Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6029) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to reauthorize the comprehensive opioid abuse grant program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6029, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in July 2016, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, otherwise known as CARA. The statistics then were shocking, and, unfortunately, they have not yet subsided. In 2016, more than 64,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, including illicit drugs and prescription opioids. This figure has nearly doubled in the past decade.

Part of CARA created a comprehensive opioid abuse reduction program at the Department of Justice which directs Federal resources for drug abuse programs targeted at the opioid problem within our criminal justice system.

By establishing this competitive grant program, CARA gives States and localities maximum flexibility to attack opioid abuse issues unique to their communities. States are now able to use the grant funds for a variety of important criminal justice programs, including alternatives to incarceration, treatment programs for incarcerated individuals, juvenile opioid abuse, investigation and enforcement of drug trafficking and distribution laws, and significant training for first responders in carrying and administering opioid overdose reversal drugs, like naloxone. States can enlist nonprofit organizations, including faith-based organizations, in the fight against opioid abuse.

In 2016, CARA authorized this new program at $103 million annually over 5 years. However, 3 months ago, Congress tripled that authorization to $330 million, including funds for drug courts, mental health courts, residential drug abuse treatment for State prisoners, and veterans' treatment courts. Therefore, the bill before us results in no net increase in spending authorizations and no additional burden on the American taxpayer, which is a responsible, good government approach to this epidemic.

This bill reauthorizes the CARA program through 2023, so we can make sure there is no lapse in our efforts against drug addiction.

While Members of this body should be proud of our accomplishments, there is still much more work to do. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and thereby reassure all Americans that we are committed to fighting the opioid epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus), whom I failed to note in my opening remarks is the chief sponsor of this legislation and someone very dedicated to addressing problems with opioid abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I, too, want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus). I want to thank the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee for her dedication to addressing this very serious problem.

I want to urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this fine legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I believe nothing is more important to America's future than ensuring a high-quality education for our nation's children. In the 21st century, this includes encouraging student participation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and

math, or STEM. That's why I am proud to represent an excellent institution of learning like John C. Myers Elementary School in Broadway, Virginia, in the U.S. House of Representatives. John C. Myers is leading the country in promoting STEM education for young students with its STEM Lab known as Jake's Nest.

In April 2018, John C. Myers was recognized at the International Technology and Engineering Educator Association's annual conference. The STEM program at John C. Myers was only one of 39 programs worldwide to earn the Program Excellence Award. This prestigious award is one of the highest honors given to technology and engineering education programs at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

I commend John C. Myers Elementary for inspiring children in the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia to take an interest in STEM. Together, the teachers, administrators, and staff have cultivated a unique place of learning for their students that engages them in innovative educational opportunities. As the need for students educated in STEM fields grows across both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the country, John C. Myers will continue to help prepare students to meet this demand. Congratulations to John C. Myers Elementary for this well- deserved honor. Go Jakes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 918, I call up the bill (H.R. 3249) to authorize the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3249.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, gangs are a poison in America. They bring violence, drugs, and death. They paralyze our communities with flagrant acts of violence and flood our neighborhoods with drugs. Gangs tear apart families by prematurely taking the lives of sons, daughters, and parents.

Unfortunately, today, some areas of our country have been overrun by gang violence. Homicide rates skyrocketed in St. Louis, Baltimore, and Chicago in 2016. Compared to the previous 5 years, 2016 represented a 15.8 percent increase in homicides in St. Louis, a 12.7 percent increase in Baltimore, and an 11.4 percent increase in Chicago.

We must stand up to violent gangs and provide an antidote to their poison.

H.R. 3249 is a vital part of the antidote. This legislation reforms and reauthorizes the Project Safe Neighborhoods Block Grant Program. This program operates under four key principles: partnerships, strategic planning, training, and outreach.

First and foremost, the program brings all the important actors together. This legislation will foster and improve existing partnerships between Federal, State, and local agencies, community groups, and researchers.

Strategic planning is the foundation of the Project Safe Neighborhoods program.

Moreover, H.R. 3249 promotes the robust enforcement of existing criminal laws and the development of intervention and prevention programs, such as juvenile justice projects and activities, including street-level outreach, conflict mediation, and social services. Intervention and prevention programs provide extensive training and community outreach.

Furthermore, in relying on localized and contemporaneous data, this bill strategically prioritizes a focus on individuals or organizations that are responsible for increasing violence in a particular geographic area.

This legislation will ensure that 30 percent of Project Safe Neighborhoods funding is allocated to gang task forces in regions experiencing a significant or increased presence of violent crime, firearm offenses, human trafficking, and drug trafficking.

As a result, critical resources, such as the deployment of law enforcement and funding, are put to their best use.

Altogether, this legislation takes a balanced approach by combining enforcement with prevention to combat gang violence in our communities across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive, coordinated, and community-focused nature of the Project Safe Neighborhoods program will serve as a key part of the antidote to the poisonous effects gangs have on our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock, for taking the lead on this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

This legislation is intended to help our communities fight criminal gangs and the violence and mayhem they wreak, and the bill is not intended to target anyone because of their race or national origin.

If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, yes, I do. And I certainly support, at every level of government, making sure that we are doing what we can to intervene and get people headed in the right direction and avoiding some of those problems in the first place. And, certainly, some of that is contained within the programs that are funded by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I appreciate the bipartisan effort that has gone into passing this very important legislation which will now go to the President's desk for his signature, and will do a lot of good in fighting gang violence and helping young people steer toward a better future and a better life.

Both of those things are the purpose of this legislation. I want to especially thank, again, the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock) for her long-dedicated work to fighting gang violence and helping our young people have better opportunities for the future, not only in Virginia, but all across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I was present on the floor during votes on May 23, 2018; however, I missed two votes in the series. I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 224 and NAY on Roll Call No. 225.

Mr. Speaker, Woodrow ``Woody'' Pettus was a true Virginia gentleman. For 58 years, he worked at The Homestead, a historic resort nestled in the mountains of beautiful Bath County, Virginia. He was an institution there, known for his knack for remembering faces and names and always greeting guests and friends with a smile.

Woody left this earthly life for his heavenly home on May 16, 2018, at the age of 77. He is survived by his wife of 55 years, Ruby Alloway Pettus, as well as two children, Woodrow Houston Pettus and wife Helen, and Lisa Pettus Aguilar, and many grandchildren, great grandchildren, and special family members. My prayers for peace and comfort are with them as they reflect on their loss and remember the memories they shared with Woody, affectionately known as ``Pa'' to some.

Woody was born on March 28, 1941, to the late Walter Woodrow Pettus and Nellie Moats Pettus in Warm Springs, Virginia. He started caddying at The Homestead as a teenager, and instantly made an impression on guests and co-workers alike. While he loved the game of golf, he wanted something with more history and decided to move to the stables and work with his father who was one of the senior Livery Drivers. Woody eventually moved on to the Dining Room where he served in a variety of roles, including his most recent position of Maitre d'. In 2003, Golfstyles magazine recognized him as the Maitre d'Hotel of the Year. Last September, Historic Hotels of America honored him as Ambassador of the Year, which is presented to an individual who has dedicated his or her career to a historic hotel for at least 25 years and has shown exemplary hospitality and service to the hotel and its guests. Woody was one of five generations of Pettuses who have worked at The Homestead. He was also a member of Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church in Warm Springs, where he was baptized as a youth.

The Homestead is a special place for me and my family. Woody was a dear friend and always greeted my family warmly. He and I enjoyed catching up frequently over the years I know this is a sentiment widely shared as evidenced by the outpouring of support for him when his cancer diagnosis was announced and now in his passing. For many guests, the staff at The Homestead has become an extended family.

The weekend of June 1st, his family, friends, and his beloved ``Homestead family'' will gather to celebrate his life and pay tribute to his long and vibrant legacy--rich with kindness and a dedication to serving others. It is only fitting that he be celebrated at the place that he loved so dearly by the people he built relationships with over the past six decades.

Woody's presence will be dearly missed in the hallways and dining room of The Homestead, but certainly not forgotten. I know that I will long remember his kind smile and gentle demeanor, just like many others he met over the years. Woody was one in a million, and we are all better for having known him.

He sums it up best himself. When asked what he loves most about what he does, Woody said, ``When I can look down the hall leading to the dining room and see some of my guests coming toward me, guests that I've known for years, coming back. That's when I know that my life has not been in vain.''

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 224 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 225.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Tenney

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5682) to provide for programs to help reduce the risk that prisoners will recidivate upon release from prison, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5682, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP Act. The bipartisan bill before us is a meaningful, historic criminal justice reform measure.

The FIRST STEP Act places a new focus on rehabilitation. While we recognize criminal behavior needs to be punished and criminals need to be incarcerated, we must also acknowledge that our prison population needs to be rehabilitated to the greatest extent practicable. The bill establishes a risk and needs assessment as the basis of both an effective recidivism reduction program and an efficient and effective Federal prison system.

The FIRST STEP Act will incentivize prisoners to participate in evidence-based recidivism reduction programs, productive activities, and jobs that will actually reduce their risk of recidivism.

We know that over 90 percent of all prisoners within the Bureau of Prisons

will be released someday. That is an indisputable fact. We also know that without programming and intervention, which can train prisoners to be better citizens, not better criminals, prisoners are more likely to recidivate.

Mr. Speaker, rather than allowing the cycle of crime to continue, this legislation takes a practical, intelligent approach to rehabilitation. By using a focused approach for each prisoner, we can lower the risk of recidivism. That is what H.R. 5682 does.

Fewer recidivists means fewer prisoners in the future. It means greater savings to the American taxpayer. More importantly, it means safer communities, fewer crimes, and, of course, fewer victims. It also means greater opportunities for people once they leave prison.

This bill is important because when prisoners who have received intervention and rehabilitation are released, they are less likely to commit crimes. When that happens, our streets are safer and innocent civilians are less likely to be victimized. Rehabilitated prisoners are more likely to leave the life of crime behind, become productive members of society, and contribute to their communities. If that isn't meaningful, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is.

I know there are some in this body who are opposing this legislation because it does not include sentencing reform. I support sentencing reform and have worked with my colleagues to find common ground on that issue. However, we should not let this opportunity pass by. The vast majority of Members of this House agree that this legislation is needed. Let us not linger any longer. Let us move this important and meaningful bill today.

Just look at the bipartisan support from outside interest groups that the FIRST STEP Act has received. Numerous organizations--almost too many to list in the allotted time we have--on both the left and the right have enthusiastically endorsed this bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chief sponsors of H.R. 5682, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries). They worked tirelessly to get this bill to the floor, and both should be applauded for their bipartisan approach to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the FIRST STEP Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), the chief sponsor of the legislation and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman from New York is, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to not oppose this very important piece of legislation before us today. It appears their opposition to the legislation is based upon what is not in the legislation rather than what is actually in it. I don't believe there is a single provision in the bill that they oppose.

In fact, many of the provisions in this bill are there because they specifically asked for them. For example, Democrats asked for a fix to the way the Bureau of Prisons calculates good time credit. We made changes to clarify congressional intent on that section.

They also asked for language on the risk assessments to ensure that dynamic factors were used to evaluate a prisoner's risk of recidivating. That request was honored. Various pilot programs and a prohibition of shackling pregnant inmates were also placed in the legislation at the request of Democrats. Good requests, good changes, and these are only a few of the many requests that were honored.

Voting against this meaningful and important bill is a disservice to those men and women currently incarcerated and their families. It is a disservice to those great men and women who work in our Bureau of Prisons, and it is a disservice to the American people.

The vast majority of those incarcerated are going to get out one day. Let's make sure they have the tools and the resources to successfully reenter society. H.R. 5682 does just that.

I urge my colleagues to support the FIRST STEP Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support fair sugar policy.

The sugar program represents a hidden tax on American businesses and consumers and is responsible for the loss of U.S. food manufacturing jobs.

Each month, families go to the grocery store, and unbeknownst to them, the sugar in many of the products they buy is subject to a cost that is generally 30 to 40 percent higher than the world cost. Very few, if any, will ever know that a hidden sugar tax has been imposed upon them by the sugar program. This hidden tax totals at least $2.4 billion a year for American consumers.

There are more than 600,000 sugar-using industry jobs in our Nation, including thousands in Virginia's Sixth District. I want to stand up and be counted as an advocate for keeping those jobs in the United States.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this amendment to help put an end to the hidden costs of the sugar program.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 891, I call up the bill (H.R. 5698) to amend title 18, United States Code, to punish criminal offenses targeting law enforcement officers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting the amendment to H.R. 5698 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material to H.R. 5698.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On October 15, 1991, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial was dedicated to honor Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety and protection of our Nation and its people.

The memorial features two curving, 304-foot-long, blue-gray marble walls. Carved on these walls are the names of more than 21,000 officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history, dating back to the first known death in 1791.

Each spring, law enforcement officers from around the country gather in Washington, D.C., for Peace Officers Memorial Day. For a week, these men and women attend events to celebrate and honor those law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Each year, there is a memorial service in which the names of fallen officers are added to the long, curving marble walls of the memorial. Unfortunately, the list of names keeps growing and shows no signs of slowing down.

That is why today I am pleased we are considering the Protect and Serve Act. This bill is designed to ensure those who seek to harm police officers face swift and certain justice.

In recent years, the brave and dedicated men and women in blue who serve our communities are facing increased levels of hostility and violence. The increasing levels of hostility towards the law enforcement community have given rise to an increase in ambush-style attacks on police officers.

In 2016 alone, 64 police officers were shot and killed in the line of duty, 21 of whom were killed in ambush-style attacks. According to CNN, in the first 17 weeks of this year, 21 law enforcement officers across the U.S. have been shot and killed in the line of duty. That averages out to more than one death every week.

Only a few weeks ago, on April 19, 2018, two sheriff's deputies were gunned down and killed in a suspected ambush while they were eating at a restaurant in Gainesville, Florida.

To address this threat to the brave police, who put their lives on the line each day across our country, the Protect and Serve Act allows for Federal prosecution of criminals who knowingly assault law enforcement officers and cause serious bodily harm or attempt to do so. This bill applies to both Federal law enforcement officers and State and local officers where there is a nexus to interstate commerce.

Importantly, Mr. Speaker, this legislation recognizes that most often these crimes are wholly within the jurisdiction of a State to prosecute. Therefore, in addition to other requirements in the bill to ensure a Federal connection, H.R. 5698 states specifically that prosecution under this new statute may only be pursued if the Attorney General certifies that, one, the State does not have jurisdiction; two, the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction; three, the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstrably unvindicated the Federal interest in protecting the public safety; or, four, a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

This is a critical part of the bill. It will ensure that the Federal power is

reserved for particularly egregious cases.

At the dedication of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, President George H. W. Bush aptly stated: ``Carved on these walls is the story of America, of a continuing quest to preserve both democracy and decency, and to protect a national treasure that we call the American Dream.''

Today, we continue to recognize this special role police officers play in our society. The Protect and Serve Act sends a uniform message that our country will not tolerate attacks on police which purposefully attempt to undermine the State, sow chaos in our communities, and wreck the lives of many of our finest citizens and their families.

I urge my colleagues to send a uniform message today by addressing the grave crisis threatening both our communities and the brave men and women in blue who put their lives on the line each day.

I would like to thank my Judiciary Committee colleagues, especially career law enforcement officers Sheriff Rutherford and Chief Demings, for sponsoring this bill. In addition, I want to thank Congressman Buck for his years of tireless work to ensure that those who target law enforcement officers are punished.

Finally, I want to recognize the police organizations who have worked with us so diligently on this and many other bills, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association, among many others. I thank them. We all salute them for their steadfast commitment and dedicated service.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), who is the chief sponsor of the legislation and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a gentleman who can speak well of the role that law enforcement officers play in saving lives. He is the chief majority whip of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the National Fraternal Order of Police dated May 9, 2018; the National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., dated May 16, 2018; the Sergeants Benevolent Association, dated May 8, 2018; and the National Sheriffs' Association, dated May 7, 2018, all endorsing this legislation.

National Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, 9 May 2018.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to make it very clear how important this legislation is for protecting law enforcement officers because it sends a message that we are going to handle these cases in a new way.

Some have criticized this bill, claiming that it is a hate crime. While I share those individuals' concerns about Federal hate crime statutes, I am pleased to tell the Members of this Congress that this bill before us did not create a new Federal hate crime. That is because the legislation does not use the language from the hate crime statute that requires the government prove the defendant acted ``because of the actual or perceived'' status of the victim.

What this bill does is penalize knowingly attacking a law enforcement officer. Given the increase in ambush-style attacks on law enforcement, which was detailed earlier, this bill represents a solution to a growing problem: the killing of police officers. It is narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal.

Therefore, I want to assure those Members who may be concerned about its intent that it is definitely not changing our Federal hate crime statutes.

This legislation this week, National Police Week, sends an important signal not just to our Nation's law enforcement officers, 900,000 strong, but far beyond that, to all Americans, that we are placing a very, very high priority on saving the lives of men and women who put their lives on the line to protect us, to protect our freedoms, to protect our opportunities, to protect our families, to protect our communities, and making sure that people who ambush police officers and take police officers' lives are held fully accountable, which is what this bill does. It is a good bill. It is an important bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment makes two small, but important changes to the underlying legislation.

It first clarifies the language of the bill to assure those who are prosecuted are acting with some level of intent in injuring a police officer. It does this by changing the language from ``knowingly causing serious bodily injury to a law enforcement officer'' to ``knowingly assaults a law enforcement officer causing serious bodily harm.'' This change will avoid covering situations where someone unintentionally harms a police officer.

The amendment also amends the definition of law enforcement officer to ensure it covers all law enforcement officers who are putting themselves in harm's way each day, including corrections officers.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is important because it ensures that, in practice, this statute can be used more efficiently to protect law enforcement officers. It also ensures that nobody who wears a badge will be unintentionally excluded from the bill's protections.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, that is good news, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 613) to amend title 18, United States Code, to require that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ensure that each chief executive officer of a Federal penal or correctional institution provides a secure storage area located outside of the secure perimeter of the Federal penal or correctional institution for firearms carried by certain employees of the Bureau of Prisons, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 613, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in 2004 Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, LEOSA. LEOSA allows certain law enforcement officers, including correctional officers of the Bureau of Prisons, the right to carry a concealed firearm throughout the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all other U.S. territories for self- defense and the defense of others. LEOSA also allows law enforcement officers to carry their firearms while off duty.

These laws help keep citizens safe, but there is still room for improvement. For example, the Bureau of Prisons does not permit its correctional officers to safely store their personal firearms in a secure locker at its facilities, and employees are otherwise prohibited from storing them in their personal vehicles while parked on Bureau of Prisons property. This leaves correctional workers vulnerable to attack during their commutes to and from work.

Sadly, an attack on a correctional officer while commuting to or from a prison is not a hypothetical situation. On the evening of February 26, 2013, Bureau of Prisons Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati was ambushed and murdered while on his way home from work.

According to court documents, the shooting was a hit ordered by Federal inmates housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. Authorities believe that Lieutenant Albarati's murder was a direct result of his work at the prison; specifically, in retaliation for his investigations into cell phone smuggling at the MDC and the seizure of contraband.

Lieutenant Albarati was ambushed during his drive home, shot 16 times, and died at the scene. He was 39 years old.

On January 28, 2015, a Federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a six-count indictment charging nine individuals for the murder of Lieutenant Albarati. In January of 2016, Federal prosecutors notified the district court of their intention to seek the death penalty. Trial preparation is ongoing in that case.

Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Albarati's family has yet to receive justice for this senseless, despicable act, but we, as a legislative body, can do our best to ensure this never happens again. To that end, H.R. 613 makes a commonsense amendment to Federal law to address the problem highlighted by this tragedy.

This bipartisan bill, cosponsored by 54 of our colleagues, would direct the Bureau of Prisons to provide a secure storage area located outside the secure perimeter of each Bureau of Prisons facility where correctional officers will be able to store their personal firearms and allow employees to store firearms

in a vehicle lockbox approved by the Bureau of Prisons.

This is important, reasonable legislation. With its passage, the House honors the life of a brave man who served his community faithfully and one day made the ultimate sacrifice.

I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) for introducing this legislation. I also want to thank Lieutenant Albarati's widow, Helen, who is here with us today in the gallery, for her tireless efforts to ensure her husband's death was not in vain.

We salute you and we thank you.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin the 2018 Police Week, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let us do our best to protect those who protect us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman does not have any additional speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very fitting, as we begin Police Week, that we pass this important piece of legislation that makes it very clear that our sworn officers, who keep people safe but risk their own lives and work in our Bureau of Prisons, have the opportunity to have a firearm when they are traveling to and from work.

It is not practical the way the current rules work. This law is vitally needed to help save lives. I know that Mrs. Albarati is here to see that that happens, and I commend her. I admire her courage, and we should not allow her husband's life to be lost in vain. Let's pass this legislation and make sure it doesn't happen to others in the future. I urge my colleagues to vote for the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 285) expressing the sense of the United States House of Representatives that Congress and the President should empower the creation of police and community alliances designed to enhance and improve communication and collaboration between members of the law enforcement community and the public they serve.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 285, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased the House is considering this resolution today, which highlights the critical need to strengthen relationships between police departments and the communities they serve.

This resolution, cosponsored by the gentleman from the great Commonwealth of Virginia (Mr. Taylor), expresses the sense of the United States House of Representatives that Congress and the President should empower the creation of police and community alliances designed to enhance and improve communication and collaboration between members of the law enforcement community and the public.

Over the past several years, our country has witnessed the tension between certain police departments and communities come to a head. We have seen communities grieve over the loss of young men killed in police shootings.

At the same time, we have seen a concerning spike in ambush attacks on police officers. We have heard complaints from communities about not being able to trust the police. We have also heard complaints from police that certain communities will not help the police in investigating the violent crimes that plague those very communities.

To address this strain and divide, in July 2016, the Judiciary Committee established the bipartisan Policing Strategies Working Group. This group has held several roundtables and traveled around the country to speak to police departments and community leaders. Our objective is to examine police accountability, aggregation towards law enforcement, and public safety concerns. Our work to highlight and address these issues is ongoing.

H. Res. 285 continues this progress by publicly supporting the creation of community-police alliances so that perhaps one day we can come to a point where there is no divide between the police and the communities they serve, no longer a sense of profound mistrust, no longer any sort of us versus them mentality.

When it comes to protecting and serving the community, there shouldn't be sides. We hope for a day when everyone can realize that police departments and community leaders seek the same goals: peace, prosperity, and safety. We hope that this resolution and our continued work on the Policing Strategies Working Group and the Judiciary Committee helps to continue the progress the country is making.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Taylor for introducing this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Taylor), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any additional speakers and am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4854) to amend the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to provide additional resources to State and local prosecutors, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4854, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4854, the Justice Served Act of 2018, introduced by the gentleman from Texas, Judge Carter.

All of us in this body are familiar with Debbie Smith and the tragedy of her attack and the triumph of the law that bears her name. Many of us have had the pleasure of meeting Debbie and her husband, Rob, and hearing her story firsthand.

The Debbie Smith Act was the Nation's first piece of legislation aimed at ending the DNA backlog that plagued our State crime labs.

The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program was created in 2004, and

since then it has enabled States to process more than 725,000 cases and upload more than 327,000 DNA profiles into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, or CODIS. I had the honor to be the chief sponsor of the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2014.

When Judge Carter reached out to me about this bill, I was encouraged, but I also wanted to know how Debbie Smith felt about it. I learned that not only did she support it, she and others helped craft it.

When we reached out to Debbie and Rob to get their thoughts on the bill, they stated, ``getting hits doesn't mean as much if we cannot prosecute.'' I agree with Debbie and Judge Carter on this very important point.

The bill in front of us today makes a very small but important change to the Debbie Smith Act. That small change will increase the capacity of prosecutors to address the backlog of violent crime cases involving suspects identified through DNA evidence. This bill will allow victims of crime and their families to receive justice by giving prosecutors the tools they need to investigate, solve, and close cold cases.

That small, but vitally important, change is why the Justice Served Act of 2018 is endorsed by the National District Attorneys Association; Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network; Debbie Smith; Major County Sheriffs of America; Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; Sergeants Benevolent Association; the Fraternal Order of Police; the National Association of Police Organizations; Consortium of Forensic Science Organizations; Joyful Heart Association; the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; the Major Cities Chiefs; and the National Criminal Justice Association.

We in this body should join these organizations in supporting this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Carter, for introducing this legislation and all of his hard work in supporting it.

To paraphrase Debbie and Rob, getting a hit is nice, but ensuring justice is served is better.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in supporting the Justice Served Act of 2018.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase what Debbie and Rob Smith said, getting a hit is nice, but ensuring justice is served is even better. And it is, I think, a good amendment to the Debbie Smith Act that we allow these funds to be used for this purpose and close more of these cases that are solved by the DNA testing that was the original purpose of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, I thank Judge Carter for his fine work on it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 872, I call up the bill (H.R. 5645) to amend the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the Federal Trade Commission shall exercise authority with respect to mergers only under the Clayton Act and only in the same procedural manner as the Attorney General exercises such authority, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting the amendment to H.R. 5645 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5645.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In 1914, Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act, marking the

beginning of a dual antitrust enforcement regime in the United States.

Because both Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission enforce our Nation's antitrust laws, companies may, and often do, have different experiences when interacting with one agency relative to the other. One area in which the disparity can be the most striking and troubling is in the merger review process.

When a company wishes to merge with or purchase another company, it must notify both antitrust enforcement agencies of the proposed transaction. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission then determine which agency will be responsible for reviewing the transaction. As there are no fixed rules for making this determination, it can appear that the decision is made on the basis of a flip of a coin.

There are two substantial differences that companies face based on the identity of the antitrust enforcement agency that reviews the companies' proposed transaction.

The first difference arises if the agency seeks to prevent the transaction by pursuing a preliminary injunction in Federal court. A different legal standard is applied to a preliminary injunction request based solely on the identity of the requesting antitrust enforcement agency.

The second difference lies in the process available to each antitrust enforcement agency to prevent a transaction from proceeding. The FTC may pursue administrative litigation against a proposed transaction, even after a court denies its preliminary injunction request. In contrast, DOJ cannot pursue administrative litigation.

There is no justification for these disparities in the merger review processes and standards. The bipartisan Antitrust Modernization Commission recommended that Congress remove these disparities, and the bill before us today, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act, or the SMARTER Act, does just that. I applaud Representative Handel for introducing this important legislation that will enhance the transparency, predictability, and credibility of the antitrust merger review process.

By enacting the SMARTER Act into law, Congress will ensure that companies no longer will be subjected to fundamentally different processes and standards based on the flip of a coin. Notably, the legislation has garnered the support of former and current FTC commissioners, including former Chairman David Clanton, former Commissioner Josh Wright, and current Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen.

The SMARTER Act is an important step toward assuring that our Nation's antitrust laws are enforced in a manner that is fair, consistent, and predictable.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this good government bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Handel), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes a series of useful technical and clarifying changes suggested by the Federal Trade Commission.

At the FTC's request, the amendment adds language stating explicitly that the agency retains independent litigating authority in merger cases brought under the Clayton Act. This makes clear that the FTC is not forced to rely on the Department of Justice in these cases.

The amendment also strikes language referring to the FTC's authority to issue civil investigative demands in merger cases. This is because the reference is unnecessary and could create a negative inference that the FTC does not enjoy such authority in other contexts.

The amendment makes further technical improvements in several places in the bill that refer to the FTC bringing an action under section 7 of the Clayton Act. The FTC's authority to bring an action in court actually derives from section 15 of the act, so the amendment updates that citation.

Furthermore, the amendment changes the phrase ``including'' FTC proceedings to ``or'' FTC proceedings in several places in the underlying bill. This is to underscore that FTC settlements are distinct from DOJ antitrust settlements and, thus, are not subject to the judicial review provisions of the Tunney Act.

The amendment also refines language in the underlying bill that ensures the same legal standards are applied to FTC and DOJ injunctions, and that preserves FTC authority to use administrative adjudication as part of a settlement agreement.

Specifically, the changes more clearly define the circumstances in which the FTC may seek an injunction and more clearly state that the FTC must proceed in Federal court, not administratively. The amended language also more accurately reflects the FTC's practices for administrative settlements, more clearly states that the district courts must apply the same standard in those cases as it would apply when the Department of Justice seeks injunctions, and more clearly provides that the new rules change only administrative adjudications, not investigative procedures.

Finally, the amendment clarifies that the FTC's duty to use the courts, rather than administrative procedures, to block anticompetitive behavior, extends only to the merger-type actions that this bill is intended to cover.

Again, these changes are of a technical nature and were all recommended by the FTC itself. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The arguments we have heard against this bill are without merit.

It has charged that the SMARTER Act would make it more difficult for the FTC to fulfill its consumer protection mandate. This is incorrect.

The FTC's consumer protection powers are completely independent from the antitrust laws. The SMARTER Act deals only with the antitrust piece, so, by its terms, does not impact the FTC's ability to prosecute ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices.''

As for harm to consumers from proposed mergers, the SMARTER Act does not, in any way, affect substantive antitrust law; it does not amend, in any form or fashion, section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act or any of the FTC's consumer protection powers.

Opponents also claim that the SMARTER Act removes an important tool from the FTC by eliminating its ability to pursue administrative litigation. This, too, is a red herring.

The SMARTER Act only removes the FTC's administrative litigation authority in the very narrow context of proposed transactions. A report from the bipartisan Antitrust Modernization Commission determined that any benefit from such authority was marginal and ``significantly outweighed by the costs.''

The FTC can still pursue administrative litigation in conduct cases and in actions against consummated mergers. Indeed, the AMC report stated specifically that: ``Elimination of administrative litigation in . . . merger''--review--``cases will not deprive the FTC of an important enforcement option.''

Opponents also charge that enacting the SMARTER Act will make it more difficult for the antitrust enforcement agencies to stop a merger, but the SMARTER Act only changes the process; it does not have any substantive impact on merger reviews.

But don't take my word for it. A letter from 15 leading antitrust professors states: ``The SMARTER Act does nothing to undermine the FTC's authority; it simply ensures that the merger review processes and standards are equally applied to merger parties regardless of which agency reviews the transaction.''

But perhaps the most ironic argument brought against the bill is that it is unnecessary because the FTC rarely initiates administrative litigation after a court denies a preliminary injunction request. Administrative adjudications may be rare, not because regulators use the powers sparingly, but because the mere prospect of this protracted, costly process may prompt companies to abandon the merger even though they prevailed in court. That hardly seems fair.

Parties to a merger should receive the same treatment and have the same process regardless of the reviewing antitrust agency, and the SMARTER Act accomplishes that goal.

This legislation will help America continue to serve as a leader and innovator in competition law, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is unnecessary because this bill does nothing to undermine substantive antitrust enforcement. It might even hold up mergers that the court already found procompetitive and could help lower drug prices.

This is simply a dilatory tactic used by my friends on the other side of the aisle to hold up this important legislation.

For decades, American antitrust laws have been a shining example of how to protect against anticompetitive activities in a consistent, predictable, and fair manner.

Other countries have looked to our laws as the template for the creation of their own competition laws. Let us continue to be a model of proper antitrust enforcement.

The SMARTER Act is a commonsense process reform that ensures fairness and parity in the narrow field of merger reviews. The bill was recommended to Congress by a bipartisan commission and is supported by former top antitrust enforcement officials and past and present FTC Commissioners of both political parties.

Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to do the smart thing by opposing this bill and supporting the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 872, I call up the bill (H.R. 2152) to require States and units of local government receiving funds under grant programs operated by the Department of Justice, which use such funds for pretrial services programs, to submit to the Attorney General a report relating to such program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2152.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2018, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

A little over 50 years ago, there were three pretrial options for defendants accused of a crime: they were released on their own recognizance, granted commercial bail, or remanded to custody.

When considering the options on whether to grant ROR, set a bail amount, or remand, the judge considers a number of factors, including the severity of the crime charged, the suspect's criminal record, the danger posed to the public if the suspect is released, and the suspect's ties to community, family, and employment. Commercial bail ensures the appearance of the defendant in court at no cost to the taxpayer.

The situation for defendants began to change in the 1960s. The first U.S. pretrial services program, the Manhattan Bail Project, was established in 1961. The Manhattan Bail Project was intended to help defendants who were financially unable to post the surety bond conditions set in New York City.

The program interviewed defendants to gather information on community ties to determine a defendant's likelihood to appear in court. Based on these interviews, low-risk individuals were recommended for release on their own recognizance or the defendant's promise to appear without financial obligation.

Unfortunately, over the last four decades, pretrial release programs have expanded well beyond their original scope and purpose. Today, there are over 300 pretrial release programs nationwide, whose participants routinely include violent and repeat offenders, many of whom are able to post a commercial bond and have done so in the past. In many instances, the Federal Government has become a major source of funding for pretrial release programs.

Currently, these pretrial release programs funded by the taxpayers are not required to report any information about the defendants released through their programs into the communities. Basic information on defendants is neither collected nor reported in any systematic fashion.

H.R. 2152 requires jurisdictions that receive grant money from the Department of Justice to operate a pretrial release program to report certain information concerning the defendants to the Attorney General.

The bill requires the jurisdiction to submit the criminal histories of the defendants and the number of times the defendant has failed to appear as ordered by the court. It also requires the Attorney General to make public the information the Department of Justice receives. In my mind, that isn't a whole lot to ask these jurisdictions.

In fact, this bill is beneficial because citizens have the right to know what types of defendants are being released prior to their trial. If a defendant has a long history of criminal behavior or frequent failures to appear in court, the community should know that. Likewise, residents should be aware if their community is running a successful pretrial services program where defendants are regularly making it to their court appearances.

Simply put, no matter what side of the bail or no-bail debate you find yourself on, you should support this bill. Information like this, in the hands of the public, is never a bad thing. It will also be helpful to those of us who make policy on these matters.

I want to thank Mr. Poe for introducing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2152.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am baffled by those who oppose this very simple and straightforward legislation. Not a single Member in this Chamber should be opposed to the Citizens' Right to Know Act.

When has more data in the hands of this body ever been a bad thing? We have a number of obligations we owe our constituents. Two of those obligations are to make sure our communities are safe and that tax dollars are spent wisely. This bill accomplishes both. Without the Citizens' Right To Know Act, we and our constituents lack the ability to determine the effectiveness of taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs. Without the required data, hundreds of Federally funded pretrial release programs lack sufficient accountability to U.S. taxpayers. This lack of accountability has the potential to allow many repeat and violent offenders to get out of jail on our tax dollars. We and our constituents deserve to know if resources are being spent wisely and our communities are being protected.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) on this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2152, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5447) to modernize copyright law, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5447, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House brings early 20th century music laws for the analog era into the 21st century digital era. These changes are a culmination of years of effort by interested parties as well as by many members of the Judiciary Committee.

The problems and failures in our Nation's music laws have imposed real financial costs upon artists and creators. Music is no longer written on piano rolls and our laws shouldn't be based on that technology any longer either.

Several years ago, the Judiciary Committee began a comprehensive review of our Nation's copyright laws. We held dozens of hearings, heard from over 100 witnesses, and traveled to multiple cities across the country to hear directly from stakeholders who use these laws. This review provided the foundation upon which several bills to reform our copyright laws were constructed.

During the course of this review, we learned that our music licensing laws were no longer working as intended for songwriters, artists, and creators, or for the companies that deliver the music in innovative ways for consumers.

Specifically, we have heard about several key problems, including a dysfunctional mechanical licensing system that seems to generate more paperwork and attorneys' fees than royalties; a need to provide protection for pre-1972 performances; a lack of recognition in the law for the creative input of producers, sound engineers, and mixers; and a lack of a unified rate standard for music royalties.

The Judiciary Committee regularly hears from a variety of groups interested in copyright law, and it will not surprise anyone to know that, typically, not everyone agrees regarding what changes to title 17 are necessary. One person's problem may be another's benefit, and some have preferred a broken system over an unknown change.

However, in a reflection of how bad our music statutes are, the opposite is true with respect to the bill before us today. Every party that has spoken about music recognizes the problems caused by our current licensing framework and wants real solutions. The existing music provisions of title 17 are simply that bad.

I tasked the industry to come together with a unified reform bill and, to their credit, they delivered, albeit with an occasional bump along the way. Today, the major players in the music industry are unified in supporting comprehensive music licensing reform to bring the state of our Nation's copyright laws into the digital age that the industry itself has already transitioned to.

While no bill is perfect, by all accounts, this is a bill with overwhelming consensus behind it. Groups that represent songwriters, musical works copyright owners, digital music providers, individual artists, sound recording copyright owners, artist guilds, and performing rights organizations all support the bill.

The reasons for such widespread support are clear:

The Music Modernization Act boosts payments for copyright owners and artists by shifting the reasonable costs of a new mechanical licensing collective onto digital music services that, themselves, benefit from reduced litigation costs as a result of other provisions in the bill.

Songwriters gain a seat at the table in seeing how their royalties are collected and then allocated.

Pre-1972 artists who currently go unpaid will finally see royalties for their creations, as will sound engineers, mixers, and producers. The public benefits, too, by having immediate access to all music on their favorite services. Furthermore, libraries and archives gain educational and fair use access to pre-1972 works currently governed under State law.

This bill is the work product of many stakeholders and many Members. I want to highlight the work of several of my colleagues, including the ranking member, who were leaders in working on the underlying components of this bill.

I want to especially thank Mr. Collins and Mr. Jeffries for their leadership on section 115 reform. I would like to thank Mr. Issa and Mr. Nadler for their leadership on behalf of pre-1972 performers. I would also like to thank Mr. Crowley and Mr. Rooney for their efforts on behalf of producers, mixers, and sound engineers.

And last but not least, I would like to thank Ranking Member Nadler for his leadership on these issues and for his willingness to partner with me in putting these pieces together into a comprehensive and consensus music licensing reform package.

Sometimes big pieces of legislation can come together only through the efforts of a large number of people who invest their time in making change happen, as so many Members and so many stakeholders in the music and digital delivery communities have done. It also has to happen at the right time.

I would note that only 1 week ago, GRAMMYs on the Hill brought hundreds of artists to D.C. to explain to their own Members of Congress how important an updated licensing system is to them. This bill delivers that for them just 1 day before World Intellectual Property Day, when we recognize the value of intellectual property and those who create it. So I am on safe ground when I say that this bill fits right into the perfect sweet spot on both timing and substance.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a key legislator in making sure that this legislation moves forward. He has worked very, very hard on it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), who is from music- loving Tennessee and a great champion for the music industry and people who love music around our country.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), another Member from music-loving Tennessee and the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, this is landmark legislation that has been decades in coming. We have not had a significant review of our music licensing and copyright laws in many, many, many years.

There are many people to be thanked, including the staff of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle. I particularly want to recognize Joe Keeley, who is the chief counsel of the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee.

I also want to thank the leadership of the committee who have worked for many, many years on intellectual property issues: Shelley Husband, the chief of staff and general counsel; and Branden Ritchie, the chief counsel of the committee.

Time doesn't allow me to recognize everyone, but I especially want to recognize the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee vice chairman, Doug Collins. He and his staff have put literally hundreds and hundreds of hours into aspects of this legislation, and I want to personally thank him for that work as well.

This legislation has very strong, bipartisan support. It is supported by groups that look at intellectual property issues across the ideological spectrum, and it is nearly universally supported by the music industry, the technology companies, and others that provide the platforms on which that music is performed.

It is going to more fairly treat so many sectors of the music industry that it would be a shame not to see this legislation pass the House with a very strong, bipartisan vote, go to the Senate, pass there, and then on to the President's desk, where I have every confidence it will be signed into law.

During the course of many years of review of our copyright laws, we learned that our music licensing laws were no longer working as intended for songwriters, artists, and creators, people behind the scenes for the companies that deliver the music in innovative ways to our consumers.

The Music Modernization Act, a product of the Judiciary Committee's comprehensive copyright review, is a bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to join together and pass it and send it to the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.