Sheila Jackson Lee: “I think the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary just answered, this is a political bill. If an independent entity…”

“I think the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary just answered, this is a political bill. If an independent entity in the settlement wants to retain an entity to help train, to help provide information, to speak Spanish, why is that prohibited? My amendment says there should be an affirmative affirmation through an exemption that this is not disallowed because specifically what they are trying to go to is blocking the particular settlement and the parties from making an informed decision as to who would best implement the settlement; and if that required funding to do so to an entity that may happen to be a civil rights group, an NAACP, an Urban League, La Raza, then it seems that my friends on the other side of the aisle want to make sure that those organizations' storied histories in civil rights does not get a chance to help improve and to eliminate sexual harassment, workplace harassment, workplace discrimination, sexual violence, none of these things. I can't, for the life of me, understand why the Jackson Lee amendment No. 4 would not be an acceptable affirmation that it is all right for these corporations to engage with other entities that can do the job better than them. Let's work together to eliminate discrimination in America once and for all, and let's work together so that we don't read any more headlines like the Aurora, Colorado, headline victims, where they were told to pay $700,000 back to the theater.…”