Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to the remarkable life of Airman Apprentice Joseph Min Naglak of Navy Station Norfolk.

Airman Apprentice Naglak was born in South Korea and adopted by Kenneth M. and Jeanne Rand Naglak of West Windsor, New Jersey. He graduated from West Windsor Plainsboro High School in 2015 where he lettered in varsity football and took time to learn automotive restoration.

Airman Apprentice Naglak studied homeland security at Monmouth University before enlisting in April of 2017. He lived with his fiancee, Nicole Weber, and was an active and energetic volunteer with the Special Olympics.

His life was cut short in an accident last week aboard the USS George H.W. Bush. In speaking of his courage and patriotism, his sister said: ``He wanted to join the Navy to give back to a country who gave him so much. He was everything that I hoped to be one day, and he should always be remembered as a hero with a big heart.''

I send my condolences to the family and the friends of Airman Apprentice Naglak. I express my sincere gratitude for his service and his sacrifice, and I ask that my colleagues join me in a moment of silence recognizing his heroism and his sacrifice to our country.

Rest in peace, Airman Naglak.

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

I am.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

We are here because our Constitution provided for a body that would represent the interests of the people. There are 435 of us, and our mandate is to represent the interests of individuals from coast to coast, and beyond to our territories, ensuring that our laws help each of them work toward the American Dream.

For many Americans, owning property is the pinnacle of that dream. Once they have achieved it, that is not something we, the Federal Government, should take away lightly, and that is a principle upon which I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be particularly willing to agree. It is certainly not something that we should be letting companies impede upon.

Yet, current law allows pipeline companies, with authorization of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to circumvent landowner opposition and to use eminent domain to acquire people's lands so that they can build pipelines, even if the product of those pipelines ends up being used overseas.

Why would we allow private companies, shipping our resources overseas for a profit, with no benefit to us here at home, to take away privately owned land from owners who don't want to lose their property?

Worse still, compensation provided to the property owners is often far from fair or just, and the negotiations are rarely conducted in good faith. That is to say nothing of the polluting nature of these companies or our Nation's continued reliance on fossil fuels.

When you take away all the environmental considerations and look only at the basic transaction here, we are giving away people's private land to pipeline companies for no public benefit. In fact, we are giving away people's private land so that private companies can profit from selling liquefied natural gas to customers outside of the United States.

This body has fallen into a bad habit of corporate giveaways, but this is one of the worst.

With the recent boom in the domestic gas production, this is happening across the United States and harming property owners in many of our districts.

In my own State of New Jersey, residents, including my own constituents, are deeply concerned about the PennEast Pipeline Project, a proposed 118-mile, 36-inch gas pipeline stretching from northeast Pennsylvania to my district. More than 500 landowners, many of whom have vocally opposed the pipeline, will now have their properties cut up for construction.

Preventing these private, for-profit companies from having access to the eminent domain authority in section 7h of the Natural Gas Act would immediately halt abuse of that authority by private gas pipeline companies. It would place public interests over private profit. Most importantly, it will protect our constituents' hard-earned pieces of the American Dream.

This is an opportunity for each of us to show that we are for the people, that we acknowledge our job is to serve the people's interests, and that corporations shouldn't be able to take private land.

It shouldn't be a difficult choice because, if you are not here for the people, then you shouldn't be here at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6374, the Fitness Information Transparency Act of 2018. H.R. 6374 would require the Department of Homeland Security to issue uniform standards to vet Federal contractors seeking to work for the department.

Currently, there is no standard for vetting contractors to determine their fitness to access DHS facilities, IT systems, and sensitive information. Each

component has different standards, different procedures, and different adjudicators for contractor fitness. Lack of a department-wide uniform standard hinders reciprocity across the department. As a result, the committee has received testimony that contractors who work for multiple DHS components are investigated over and over and over again. What a waste of time and resources.

Today, DHS contractors routinely wait 3 to 4 months, if not longer, to be investigated, regardless of whether they have already been determined to be fit by another DHS component. This wait time is costly for not only the contractor, but it also hinders the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to execute its mission.

Today, neither the contractor nor their employer is regularly informed of the status of their investigation. Enactment of H.R. 6374 would help ensure that Federal contractor firms can access timely information regarding the status of their employees' fitness investigations.

Thanks to language that was authored by Representative Correa and accepted in committee, H.R. 6374 also recognizes that weaknesses in DHS fitness processes not only undermine the onboarding of Federal contractors in a timely way but also the onboarding of new DHS employees.

Representative Correa's amendment would require the department to take steps to improve the suitability determination process for Federal applicants and appointees and to report on the degree to which components and offices are granting reciprocity to individuals who are employed by other components or offices within the DHS.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this measure. H.R. 6374 improves the Department of Homeland Security's contractor investigation process by requiring a uniform set of standards, encouraging reciprocity among components, and enhancing communication between the department and the private sector.

It is our duty as Members of Congress to ensure processes are followed and that such processes are effective and efficient. H.R. 6374 seeks to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 6374, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6447, the Department of Homeland Security Chief Data Officer Authorization Act. H.R. 6447 would require the Department of Homeland Security to designate a chief data officer for the department. This official would be responsible for coordinating the organization and integration of data across the department for improved analysis and decisionmaking.

DHS generates, collects, and maintains vast quantities of data, but has difficulty uniformly analyzing it because of its inconsistencies in how data is collected and maintained throughout the department.

The chief data officer would serve as the lead official for coordinating internal data processes to achieve data and interoperability across DHS systems.

Importantly, H.R. 6447 includes language authored by the Representative from Florida (Mrs. Demings) to delegate responsibility for overseeing the Data Quality Act to the chief data officer.

Under the Data Quality Act, Federal agencies are required to issue guidelines to maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information they disseminate. Additionally, the law requires agencies to establish mechanisms for persons to correct data that does not comply with guidelines.

At this time, when truth is under assault, it is critical that there be vigilant watchdogs to help ensure that information provided by the Department of Homeland Security is accurate. With that, I encourage my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers on this bill, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here with my friend, Mr. Katko, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, enactment of H.R. 6447 would help improve DHS' ability to integrate and analyze data and ensure the reliability of the data it disseminates.

Further, it would help ensure that Congress is provided timely and accurate data to facilitate effective oversight. As such, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 6447.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6265, the PreCheck is PreCheck Act of 2018.

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, the Transportation Security Administration launched the PreCheck program to expedite vetted, known travelers through airport checkpoint screening. Today, TSA PreCheck is in more than 200 airports nationwide, improving security by allowing TSA to focus resources on the passengers it knows the least about who may pose a higher risk to the aviation system.

While PreCheck has generally proven popular with passengers, there is a concern that TSA has strayed from the program's original intent. In an effort to manage checkpoint wait times, TSA has pushed travelers who are not enrolled in PreCheck into expedited screening lanes.

While I recognize that large crowds of passengers waiting at checkpoints could pose a security risk, the way to prevent long lines is to staff checkpoints sufficiently, not to abuse the availability of expedited screening lanes.

H.R. 6265 seeks to address this issue by requiring that PreCheck lanes be used only by trusted travelers, with limited exceptions.

It also requires TSA to pilot a risk-modified screening concept under which a new level of screening, somewhere between PreCheck expedited screening and standard screening, could be provided to passengers who TSA deems to pose a lower risk to security.

Finally, this bill pushes TSA to grow participation in the PreCheck program by providing more innovative and convenient enrollment opportunities for passengers.

This bill is a result of bipartisan work and builds upon legislation that the Committee on Homeland Security ranking member, Mr. Thompson, advanced in the last Congress; and it is my delight to work with the current sponsor of this bill, Mr. Katko, as we move forward to ensure that traveling passengers are always safe. I thank Mr. Katko for his collaboration on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, Members on both sides of the aisle have been frustrated by not only TSA's use of PreCheck lanes to address wait times, but its failure to make significant progress in improving PreCheck enrollment opportunities. Enactment of H.R. 6265 should help TSA achieve its original vision for the PreCheck program.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6461, the TSA National Deployment Force Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Transportation Security Administration maintains a National Deployment Force, or NDF, a volunteer force made up of transportation security officers who are deployed to various locations across the country in support of TSA's homeland security mission.

Today, the TSA Administrator is able to deploy this force to respond rapidly to operational challenges at more than 440 airports where TSA conducts security operations. Maintenance of this operational capability would not be possible if TSA did not maintain a robust federalized screening workforce.

TSA deploys the NDF to address hiring difficulties, seasonal demands, severe weather conditions, and periods of relief and recovery following a natural disaster or other major incident, as well as to support securing national security events, again, such as the Super Bowl and national political conventions. In particular, the NDF was critical to ensuring TSA could continue to operate fully in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy after that storm devastated my region of the country.

Notably, TSA has called upon the NDF to fill staffing gaps at airports where private screening companies operating under TSA's screening partnership program are unable to hire enough officers. My bill authorizes the NDF to ensure its work continues and directs TSA to report to Congress on the NDF's activities to ensure proper oversight.

Because officers serving on the NDF often go above and beyond, leaving their homes and families on short notice, my bill authorizes TSA to consider service in this force as a positive factor when evaluating applicants for promotions within TSA.

The NDF is a critical component of TSA's homeland security efforts, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, in recent years, we have seen TSA face a wide array of challenges, including complex threat streams, lengthy wait times, and the need to reopen airports quickly after natural disasters. The NDF provides TSA with the operational flexibility it needs to maintain the security of our country's transportation systems in the face of these challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my partner on the Transportation and Protective Security Subcommittee, Mr. Katko, as well as my other colleagues for their support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6438, the DHS Countering Unmanned Aircraft Systems Coordinator Act.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6438 directs the Department of Homeland Security to have a designated official to coordinate the Department's unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, plans and policies.

The countering UAS coordinator would work with Department components and offices to ensure testing, evaluation, or deployment of systems to identify, assess, or defeat a UAS threat are in compliance with applicable Federal laws. The coordinator would also serve as the principal Department official responsible for disseminating information to the private sector regarding counter-UAS technology.

In homeland security circles, there is broad recognition that UAS technology enhances capabilities to, among other things, deliver disaster relief to affected areas and surveil weak spots along the southwest border.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, today, there is considerable concern regarding the security threats that UAS may pose. More and more, we hear of instances where unmanned aircraft systems, commonly referred to as drones, are used for nefarious reasons, such as smuggling operations or to conduct surveillance to evade law enforcement. The threat was underscored last month when a drone was used in an unsuccessful assassination attempt on the life of the Venezuelan President as he spoke at a massive military parade.

As such, I support DHS organizing itself to better address this emerging homeland security threat, as set forth in H.R. 6438.

There is increasingly more concern regarding the potential threats that UAS may pose to the security of our Nation and its people.

Last Congress, when I served as the ranking member of the Oversight and Management Efficiency Subcommittee with Mr. Perry, we worked together on legislation that I drafted to address the UAS threat. Since that time, the range of threats associated with UAS has grown more complex and demand that DHS prioritize counter-UAS efforts in an unprecedented way. Designating an official to coordinate Department counter-UAS plans and policies is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for his work on this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6400, the United States Ports of Entry Threat and Operational Review Act.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6400 would require the Department of Homeland Security to conduct an analysis of the threats and operations at all United States air, land, and sea ports of entry.

Following the completion of the threat analysis, H.R. 6400 requires the Department to produce a strategy and implementation plan to mitigate such threats. The strategy and implementation plan must include consideration of improvements needed at the ports of entry to reduce wait times and facilitate the lawful movement of trade, travel, and people.

This bill is modeled after the Northern Border Security Review Act, which was signed into law in 2016. Most of what is required in this measure is already being done by the Department. What H.R. 6400 would do is bring together various mandated materials into one report. The Department should be able to carry out this new mandate in a way that is not duplicative of other efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 6400, a measure that directs DHS to take a holistic approach to protecting our ports of entry, vital gateways for trade and travel.

Speaking of the need for a holistic approach to homeland security, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that the Department's Quadrennial Homeland Security Review is 247 days overdue.

Pursuant to section 707 of the Homeland Security Act, the Department is required to produce this overarching strategy every 4 years. As the author of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Technical Corrections Act of 2017, a measure aimed at improving the quality of future reviews that is pending in the Senate, I strongly believe that DHS needs to do a better job of prioritizing its vast array of homeland security mission areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Shirley Ann Byard, who passed away on August 5, 2018.

Mrs. Byard was born in Scotland County, North Carolina on November 13, 1940 as one of nine daughters of Clyde and Pauline Bennett. She graduated from West Badin High School, Badin, NC in 1958. Mrs. Byard attended Barber-Scotia College and Winston Salem State University and received her undergraduate degree from Rutgers University in 1972. While attending Winston Salem State, Mrs. Byard participated in the Woolworth Lunch Counter protests during the Civil Rights Movement.

Mrs. Byard came to Trenton in 1962 and later worked for the City of Trenton for 30 years. She retired in 2002 as the Program Coordinator for the Office on Aging. Prior to that Mrs. Byard held numerous positions in the city, state, and nonprofit sectors.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Byard was a lifetime member of the N.A.A.C.P., member of the National Political Congress of Black Women, member of the Urban League Guild of Metropolitan Trenton and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. She was also a long-time member of the Bronzettes, Inc. in affiliation with the New Jersey Federation of Colored Women's Clubs. Mrs. Byard was also a devoted and faithful member of Shiloh Baptist Church. While with family in Maryland, she fellowshipped at Community of Hope A.M.E. Church in Temple Hills.

I am grateful for Mrs. Byard's work in the Trenton area. Not only was she a loving wife, and proud mother and grandmother, she was also a faithful and uplifting presence for her entire community--particularly seniors. I personally found her to be remarkably generous in her kindness to everyone she encountered.

Mr. Speaker, frankly, we need more Shirley Ann Byards. I am happy that she leaves a shining example for future generations to emulate. It is an honor to share with the United States House of Representatives the memory of Shirley. The Trenton community, and in fact our nation as a whole, was made better through her selfless work and tireless service.

With that, on behalf of my constituents in the greater Trenton area, I ask that my colleagues join me in commemorating the wonderful life and legacy of Shirley Ann Byard.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from Virginia for yielding to me and for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 50, the misleadingly named Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, which passed out of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a strictly partisan vote.

This dangerous bill is an attempt to weaken consumer protections, give private industry an unfair advantage, and erect unnecessary barriers to the regulatory process. Ultimately, this bill is designed to prioritize the interests of private businesses over the interests of the consumers these rules are designed to protect.

H.R. 50 also slows the regulatory process by using litigation today to delay the approval of rules. The existing Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 prohibits courts from using the law to stay, enjoin, invalidate, or otherwise affect an agency rule. H.R. 50 would fundamentally change that law by eliminating this prohibition, giving regulated businesses the ability to abuse a gratuitously expanded judicial review and tie up rules that would otherwise protect real people in courts for years.

While it has been very popular in this Congress to attack regulations as uniformly bad, the reality is that many of these rules are crucial to protecting our air and water, preventing dangerous financial practices, and ensuring the safety of food and drugs--to put it more simply, to protect Americans from corporations whose only motivation is to maximize their profit. Enacting this legislation would put these vital rules at risk.

H.R. 50 is a very harmful bill. I want to urge all of my colleagues to vote against it on the House floor today.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply strikes a section of H.R. 50 that subjects independent agencies to the reporting requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA.

The Office of Management and Budget, which is charged with implementing the President's priorities across the executive branch, is responsible for overseeing the implementation of H.R. 50.

This bill expands OMB's role by requiring them to guarantee that each agency complies with the act's requirements, which puts the independent agencies in jeopardy of political interference.

The independence of regulatory agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who are responsible for protecting public health and safety, would be severely compromised. The aptly named independent agencies are entitled to operate with more autonomy than Cabinet agencies and without undue influence from Presidential administrations.

This is particularly troubling considering this administration's track record on weakening States' rights by gutting Federal public protections and blocking States from adopting stronger State level standards and protections.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. Chairman, can you tell me how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill will falsely claim that the provision in H.R. 50 will close a loophole that will make independent agencies accountable to the public.

But I want to make it clear that this provision will only give presidents greater control over independent agencies and will create needless uncertainty in the decision-making process of independent regulatory agencies.

It is also unclear how reducing the independence of these agencies addresses unfunded mandates. Instead, it is clear that the real goal is simply to undermine their independence. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove this harmful provision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to wish Matthew Korten a happy 60th birthday today.

Matt was born in the Bronx on June 26, 1958. At a very young age he always passionate for sports, politics, and helping others. Matt attended SUNY Brockport in 1976 where he studied Psychology while also participating on the Men's Track Team. He then graduated with his Masters in Experimental Psychology at Villanova University in 1982.

Since moving to East Brunswick in the late 1980s with his wife Marci, Matt has been an active and all-around member of the community by volunteering as a Transportation & Commuter Advocate, a Trustee of Temple B'nai Shalom, President of the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board, co-founder and President of the Fast Break Basketball Association, Inc. and on the community Development Block Grant Citizen's Advisory Committee. Matt's commitment to the East Brunswick has been consistently recognized by his neighbors, who have elected him as Committeeman for East Brunswick's 36th Voting District since the early 1990s; and in 2009, East Brunswick's governing board appointed him to serve the remainder of the year on the Township Council.

Matt has given 30 years working toward improving the quality of life in the community and has proudly represented East Brunswick in all the work he has done--he truly represents the ideals of a great public servant and community leader. Along with his wife, Matt has three sons, Dan, Brad, and Grant.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Matt Korten on his birthday and to thank him for his amazing service to his community and others.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, at the Trenton Art All Night Festival, a fight between two individuals resulted in a mass shooting; 17 people shot, at least one critically injured. Fortunately, the only casualty--fatality, I should say--was one of the shooters.

Even so, nearly 20 people shot at a community festival dedicated to breathing new life into the city and bringing the community together around something that is positive deserves our attention.

Unfortunately, we have a bad habit of assigning sympathy and coverage only to certain kinds of shootings. In fact, it is safe to say that there are some who believe that there are communities in which gun violence will always be an unavoidable norm. That is false. That is a horrible and destructive stereotype that ignores the underpinning of our conversation about guns.

From access to excessively destructive accessories, guns are the problem.

NRA advocates would argue that in Parkland the shooter got his gun legally. But should an 18-year-old be able to buy a gun, especially when that gun is never going to be used for sport?

Those same advocates would argue that most shootings in urban areas occur with illegally obtained weapons and that no regulation would prevent them. But because we refuse to require registries, we don't know where these guns come from. Perhaps if we did, perhaps if we knew who the first buyer was and which States those illegal weapons came from, they wouldn't end up in the wrong hands.

Mr. Speaker, our country's gun problem isn't a single-sided one. It is multifaceted and will require more than just one angle to solve.

Fortunately, from members of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force alone, there are more than 70 proposals that seek to address this singular and deadly crisis. I am responsible for two of them: The STOP Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2017 to flag for law enforcement large bullet and ammunition purchases that suggest the kind of stockpiling that precedes an attack; and the Handgun Licensing and Registration bill, which would create the kind of registry that might help us keep more weapons out of the wrong hands.

Earlier this week, I wrote a letter to you, Mr. Speaker, asking for consideration of any one of these 70 bills in honor of the victims of Sunday's shooting. I have yet to receive a response to my question, and with the paralyzing fear that seems to grip my Republican colleagues whenever we mention guns, I don't have high hopes that I will get one.

But I do know that the longer we continue to ignore this problem, the more people will be hurt and the more lives will be lost.

At work, at school, at the grocery store, at the playground, in the homes with violent partners, by accident during play dates, at the hands of those suffering from mental illness, with or without law enforcement being present, whether or not someone in the audience or classroom is armed, guns have always been the problem. We need to accept that so that we can get to work on it and move on it.

I continue to pray for the health and recovery of those who were injured in Trenton, as well in other places, just as I will continue to work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Diana Diaz Tapia for graduating cum laude from Rutgers University Newark with a Bachelor of Arts in Public and Nonprofit Administration.

Diana, a resident of Franklin Township and a DREAMer, came to the United States in 2002 from Mexico. Throughout her academic career, Diana has worked hard to achieve her

goals. Knowing the sacrifice her parents made to bring her to the U.S., she has been motivated to pursue her dreams.

Diana was admitted into the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) program at New Brunswick High School her freshman year and her academics took off. She graduated in the top of her class and received numerous scholarships that allowed her to attend Middlesex Community College. Among those scholarships were the Karl Burnstein Memorial Scholarship and the Elinor Pavon Oziel Memorial Scholarship.

While at Middlesex she once again excelled and received the RU-N to the Top, The Dream, US Scholarship as well as other scholarships to help make her dream of a college degree come true. In true Diana fashion, she has already begun classes towards her next goal; a master's degree in Public Administration.

I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Diana on her recent graduation and wish her the best of luck on her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for leading us in this Special Order hour on such an important topic.

It is safe to say that we are past the point of enough is enough because, apparently, enough is not enough.

Every time we face down another mass shooting, we have another moment of silence.

The United States has more gun deaths than any other developed nation, and it has far higher levels of gun ownership than any other country in the world. The U.S. has nearly six times the gun homicide rate of Canada, more than seven times that of Sweden, and nearly 16 times that of Germany, according to United Nations data.

Mass shootings constituted less than 2 percent of gun deaths in 2013. However, the U.S. makes up less than 5 percent of the world's population, but holds 31 percent of global mass shooters. We can go on and on and on and on and on with statistics.

We know what researchers have found. Researchers have found that when there is commonsense gun safety legislation, the number of deaths associated with guns decreases. We know that there was a 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published by Epidemiologic Reviews, which found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence, a strong indicator that restricting access to firearms can save lives.

Since 2012, there have been 46 moments of silence on the floor of the House of Representatives addressing the tragic deaths in mass shootings.

And what have we done?

We get up for 46 moments of silence and we do nothing.

I have but a few comments left, and I would like to direct those comments to the chair behind the microphone because the person that holds that chair holds all of the power in determining what our agenda will be in this House.

The person who sits in that chair makes a determination whether or not we value those innocent lives we are losing every single solitary day because people who shouldn't have guns have access to guns, or whether or not we should just have one more moment of silence. And it is the person who sits

in that chair that is the biggest problem between doing what makes sense, what people expect from us, what we need to be doing, and doing nothing.

I am the grandmother of a 5-year-old child. She will be going to public school for the first time in her life. When her father went to school, they had fire drills. When she goes to school, she will be having active shooter drills.

Do you have any idea what that means to a next generation; what that will do to their mind, their personal sense of security?

They won't even want to go to school because they will be afraid that they will not be protected.

The person sitting in that chair right now can give us an opportunity to respond to the majority of the people in this country and bring before this House commonsense gun safety legislation. There are hundreds of bills in the hopper, languishing to be brought up.

We don't have the courage. No, not we. I have the courage. My colleagues, in my caucus, have the courage.

The person who sits in that chair represents the majority of the Members in Congress, and they have demonstrated that they lack the courage, the will, or the desire.

But do you know what?

The next child who experiences death at the hands of someone who shouldn't have a gun could very easily be one of their children. We better get sensible about what we are doing. Screw the NRA. They are screwing us.

I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding to me so I might speak on an issue that is very important to all of us.

I want to speak on behalf of the 43 million people who are SNAP recipients, many of whom are working each and every day. I want to talk about the fact that those are individuals whom we consider working poor. Mr. Raskin mentioned that SNAP was a reflection of something. SNAP is a reflection of the fact that we have so many jobs that don't pay adequate wages. SNAP is a reflection of the raw deal that our citizens are getting under an administration that would choose to give trillions of dollars worth of money to those people who are already rich, asking nothing in return for that horrible tax scam, and, at the same time, asking those at the lowest income spectrum in the entire United States of America to work so that they can be supplemented with meals that are $1.40 a meal.

That is hypocrisy. That is disgusting. We should not even be having a discussion about whether or not we should be eliminating, reducing, or changing a SNAP benefit. We should make sure that there is adequacy for every child and every family to not go hungry in this country; and, at the same time, we should be looking at giving our citizens who have had a really raw deal over these last couple of years a better deal, a better deal with better wages that we would like to proffer so that individuals wouldn't have to work and get supplemental food assistance as well.

Better jobs. Better skills. Better opportunities.

I am going to close very shortly on this. I was at a hearing today on the issue of SNAP and what we were planning to do with SNAP and what were the recommendations for the SNAP program. And I heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle some very disgusting insinuations or accusations about people who were on SNAP who were perhaps sitting on their porch drinking a cup of coffee or whatever. And the assumption was that that person was sitting on his duff as opposed to out there working, and he was a recipient of SNAP. You know nothing about that person's situation. But that person probably was a member of the minority class.

And we talk about getting a job. Well, I said to those people who came and testified today at our hearing: You have come here with some Pollyanna idea that this country is a country of equality. Well, it may have been working towards equality, but we are experiencing a period right now where we have the greatest sense of inequality we have had in decades, in hundreds of years.

We are underemployed. We are unemployed. The people who are working every day for wages to bring home are the ones who are paying for every tax break that is given to the 1 percent in this country. You can give millions and millions of dollars in the State of New Jersey even to the wealthiest 1 percent and ask nothing in return. If you are an individual, you are asked nothing in return. If you are a corporation, you are not even asked to create a job, a training opportunity, or to increase wages.

Do not talk to me about those people who are on SNAP and what they should be doing. Talk to me about what America should be doing for all of its people, because we are all members of the human race. Some of us just weren't born rich. Some of us just don't have the opportunity to go around with a silver spoon in our mouth.

This Congress should be ashamed of itself for not taking care of the needs of those who simply need government to recognize that it represents everybody, not just the very wealthy. I thank Mr. Raskin for the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin for raising that issue. I think that that is one of the most prominent issues that people of this country need to understand.

Government has a significant role. That role is to protect the opportunities, rights, and privileges of all people, to create the level playing field. What we have experienced in this administration, in this Republican-controlled Congress, is that we care not. We prioritize the value of human beings based upon how much money they are worth or how much money they can get.

So we are taking resources that should not be taken out of our treasury; we are then giving them in heaps and piles to the very, very wealthy; and then we are talking about deficits that are being created and how we need to make up those deficits. And how do we look to do that? Well, we look to do things like reduce the benefits of Medicaid, mess with Social Security, take away SNAP from people who need supplemental nutritional assistance.

We talk about this America not being one America anymore. This is an America of the haves and the have-nots. Never have we seen this tremendous diversity or disparity between the very, very, very wealthy and those who are struggling.

And those who are struggling get this. My colleagues think of poor people as lazy people who are not doing what they can do. We are poor people in this country--hungry, homeless people--because of our policies, because of our budget, which is the greatest reflection of our priorities and our values. Our values are askew right now, and we need to make sure that we are looking after that responsibility for which we were elected.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it isn't so much a theory of survival as it is the possibility of not surviving at all. I think that we are finding ourselves in a situation right now where those who have less have the rawest deal they have had in a very long time. And I am proud to associate myself with my Democratic colleagues in this caucus who want a better deal for those people.

We want wages that you can live off of, that you don't have to rely upon assistance from anyone in order to be able to put food on your table, put a roof over your head or heat in your home. We want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to learn and to have a good job. So we want to see investment in jobs, in training, in apprenticeships, in opportunities to do better.

We could do better with an infrastructure program that not only makes sense because we have a crumbling infrastructure on so many levels, but it also generates jobs. Generates jobs, which generates good incomes. Good incomes generate a desire to purchase. Desire to purchase helps to build our small businesses. We are looking in the wrong places, and we need to look at where we can grow our economy.

Our economy doesn't grow when we just simply continue to enrich the rich to be richer and richer and richest and to put that money overseas somewhere or anyplace that they want to put it but not to invest it in this country, in this economy. We need a better chance for everyone. We need a better deal for all of our citizens.