibit SSA from reissuing a rule that is substantially the same.

The Republican's use of the CRA process to overturn the rule is an extreme exercise in bad governance.

Rather than fixing or improving the rule, it would ban reporting by the SSA entirely.

There would be no opportunity to simply improve aspects of the rule, and we would prevent full implementation of the law we enacted after the Virginia Tech shooting.

I cannot support that result and therefore oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Subverting long-standing gun safety laws under the guise of protecting Constitutional rights, while simultaneously pushing for repeal of health reform laws that provided care to these communities rings hollow.

Now is not the time to weaken our background checks system by excluding those with the most severe and incapacitating forms of mental impairment.

The Social Security Administration should be commended for its efforts to keep children and families safe by following the lead of other agencies and enforcing laws that have been on the books for decades.

I urge you to oppose this Republican scare tactic of a rule, and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to acknowledge the fallen Navy SEAL officer in Yemen and offer my concern to his family. I will rise tomorrow to continue my questioning on that, but today I wanted to make sure that I prayerfully acknowledged the sacrifice he made for this Nation.

I rise today because we are one step further for the nominee for the Attorney General of the United States of America. And I join my colleagues in the Senate, the other body, who raised concern of not being able to inquire of Mr. Sessions what his position would be on what has been determined by five courts, at least, of the unconstitutionality of the executive order. It is a ban on Muslims, it is a violation of the First Amendment, equal protection of the law, and due process--First Amendment being freedom of religion.

Therefore, we now have an Attorney General making the first step, Mr. Sessions, where we do not know whether you will be able to embrace the laws that protect the most vulnerable women, children, the civil rights of many, and the voting rights of many, and, frankly, I believe those questions should be answered.

I conclude by saying, when you questioned Deputy Attorney General Yates, she was able to say that she would stand as an independent, objective person Attorney General having oversight over the White House. Will you be able to do the same?