Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 24.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 24 expresses the sense of Congress that any report Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivers to the Attorney General should be released to the public and to Congress. This concurrent resolution is important for several reasons.

First, transparency is fundamental to the special counsel process, especially when dealing with matters of national security involving the President.

In January 2017, the U.S. intelligence community unanimously reported that ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election'' and that ``Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.'' As a result of the importance of this charge and the clear conflict of interest in a matter involving the President, Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel by the Acting Attorney General ``in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome.''

This is why in the only other instance involving the appointment of a special counsel under the regulations, concerning the Waco tragedy, the special counsel's report was released in full by the Attorney General.

Second, this resolution is critical because of the many questions and criticisms of the investigation raised by the President and his administration. It is

important that Congress stand up for the principle of full transparency at a time when the President has publicly attacked the Russian investigation more than 1,100 times and counting. Among other things, the President has repeatedly referred to the investigation as a ``witch hunt'' and called it a ``hoax,'' ``rigged,'' and a ``scam.''

This resolution is also needed because high-ranking DOJ officials have indicated that they may not release information about individuals who are not indicted. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein stated last month that ``if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens.''

This normally salutary policy must not apply in the event the Department adheres to its policy that it cannot indict a sitting President. To maintain that a sitting President cannot be indicted no matter how much evidence there is because he is a sitting President, and then to withhold evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the President cannot be charged, is to convert DOJ policy into the means for a coverup.

Third, releasing the Mueller report, even in its entirety, does not absolve the Department of Justice of its obligation to provide Congress with the underlying evidence uncovered by the special counsel. This expectation is well grounded in precedent set by the Department just in the last Congress in connection with three Republican-led investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails, the dismissal of former FBI Acting Director McCabe, and allegations of bias concerning the Russian investigation.

With respect to the investigation involving Secretary Clinton's emails, this included the Department of Justice releasing to Congress more than 880,000 pages of documents regarding the FBI's decisionmaking, identifying to Congress the names of career officials involved in the charging decision, identifying to Congress specific court cases relied on in the charging decision, and making numerous DOJ and FBI personnel available to Congress for transcribed interviews.

With respect to the dismissal of former Acting Director McCabe, this included releasing to Congress all documents relied on by the Office of Professional Responsibility in making its decision.

With respect to claims of bias in the Russian investigation, this included not only releasing to the public an otherwise classified foreign intelligence application, but also releasing to Congress: one, all underlying documents and communications involving the FISA applications; two, four memos detailing the former FBI Director's communications with the President; three, materials pertaining to classified briefings involving the Trump and Clinton Presidential campaigns; and four, making even more DOJ and FBI officials available for a total of 21 transcribed interviews and hearings.

These precedents make clear the obligation of the Department of Justice to release all evidence with respect to the Russian investigation.

A vote for this resolution will send a clear signal to both the American people and to the Department of Justice that Congress believes transparency is a fundamental principle necessary to ensure that government remains accountable to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this commonsense resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chair of the Intelligence Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the sponsor of this legislation to ensure that the work of the special counsel is not suppressed and will offer valuable assistance on today's resolution.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the gentleman from Georgia implied a few

minutes ago, that we shouldn't be wasting our time on this because it only restates what the regulations require and the Judiciary Committee ought to be spending its time more productively, I simply want to say, first, that the Democratic House majority and the Judiciary Committee are not focused on the President to the exclusion of our legislative priorities.

In the 2 months since we organized, the Judiciary Committee has passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, through the House and has passed H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, through the House. H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, passed through the committee. We have passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, through the House.

The Judiciary Committee has also held a hearing to begin the process of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and held a hearing to examine the state of competition in the healthcare industry, as well as the T- Mobile-Sprint merger.

We have introduced H.R. 5, the Equality Act; H.R. 1327, the Never Forget the Heroes: Permanent Authorization of September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Act; and the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, the so-called Dreamers bill.

These are some of the things we have been doing besides looking into the possible misconduct by the President.

In closing, I would like to include the following items in the Record:

First, the U.S. Intelligence Community report concluding that Vladimir Putin ordered a misinformation campaign directed against the 2016 Presidential election and displayed a clear preference for then- candidate Donald Trump.

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections

(January 6, 2017)

key judgments

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential

election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's

longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal

democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a

significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and

scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an

influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential

election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in

the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and

harm her electability and potential presidency. We further

assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear

preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence

in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to

help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible

by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting

her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this

judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment;

NSA has moderate confidence.

Moscow's approach evolved over the course of the campaign

based on Russia's understanding of the electoral prospects of

the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that

Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian

influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her

future presidency.

Further information has come to light since Election Day

that, when combined with Russian behavior since early

November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of

Russian motivations and goals.

Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging

strategy that blends covert intelligence operations--such as

cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian Government

agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and

paid social media users or ``trolls.'' Russia, like its

Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert

influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that

have used intelligence officers and agents and press

placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to

the Kremlin.

Russia's intelligence services conducted cyber operations

against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential

election, including targets associated with both major US

political parties.

We assess with high confidence that Russian military

intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or

GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release

US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in

exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to

WikiLeaks.

Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to

elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS

assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or

compromised were not involved in vote tallying.

Russia's state-run propaganda machine contributed to the

influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin

messaging to Russian and international audiences.

We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-

ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to

future influence efforts worldwide, including against US

allies and their election processes.

Second, I include a February 22, 2019, letter to the Attorney General from six House committee chairs expressing the expectation that the Mueller report will be made public and that the Department will make the underlying investigative materials available to committees upon request.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 22, 2019.

Hon. William P. Barr,

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Attorney General: Recent reports suggest that

Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be nearing the end of his

investigation into ``any links and/or coordination between

the Russian government and individuals associated with the

campaign of President Donald Trump'' and other matters that

may have arisen directly from the investigation. As you know,

Department of Justice regulations require that, ``[a]t the

conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall

provide the Attorney General with a confidential report

explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached

by the Special Counsel.''

After nearly two years of investigation--accompanied by two

years of direct attacks on the integrity of the investigation

by the President--the public is entitled to know what the

Special Counsel has found. We write to you to express, in the

strongest possible terms, our expectation that the Department

of Justice will release to the public the report Special

Counsel Mueller submits to you--without delay and to the

maximum extent permitted by law.

There also remains a significant public interest in the

full disclosure of information learned by the Special Counsel

about the nature and scope of the Russian government's

efforts to undermine our democracy. To the extent that the

Department believes that certain aspects of the report are

not suitable for immediate public release, we ask that you

provide that information to Congress, along with your

reasoning for withholding the information from the public, in

order for us to judge the appropriateness of any redactions

for ourselves.

We also expect that the Department will provide to our

Committees, upon request and consistent with applicable law,

other information and material obtained or produced by the

Special Counsel regarding certain foreign actors and other

individuals who may have been the subject of a criminal or

counterintelligence investigation. This expectation is well-

grounded in the precedent set by the Department in recent

years. In other closed and pending high-profile cases

alleging wrongdoing by public officials, both the Department

and the FBI have produced substantial amounts of

investigative material, including classified and law

enforcement sensitive information, to the House of

Representatives.

Finally, although we recognize the policy of the Department

to remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests

of individuals who will not face criminal charges, we feel

that it is necessary to address the particular danger of

withholding evidence of misconduct by President Trump from

the relevant committees.

If the Special Counsel has reason to believe that the

President has engaged in criminal or other serious

misconduct, then the President must be subject to

accountability either in a court or to the Congress. But

because the Department has taken the position that a sitting

President is immune from indictment and prosecution, Congress

could be the only institution currently situated to act on

evidence of the President's misconduct. To maintain that a

sitting president cannot be indicted, and then to withhold

evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the President

will not be charged, is to convert Department policy into the

means for a cover-up. The President is not above the law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Rep. Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary.

Rep. Elijah Cummings,

Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Rep. Adam Schiff,

Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Rep. Eliot Engel,

Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rep. Maxine Waters,

Chairwoman, House Committee on Financial Services.

Rep. Richard Neal,

Chair, House Ways and Means Committee.

Third, the introduction to the final report to the Deputy Attorney General concerning the 1993 confrontation at the Mount Carmel complex.

Introduction

This Report contains the findings of the Special Counsel in

response to the questions directed to him by Attorney General

Janet Reno in Order No. 2256-99, dated September 9, 1999. The

questions pertain to the 1993 confrontation between federal

law enforcement officials and the Branch Davidians at the Mt.

Carmel complex near Waco, Texas. The Report is issued

pursuant to Section (e) of Order No. 2256-99 which provides,

in relevant part, that the Special Counsel shall submit ``to

the maximum extent possible . . . a final report . . . in a

form that will permit public dissemination.''

The Office of Special Counsel has organized the Report in

the following format:

(I) a description of the Issues investigated by the Special

Counsel;

(II) the Conclusions of the Special Counsel;

(III) a description of the Investigative Methods used by

the Special Counsel;

(IV) a Statement of Facts relevant to the Special Counsel's

investigation;

(V) Exhibits to the text of the Report; and

(VI) Appendices that include a narrative summary of the

relevant beliefs and practices of the Branch Davidians, a

summary of expert findings, a chronological table of events,

and the reports of experts retained by the Office of Special

Counsel.

And fourth, the Department of Justice commentary interpreting the special counsel regulations.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that one reason for this resolution, given the fact that Mr. Barr, the Attorney General, has, in fact, said that he would want to release as much as possible--and we appreciate that statement--but he and Mr. Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, have both cited the Department policy not to comment on the conduct of someone not indicted.

That leads us to expect that a misapplication of the normal Department policy to a sitting President of not commenting on someone who is not indicted, the application of that normally good policy to a sitting President who the Department believes cannot be indicted because he is a sitting President, would, in fact, greatly limit the ability of the Department or the willingness of the Department to release information in the report to the Congress and to the public.

One of the reasons for this resolution is that we want to say, no, you cannot use that normally salutary policy to convert the Department's policy of never indicting a sitting President into a coverup that you can't comment or give to the Congress information about that.

If you can't indict a sitting President and you can't give the information to Congress, then you are holding the President above the law, and you are frustrating Congress' ability to do its job of holding an administration accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

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

Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons stated by all the people who spoke in favor of this resolution, myself and everyone else, I urge adoption of the resolution. I urge everyone to vote for it. It is a very important resolution to maintain the rule of law in this country

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. 183) condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 183, which condemns anti-Semitism unambiguously, as well as anti-Muslim bigotry and all forms of prejudice against minorities, as contrary to fundamental American values and principles. This resolution makes clear that we condemn anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and racism no matter where on the political spectrum they may emanate from, right, left, or center.

This resolution is a statement of our values as a Nation. While it focuses on concerns raised in the last few weeks regarding anti- Semitism and Islamophobia, it addresses those noxious forms of bigotry in the context of our broader concern with all forms of bigotry and hatred in our country.

Bigotry against members of minority groups based on their actual or perceived religion, ethnicity, race, or national origin are among the cardinal sins of our Nation. As the resolution notes, tolerance and religious freedom are among our country's fundamental principles, so much so that they are enshrined in the very First Amendment to the Constitution.

Sadly, without constant vigilance, our Nation has seen darker moments where religious and other forms of hate have reared their ugly heads. Often, our Nation has fallen short of its ideals when they succumbed to the demagoguery of bigots.

Indeed, one of the biggest problems facing our country today, and one that has bedeviled it in the past, is the fact that white supremacists have weaponized bigotry and hatred to achieve political gains. They do so by stoking hatred and division among Americans based on religion, race, ethnicity, or other characteristics.

To combat this, it is imperative that all of us--but especially those of us in public life--speak out against such hate. Unfortunately, sometimes the perpetrators of religious and other forms of bigotry are themselves public figures and even, distressingly, Members of this House.

Indeed, in the last few weeks, comments have been made by some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that can fairly be characterized as anti-Semitic, and I have condemned these remarks.

Anti-Semitism is among the most ancient of prejudices and is associated with pernicious stereotypes, including the claim that Jews exert control over the government and the global political and financial systems, that they are obsessed with money, and that their loyalty to their home countries is somehow in question.

Assertion of these beliefs does not constitute merely making statements of political or policy positions. Rather, propagation of these beliefs has, throughout history, resulted in harassment, discrimination, violence, and murder against Jews.

While anti-Semitism is an ancient prejudice, its effects are not ancient history. Less than 6 months ago, a gunman murdered 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, reportedly stating that he ``wanted all Jews to die.'' Nearly 2 years ago in Charlottesville, Virginia, white supremacists chanted, ``Jews will not replace us.''

Despite this ugly history, Members on both sides have questioned the loyalty and patriotism of Members of this House. The trope that support for Israel, particularly among Jewish Americans, is the result of a ``dual loyalty'' to Israel and the United States is deeply offensive to me.

What I find equally despicable is a somewhat analogous ``dual loyalty'' trope increasingly deployed against Muslim Americans. This includes the recent implication by one of our colleagues that another colleague is a spy and a State Republican poster in the West Virginia State capitol that implied an association between that same colleague and the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York.

Indeed, statements have repeatedly been made in the recent past by public officials, including the President, which can fairly be characterized as anti-Muslim more generally.

Particularly since the September 11 attacks, Muslim Americans have faced a gauntlet of prejudice alleging that they are inherently violent, disloyal, and foreign, and this has led to hate-motivated violence. In 2017, for example, at least five mosques were bombed or burned in various cities around the country.

Efforts to question the loyalty or patriotism of anyone in this country based on their religion or on any innate characteristic is completely out of bounds.

It is my fervent hope that this resolution will be a chance for us, both as an institution and also as a Nation, to remind ourselves of what we all believe in, and to come together and heal.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Speaker, listening to the gentleman from Georgia, I think I heard him say that he and his colleagues were going to vote for this resolution. I am glad to hear that, especially since I noted that after the march in Charlottesville and the murder in Charlottesville when a censure resolution was brought up, the Republicans, who were then in control of the House, refused to bring it to the floor. So I am glad that they are willing to vote for this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Virginia an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, could you please tell me how much time the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) has remaining, and how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Zeldin and Mr. Rose for holding this Special Order hour on the importance of reauthorizing the Victim Compensation Fund and ensuring that every responder and survivor is made whole, as Congress intended.

As my colleagues have also discussed, we have been pushing for more than 15 years to finally address the moral obligations we have to those made ill by exposure to toxins on September 11 and in the weeks and months after the attack. It is a two-part moral obligation.

First, the attacks on September 11 were not just attacks on New York or on Washington, D.C. They were attacks on America.

In the last few weeks, we have heard an objection raised to this bill that New York should handle this issue because it is a ``New York problem.''

The World Trade Center stood in my district. Many of the people who ran into those towers were my fellow New Yorkers. The people who fled their homes and offices to find safety were my constituents.

But they were Americans, and those towers fell on that Tuesday morning not because they stood in New York, but because they stood in the United States of America.

While it may have been the brave men and women of the Fire Department of New York and the New York Police Department and the Port Authority who first rushed to those towers, to say that the responders and survivors who are sick today are just in New York is factually untrue.

There are sick responders and survivors in every State and in 434 of the 435 congressional districts. This is not a New York or a D.C. issue; it is a national issue and deserves a national response.

The second moral obligation directly ties the Victim Compensation Fund to the Federal Government.

The reason so many survivors and responders were exposed to the toxins that made them sick was that they were told by the Federal Government--specifically, by Christine Todd Whitman, then the Administrator of the Federal EPA, and then by Mayor Rudy Giuliani--that the air at Ground Zero and in Lower Manhattan was safe to breathe, that they should work for months to clean up the pile, that they should go back to work in Lower Manhattan, that the air was safe to breathe.

But it was not safe; it was toxic.

In the rush to get Wall Street up and running, tens of thousands of people were sent directly into harm's way by the Federal Government.

I went to Ground Zero days after the attack. We knew even then that the air was not safe, that the air was thick with dust and debris, and we had no idea what was swirling in those clouds around us as we struggled to breathe. But the Federal Government said it was safe.

I think of those responders, first on the rescue mission. And I don't begrudge anybody who worked on the pile in the first 3 days when people may have still been alive who worked without proper respiratory protection to save lives. But after the first 3 days, it was a recovery mission; and people worked, breathing that air, for hours and days without adequate protection.

I think of the families sent back to their apartments in Lower Manhattan and told to wipe away the layers of asbestos from their furniture and their windows with a damp cloth.

I think of the students sitting in their classrooms at Stuyvesant High School, blocks from Ground Zero, and the barges removing debris as trucks full of asbestos idled below the high school's open windows.

The Federal Government bears the burden to care for and support all those who went back to Ground Zero because the Federal Government told them it was safe when it was not safe.

And since the day the EPA and others told people it was safe to go back to work, to school, and to their homes, since the day the EPA told those responders at Ground Zero that it was safe to work with minimal protection, I have been fighting alongside my colleagues Mrs. Maloney and Mr. King to secure healthcare and support for the people who became sick because of that exposure.

We fought for nearly 10 years to get the first Zadroga Act passed in 2010. That bill created the World Trade Center Health Program and reopened the Victim Compensation Fund.

But we only authorized the VCF for 5 years. We knew we needed more than 5 years, and we came back in 2015 and passed the reauthorization bill.

That bill made the health program permanent--or, at least, until 2090--which gave much-needed certainty to those suffering from 9/11 illnesses and their families. But, again, we authorized the Victim Compensation Fund, the VCF, for just another 5 years.

As those 5 years have gone on, people have become sicker. More and more responders and survivors have been diagnosed with various cancers, particularly cancers with long latency periods, and, tragically, more and more have died from those illnesses.

As people become sicker and pass away, the VCF has functioned exactly as Congress directed. It has provided those individuals, those first responders, those survivors, and their families with compensation and resources they need to get through these difficult times.

But, just as people are getting sicker, the VCF is running out of money. Last month, the Justice Department announced that, because of the high demand for claims, because the cancers are more numerous than anticipated, because more people of the heroes of 9/11 than anticipated are getting sick, the Department would be forced to cut awards by 50 percent if they were filed by February 1 and 70 percent if they were filed after February 1.

Can you imagine that? You are dying of stomach cancer, unable to work, unable to leave your house for more than your doctor's appointments, and waiting for compensation so you can pay off your house and protect your family before you die, and the award you anticipated is cut in half or by 70 percent.

Your wife dies after a long struggle with breast cancer, and you are waiting for your claim to pay her funeral expenses, and your compensation is cut in half or by 70 percent.

You have such severe gastrointestinal issues that you can only work part-time. You are waiting for your award to pay for your child's college tuition, and your claim is cut by 70 percent.

That is not the promise we made to those first responders and survivors. That is not fulfilling the moral obligation that pushed us to create the VCF in the first place.

That is failing Lincoln's statement of our duty ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.''

That is failing our promise to never forget 9/11 and failing the brave men and women who helped us on that day and who struggle and fight to this day.

But that doesn't have to happen. If we pass the Never Forget the Heroes Act, we can stop these cuts and make the Victim Compensation Fund permanent, providing responders and survivors the certainty that, no matter how sick they get, they will have us at their backs and the resources they need.

I thank my colleagues who have been with us in this fight from the start, and I thank the 142 bipartisan cosponsors who have already signed on to this bill.

We will get this done. We must get this done. We will meet our moral obligations.

We will never forget these heroes.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, the right to vote has been called protective of all other rights. Without it, you can't protect your rights. That right has been eroded in recent years.

We have seen many attempts on the State and local level to limit the right to vote for minorities, to close polling places, to limit the hours of voting, to put in phony requirements that prevent people from voting.

We must restore, as this bill will do, the protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that guarantee the right to vote, that stop local politicians from choosing their own electorates.

We must eliminate the poison of large campaign contributions from hidden money. The dominance in our politics of large campaign contributions when someone anonymously can give $20,000 to $30,000--or millions of dollars--to various PACs which then funnel the money to politicians is subversive of our democracy.

It is a metastasized cancer on our democracy. And if we don't excise this cancer through this bill, historians will eventually write, I fear, that the American Republic, like the Roman Republic, had a good 250-year run with democracy but then evolved into an oligarchy, which is the direction we are headed in.

We must ban those huge campaign contributions, substitute a system of small contributions by ordinary people that will be matched so that the public, not the plutocrats, will dominate our politics and control our legislation.

We should restore our right to vote for people who committed crimes long ago and have long since paid their debts to society.

These restrictions and ex-felons voting were put in specifically to guarantee white supremacy. Read the debates in the various State conventions in the 1900s and 1910.

This bill will help strengthen Americans' faith in their government institutions and ensure that everyone has a voice in determining how our country is governed.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this landmark legislation.

Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Black History Month, I rise today to commemorate the life of Jeremiah G. Hamilton, the first black millionaire in the United States, whose story has been absent from the history books. I have the honor of representing the district in which Mr. Hamilton lived and worked.

Born in the West Indies in 1807, Mr. Hamilton made his way to New York in 1828 and began amassing his fortune by selling stocks to both black and white entrepreneurs. He was touted as being astute in successfully predicting the markets and became a prominent financier and businessman on Wall Street in the pre-Civil War era.

Mr. Hamilton defied many conventions of his time as he rose to the top of the business world. He owned stock of railroad companies on whose trains he was not legally allowed to ride. He married a white woman named Eliza Morris and had a close relationship with his friend Benjamin Day, who was the publisher of the Sun Newspaper. He took on titans of industry, including battling Cornelius Vanderbilt over control of the Accessory Transit Company until he got a settlement. In fact, in Vanderbilt's obituary it is stated, ``There was only one man who ever fought the Commodore to the end, and that was Jeremiah Hamilton . . . the Commodore respected him.''

However, Mr. Hamilton faced the horrors of the rampant racism and violence against African-Americans in the mid-19th century. In the 1830s, insurance companies blackballed him and refused to underwrite his business ventures. During the draft riots in 1863, white men unsuccessfully sought to lynch Mr. Hamilton in his own home.

Jeremiah G. Hamilton died in 1875, leaving behind an estate of $2 million, which would be around $45 million today.

It is vital that the history of America reflects the lives of all Americans, and I am proud to help share some of the lost history from the 10th Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing not only the life of Jeremiah G. Hamilton but the dedicated work of both the Committee to Commemorate Jeremiah G. Hamilton and historian Shane White to create a permanent place in history for the first African-American millionaire.

The Committee to Commemorate Jeremiah G. Hamilton was established in February 2018 by community activists, including Dr. Sam D. Albert, Hon. Louise Dankberg, Hon. Alan J. Gerson, Gail Green, Barbara Guinan, Greg Lambert, Esq., Christine Merritt, Hon. Daisy Paez, Mark P. Thompson, Leona Zeplin and the Committee's Co-Chairs Dolores Leito and Hon. Michelle D. Winfield.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I am pleased that today we are considering H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act.

Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, an important bill to expand our national firearms background check system to include virtually all gun transfers.

However, there are also steps we can take to make the current background check system more effective at blocking the sale of guns to individuals who are ineligible to purchase and possess them.

That is why I support H.R. 1112, a bill that addresses a dangerous shortcoming in the current firearms background check law.

In most cases, a licensed gun dealer receives notification within a few minutes, often 90 seconds, from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, sometimes called the NICS, that a prospective buyer has passed or failed the background check.

In a small percentage of cases, NICS examiners may require additional time to complete the background check if information is missing or unclear in a prospective buyer's record. For example, there may be on the record a notation that the prospective buyer was arrested but no notation as to whether the buyer was acquitted or convicted. That would have to be looked into further.

However, under current law, a licensed gun dealer conducting a background check on a prospective purchaser is permitted to sell the firearm to the purchaser if there has been no determination from NICS after 3 business days, even though NICS has not indicated that the person has actually passed the background check.

Often, we refer to this as a default proceed transaction.

These are the very cases that ought to be investigated. In 2017 alone, the ATF determined that over 4,000 default proceed firearms transfers went to purchasers who should not lawfully have gotten them because they could not lawfully own a firearm.

If NICS is unable to return an instant determination, and especially if there is no report after 3 days, there is real cause for concern.

One notable example of the tragic consequences of this loophole is the hate crime murder of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015.

In that tragedy, the shooter was not legally allowed to possess a firearm as a result of drug charges, but he still was able to purchase his gun from a licensed dealer, who made the decision to transfer after 3 business days had elapsed, despite not having received a definitive response from the background check system.

The bill before us today, H.R. 1112, would strengthen the background check procedures Federal firearms licensees or dealers must follow before selling or transferring a firearm.

Under this bill, the initial period a gun dealer must wait for an answer from the NICS is extended from 3 days to 10 days. If, after 10 days, the NICS system has not returned an answer to the dealer, the prospective purchaser may file a petition with the attorney general, which should help resolve most applications in short order.

If an additional 10 days elapses without a response from NICS, the licensed firearms dealer then may sell or transfer the firearm to the prospective purchaser without the background check completion, if the dealer has no reason to believe that the purchaser is prohibited from obtaining a firearm under Federal, State, or local law.

The additional time for checks to be completed will help prevent the transfer of guns to individuals who are ineligible to possess them and will make us safer.

I want to remind everyone that, in 90 percent of the cases, the NICS system gives the answer within 90 seconds. So we are talking about a small number of cases, but a number of cases where we know there have been tragic results. We want to stop that.

I commend our colleague Congressman Jim Clyburn, the distinguished Democratic whip, for introducing this bipartisan bill, which is a sensible and necessary approach to addressing this dangerous shortcoming in current law.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished Democratic whip.

(Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from South Carolina an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the chair of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I heard the argument from the other side a moment ago that people adjudged ineligible for the system by the VA, that their names

should not be given into the system so that they may purchase firearms.

I would point out that one of the largest sources of mortality among veterans is suicide. Veterans are, I think, the highest group in our society in terms of suicide rate. So it really makes sense to make it easier for people adjudged not to be proper to have a gun to have a gun if you are worried about suicides. That argument is, frankly, nonsensical. I am very glad the VA helps protect our veterans by participating in the system.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the committee and the chairman of one of our subcommittees.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, at this time I would like to address a concern that has been raised by one section of the bill that is unrelated to the changes to current law to address the Charleston loophole.

Section 3 of the bill replaces outdated and offensive terminology in the categories of individuals who are ineligible to purchase or possess firearms under current law. Among those included, there are individuals subject to such prohibitions because, as stated by the current law, they are ``adjudicated as a mental defective.''

At the Judiciary Committee's markup of the bill, we agreed with our ranking member, Representative Collins, to replace this offensive language and to insert different terminology in the bill as a placeholder as we work to develop alternative language that does not alter the scope of who is included in these prohibitions and to work with stakeholders who have an interest in how this would be accomplished.

We have heard from various advocates in the mental health, disability rights, and veterans communities who have expressed their desire to develop an acceptable alternative. We agree.

Yesterday, the Veterans of Foreign Wars brought their concerns related to this issue to our attention. The VFW agrees that the current terminology is archaic but is concerned about a potential unintended consequence of replacing it.

Their concern is that replacing these terms with ``mental illness,'' ``severe developmental disability,'' or ``severe emotional instability'' could result in some veterans who are not now included being added to the NICS index due to their receipt of VA care or benefits for mental illnesses such as PTSD or traumatic brain injury.

It is not the intent of the changes in this terminology made by section 3 to alter the scope of those currently considered to be ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' It is the intent simply to replace that offensive language, but not to change the underlying law.

We will work with stakeholders, including the VFW, the mental health community, and the disability rights community to address the concerns related to this outdated terminology in a manner that does not change the scope of present law as this bill proceeds.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, our mistake was in accepting the amendment from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins). The amendment dealt with the underlying language of the underlying law, not with the bill. We should have insisted that an attempt to correct that language be in a separate bill.

The gentleman from Georgia is now telling us that we should kill this bill that will save so many lives because we have not figured out acceptable language to replace existing bad language in the existing law that had nothing to do with this bill.

We should pass this bill.

We will work as we go forward to see if we can come up with acceptable language, but in any event, we should pass this bill and deal with the separate problem of bad language in the underlying law separately.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, this is an important bill that addresses a significant, and tragically demonstrated, threat to public safety.

Today is the 25th anniversary of the implementation of the Brady Background Check Act. This lifesaving law has served us well, helping to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of those who are legally prohibited from possessing and purchasing them. But we know that some aspects of this law and the system that implements it must be updated and improved.

Let's remember what this bill does. All this bill does is give the FBI additional time--gives the NICS system additional time--to complete a background check in the 8 or 9 percent of cases where it is not done within 90 seconds. If you haven't gotten a background check back in 3 days, under this bill, you can't get it automatically, and you can't get the weapon automatically.

They have 10 days to do it. If after 10 days they still haven't done it, then you can petition the Attorney General. And if they still don't do it, get your firearm within 10 days. That will save a lot of lives.

We hear about mass shootings, but we also should remember that we are not talking about just mass shootings. Thirty-four people a day are killed in this country by guns--34 a day. Every other industrialized country in the world: 90 deaths with guns a year, 120, 170. The United States: 39,000.

How are we different? Are we thousands of times more mentally ill than people in Europe or Japan? No.

Are we more vicious? No.

Are our habits more degraded? No.

The difference is that this country is awash in guns. The difference is that, in this country, people who are dangerous can get guns.

These are modest steps. We should take much more advanced steps. We should ban assault weapons. We should ban large capacity magazine clips. But we are not doing that. We are starting with very moderate steps.

This is a very moderate step to improve the background check system. With all the rhetoric we hear, that is all it does. It gives a little extra time to make sure that someone who is dangerous, whose possession of a firearm is illegal, cannot get it.

Enacting this bill will save lives. I urge my colleagues to ignore all the nonsense rhetoric about extraneous considerations. Join me in supporting this bill today. Join me in supporting saving lives. Join me in making the United States a little safer to live in.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I support this amendment, which requires the FBI to report on the number

of petitions it was not able to resolve with a determination within 10 days.

We know that providing more time for checks to be completed in the instances that more time is needed will help prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are ineligible under current law from purchasing and possessing the guns.

The goal of this bill is to do just that, and to allow individuals whose checks take longer than 10 days to complete the opportunity to petition for their case to be reviewed within another 10-day period.

Madam Chair, the report required by this amendment will help us oversee the implementation of this new process and the changes instituted by this law. I urge my colleagues to support this salutary amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I support this amendment to require the GAO to submit a report to the relevant congressional committees analyzing the extent to which the additions required by this bill prevent firearms from being transferred to prohibited persons.

It will be important for us to get information about the implementation of the law and its impact on so-called default proceed transactions. The amendment also requires that the GAO report its findings after 90 days and again after 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years.

I think it is always a good idea to actually track the effect of new legislation and see how effective it is.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I commend the sponsor for doing so.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of this amendment, and this completely takes care of Mr. Collins' concern, whether he realizes it or not. Because this says that the transfer can take place for 25 days after the transfer becomes legally permissible.

In other words, under the longest timeframe, the background check doesn't come back within 10 days. The purchaser waits a few days, and then petitions the attorney general. It takes another 10 days. Then it becomes legally permissible.

This says the transfer can take place for 25 days after that. So there is no way that this doesn't take care of the problem that Mr. Collins raised, and then some.

The current procedures in place do not take into account the longer waiting period in the petition process that H.R. 1112 requires. This amendment more than takes care of that. It is a salutary amendment. It makes the system work, and I can't understand anybody, whether they support the bill or not, who wouldn't want to support this, so I support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that today we are considering H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019. We have promised the American people that Congress would take steps to reduce gun violence, and this bill is a critical first step toward doing so.

During the past 4 weeks, as the Judiciary Committee, and now the full House, have discussed the issue of gun violence, I have cited grim statistics. Nearly 40,000 Americans lost their lives because of guns in 2017. In fact, every day in America, on average, 34 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 183 people are injured in an attack.

Gun violence of this magnitude is a distinctly American problem. A country-to-country comparison is shocking. For example, in 2011, the United Kingdom had 146 deaths due to gun violence; Denmark, 71; Portugal, 142; and Japan, just 30. The United States, that year, about 35,000.

A recent study in the American Journal of Medicine found that, compared to 22 other high-income countries, the gun-related murder rate in the United States is 25 times higher. Even when you adjust for population differences, Americans are disproportionately killed by gun violence.

Almost 25 years to the day after the Brady Act was first implemented, expanding our current background check requirement to cover virtually all gun transfers is one of the steps we must take to address this crisis.

Under current law, only licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct a background check before transferring a gun to another person. This means that gun shows, online sales, and other private sales can completely evade this vital tool for ensuring that guns do not get into the wrong hands. It is time to close this dangerous loophole.

This bill would make it illegal for any person who is not a licensed firearm importer, manufacturer, or dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed without a background check. Individuals seeking to transfer a firearm under this measure would be required to visit a licensed firearms dealer to run the necessary background check before the transfer could be finalized.

The bill also provides a number of exceptions to this requirement, including gifts to family members and transfers for hunting, target shooting, and instances of imminent death or great bodily harm.

The FBI's internal assessment demonstrated that checks processed through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, often called NICS, are approximately 99.3 percent to 99.8 percent accurate, and in 90 percent of cases, the background checks are completed within 90 seconds. H.R. 8 will provide an accurate and speedy mechanism to help ensure firearms do not end up in the wrong hands.

There is no reason to continue to make it easy for people who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms to acquire them by circumventing the background check process. H.R. 8 would close this dangerous loophole and save many, many lives. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this vital legislation today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the chairperson of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the chief author of this legislation and the chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will point out that the bill says:

Nothing in this act . . . shall be construed to authorize

the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national

firearms registry.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out the penalty in this bill that is being cited as $100,000 is in fact $1,000.

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

Yes, I have one more.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished author of the bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Chair, we have heard the other side here say that some people lie on the forms; they are not prosecuted. Well, that may be, and maybe law enforcement ought to prosecute more people.

That doesn't negate the necessity for the bill. It doesn't negate the fact that too many people who shouldn't have guns, who are mentally unstable, who have committed crimes, and who are abusers get guns because they buy a gun at a gun show or not from a registered gun dealer and, therefore, do not have to undergo a background check.

Everyone who gets a gun should have to undergo a background check, with the few exceptions we put in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 8 is legislation that is long overdue for passage by this body and for enactment so that we can take a critical step overwhelmingly supported by the American people to protect us from gun violence.

We have had too many moments of silence, too many expressions of sympathy, too many deaths--39,000 deaths from guns last year--but little action here in Congress on this issue.

Today we act. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this vital bill to start taking back our streets from the killers, to start blocking people who shouldn't have them from having guns.

Save our lives.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is fatally flawed and would undermine the public safety impact of the bill.

The amendment would add an exception to the background check requirement for anyone who is a participant in the TSA PreCheck program by the Department of Homeland Security.

By exempting those who have obtained a TSA PreCheck from the background check requirement, the amendment would allow many dangerous people, including people with disqualifying mental health conditions and some criminal convictions, to obtain firearms without a background check.

The current background system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, was designed specifically for background checks pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

The system, often called the NICS, contains the information that no other Federal database contains, and the TSA does not check NICS when determining a person's eligibility for the TSA PreCheck program.

Although participants in the TSA PreCheck program have had their criminal backgrounds vetted, the standards for approval and participation in the TSA PreCheck program are not the same and, in many cases, are more lenient than those which prohibit firearm possession and purchase.

For example, the NICS searches the records of people prohibited for mental health reasons during a firearms background check. These mental health reasons, though, are not part of the TSA PreCheck search.

As of January 31, there are more than 5.7 million of these mental health records in the NICS indexes, making it the second most populous category of prohibited records for firearm purchase.

Because the Department of Homeland Security does not have access to these mental health records for TSA PreCheck program purposes, individuals who have been adjudicated to be disqualified to own firearms for reasons of mental condition or have been committed to any mental institution may be accepted under the TSA PreCheck program but are not legally able to possess a gun. Under this amendment, they would be legally exempted from the background check requirement and would be able to get a gun, despite being legally prohibited from doing so.

The TSA bars people convicted of certain criminal offenses, such as rape or aggravated sexual abuse, from participating in the TSA PreCheck program only temporarily. It doesn't restrict people convicted of these serious crimes for more than 7 years, and it wouldn't bar people released from prison for these crimes within the last 5 years.

Under current law, these felony convictions prohibit possession or purchase of a weapon, but, under this amendment, people released from prison within the last 5 years for these crimes could get the weapons-- could get the weapons.

The TSA PreCheck program does not have a minimum age requirement, and this amendment would allow people under the ages of 18 and 21 to purchase firearms illegally and without a NICS background check.

Furthermore, the TSA PreCheck program only requires a background check every 5 years, and the PreCheck system may not be advised that a firearms disqualifying offense has taken place after the initial PreCheck background check has occurred.

In other words, you get the TSA PreCheck, and if you are convicted afterwards, within 5 years, for a very serious crime, under this amendment, you could get the gun, although, legally, you shouldn't without a background check, and the TSA PreCheck program would not have picked it up.

These shortcomings of the TSA PreCheck system make it an inadequate and dangerous substitute for a NICS background check. To prevent potentially prohibited purchasers from obtaining firearms, licensed dealers should conduct background checks on participants in the PreCheck program as they would with any other member of the public.

The blanket exception of this amendment for anyone who participates in the TSA PreCheck program would undermine the bill's ability to enhance public safety because it would enable people convicted of serious crimes, people adjudicated to have serious mental illnesses, to purchase guns without a background check, even though the TSA system would not pick them up.

The TSA system is not a substitute for the background check system. It doesn't pick up many of the crimes. It doesn't carry it forward. And it is not a substitute for this system.

To pass this amendment, which would allow people who have qualified under the TSA PreCheck program not to have background checks, would allow a lot of people who shouldn't have guns to have them. Therefore, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, which clarifies the bill's exemption for the background check requirement in instances of imminent threats or great bodily harm would apply to someone who is at risk of committing suicide.

The amendment makes clear that the limited number of exemptions to the background check requirement include circumstances in which someone feels that they are a danger to themselves. They may temporarily transfer a firearm until the danger has passed. This is a limited and reasonable exemption that only applies to those who fear they will harm themselves, so that they may temporary surrender their weapon.

I listened to the gentleman from Georgia, and I appreciate he doesn't think that the amendment goes far enough or solves the underlying problems of the bill, as he sees it. But even from his point of view, it should go in the right direction. So I urge everyone to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I simply want to say I support this amendment, which clarifies that great bodily harm is included in the exception to the bill's background check requirement, includes domestic violence, sexual assaults, stalking, et cetera. It is a good amendment. I urge people to support it.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, let's remember what we are dealing with. We are dealing with the fact that current Federal law with respect to firearms background checks is dangerously limited and flawed because background checks are only required for sales by licensed gun dealers and that many, many people get a gun at a gun show or from someone else. Something like 20 percent, I think the figure is, or 25 percent of gun sales escape background checks.

So all kinds of people who may be criminals, who may be mentally ill, and who may be domestic abusers who shouldn't have guns get guns, and that results in lives forfeited. It results in people killed.

This bill goes a long way toward solving that by saying we are going to require background checks of everyone who gets a gun, with some exceptions, with some reasonable exceptions which are in the bill.

Now, along comes this motion to recommit, which is a total red herring having nothing to do with the purpose of the bill, and says that, if someone fails a background check because he is illegally in this country, you should report that to ICE.

First of all, if he fails a background check because he is illegally in the country, that means the system knows he is illegally in the country. It means they already know that.

So what is the point of reporting him? He has to be in the system as illegally in the country in order to fail the background check because of section (g)(5). So we already know that, and this is totally circular, number one.

Number two, this is just a red herring to try to mix up the immigration issue with the gun violence issue, and they really have nothing to do with each other.

Number three, for 8 years, we couldn't get a hearing--not a hearing in a committee--on this bill or on any real bill to stop the plague of handgun violence in this country.

Madam Speaker, 150 people killed in Great Britain, 95 in Austria or wherever, 39,000 in the United States--no one will tell me that Americans are 10,000 times as mentally ill as Europeans or Japanese. The problem is we don't have adequate protections on guns. This bill goes in the direction of doing it, and they want to sabotage the bill with a phony issue raised by this MTR.

Now, there is an issue. If people fail the background check for various reasons, then you can make a case it should be reported to local law enforcement agencies. Mr. Cicilline has a bill to do just that. I am going to yield to him in a second. But the fact is it has nothing to do with this bill. It is just an attempt to sabotage this bill.

If you believe that we ought to cut down on the plague of gun violence in this country, that we ought to save lives, that we ought to get rid of all these people who shouldn't have guns having guns, and that we ought to have background checks in sensible situations, then vote against the motion to recommit and for the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, let us not accept this red herring. Let us not divert. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 8, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump's declaration of a national emergency, as an excuse to build a wall that Congress explicitly rejected, is an abuse of his constitutional oath, and cannot be tolerated by a coequal branch of government under the Constitution. We must reject this unlawful power grab and reassert Congress' authority to exercise the power of the purse.

The Constitution could not be clearer: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' That command reflects a fundamental principle that is older than our democracy itself: The chief executive cannot unilaterally spend taxpayers' money or redirect a budget set by the people's representatives.

Earlier this year, Congress reached a bipartisan compromise to fund the government, and it was signed by the President. Congress allocated limited funding for fencing in certain areas, but squarely rejected the President's request to build a medieval barrier across the southern border.

Almost immediately, the President decided to rewrite the budget set by Congress, and he told us exactly why. He was not satisfied with what he got from the process that the Constitution dictates, so he did an end run and made it an emergency.

He and his aides have barely even tried to pretend that the so-called emergency is a real one. They know that illegal immigration is at historically low levels. They know that children and families fleeing violence are coming here to make lawful asylum claims, not as some kind of invading army.

They know that illegal drugs overwhelmingly get smuggled through ports of entry, and that a wall would do nothing to change that. But they refuse to let the facts and the law stand in the way of their political agenda.

Even worse, the emergency law that President Trump invoked allows the military to redirect funds only if an emergency ``requires the use of the armed forces.'' And those funds can be used only for construction projects that are ``necessary to support such use of the armed forces.''

But a wall cannot possibly be ``necessary to support'' a military operation on the border because our laws prohibit the military from engaging in law enforcement activities. The military cannot enforce an immigration law, so the President's actions are doubly unlawful. There is no real emergency; and even if there were, the President could not redirect military funds for a purpose expressly prohibited to the military.

Fortunately, the Constitution does not get suspended based on President Trump's preferences about what is convenient or ``faster.'' Our Nation's Founders left it up to all of us, including those of us in Congress, to act as guardians against exactly this type of assault on our constitutional order.

In that spirit, I proudly support this joint resolution, and I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and do the same.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on February 7, 2019, and, as a result, I missed four votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll call vote no. 68, ordering the previous question providing for consideration of H.R. 840, the ``Veterans Access to Child Care Act;'' ``aye'' on roll call vote no. 69, on agreeing to H. Res. 105, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 840 and adopting H. Res. 86, providing for the expenses of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and Modernization of Congress; ``aye'' on roll call vote no. 70, final passage of H.R. 450, the ``Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act;'' and ``aye'' on roll call vote no. 71, final passage of H.R. 507, ``Put Trafficking Victims First Act.''

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 41) rejecting White nationalism and White supremacy.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the measure under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution stands for one very simple proposition: White nationalism and white supremacy are hateful expressions of intolerance that have no place in the United States of America.

Unfortunately, what should be an obvious statement in 2019 has been challenged in recent days, and not for the first time, by one of our own colleagues. As those elected to represent all of America, Members of Congress should be the first to condemn white nationalism and white supremacy, which are the source of so much violence, so much hatred, and so much divisiveness throughout our Nation's history. These hateful ideologies are diametrically opposed to what America is supposed to be.

But, as the New York Times reported last week, Mr. King of Iowa was quoted as saying:

``White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization--how did that language become offensive?''

Well, I will tell him, and anyone else who may be confused.

This language has always been offensive. We fought a civil war to establish that. But this language and the philosophy it represents persisted. It motivated the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize African Americans; it sparked Jim Crow laws that oppressed African Americans through institutionalized racism; it inspired the murder of nine Black congregants in a Charleston, South Carolina, church; and the murder of 11 Jewish worshippers in a Pittsburgh synagogue; and it inspired racists, anti-Semites, and other assorted bigots at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that spread fear, hatred, and, ultimately, violence in celebration of white supremacy.

These hateful ideologies are dangerous, not because they too often lead to violence. These noxious views can also infect the policies that govern our Nation, sowing more division, and leading to more injustice in our society. When we establish Muslim bans; when we try to build walls to keep out those who do not look like us; and when we reverse a half century of progress on voting rights and civil rights, we are putting these hateful views into action.

I thank the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), for bringing this resolution forward. He knows from his experience--both as a leader in the civil rights movement, and as a Member of Congress whose own constituents were recently targeted in a vicious attack motivated by white supremacy--that when we see bigotry and hatred expressed in any form, we must condemn it, loudly and forcefully.

We can pretend that these sentiments do not exist in our country, in this Congress, or in the White House. We can try to sweep them under the rug, and to convince ourselves that we have moved past our shameful history on race. But we ignore white supremacy at our peril. If we do not speak out now, collectively as a Congress, clearly and without reservation, we will send the message that these views are acceptable, and they will continue to fester in communities across the country, generating more hatred, more repression, and more violence, in their wake.

Madam Speaker, I call upon all of my colleagues--Republican and Democrat alike--to reject the hateful ideology of white nationalism and white supremacy, the policies that flow from such hatred, and anyone who would espouse those views. Vote ``yes'' on this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished majority whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Washington an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. ALLRED asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) to close the debate on our side.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because it is past time to move beyond the political game of chicken and reopen these critical government agencies.

This Republican-passed Senate bill is not perfect. While it maintains current funding for the HOPWA program, it does not include the full $393 million that I led many of my colleagues in requesting last Congress. The House fiscal year 2019 bill reflected that funding level, and I deeply appreciate the hard work of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in achieving that goal.

But I support this bill and urge all of my colleagues to vote for it for one simple reason: We must get these programs funded and operating again. People are suffering. They are working without pay or furloughed with no idea if they will ever get back to work. They are watching critical services and benefits slowly disappear, and it will only get worse as this absurd and unnecessary shutdown drags on.

The House will pass this bill today, and I call on my Republican colleagues here and in the Senate to get people back to work, to get our government open again, and to put aside this political game of blackmail by the President in which he says the government will remain shut if we don't give him his $5 billion downpayment on a $25 billion wall. That is a judgment for Congress, not to be subject to blackmail by the President holding the American people hostage.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and let's get our government open again.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution authorizing the House to defend the Affordable Care Act in court against baseless but potentially devastating litigation designed to dismantle the law.

Because of the ACA, which passed without a single Republican vote, millions of Americans now have access to health insurance, including those with preexisting conditions. Yet ever since it became law, the ACA has been the target of nonstop attacks by Republican politicians intent on stripping Americans of the important protections guaranteed by the law.

For the last 8 years, when the Republicans controlled the House, they voted 62 times to repeal the ACA but never once came up with a proposal to protect Americans with preexisting conditions.

Despite all the Republicans' efforts, the ACA still stands today, continuing to guarantee access to affordable, quality health insurance. But now, 21 Republican State attorneys general have launched a new attack on the law, based on tortured logic and flimsy legal reasoning.

The Department of Justice has a duty to defend every duly enacted law, absent exceptional circumstances. The Trump administration, however, has broken this well-established norm and now refuses to defend the law from this latest challenge, a decision that caused several career Justice Department attorneys to resign in protest.

The Judiciary Committee will be investigating how the Trump administration made this blatantly political decision to abdicate its responsibility, and the committee will be holding those responsible accountable for their actions.

While the administration turns its back on people with preexisting conditions and people who would go bankrupt without the law's cost- sharing subsidies, with this resolution, the House of Representatives has an opportunity to provide the defense that the ACA and the millions of Americans who depend on it every day deserve.

Although legal scholars across the ideological spectrum find the plaintiffs' arguments laughable, it has found a sympathetic judge in Texas who recently ruled the entire law must be overturned.

This resolution would authorize the House to intervene in the case as it works its way through the courts on appeal to ensure that the law's vital protections are properly defended in court.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to allow the House to fend off this latest Republican assault against the health and well-being of Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 756, or the amendments thereto, the First Step Act, as passed by the Senate.

This legislation has traveled a long journey to get to this point. Along the way, various aspects of the bill have changed. Although I do not agree with all of the changes, on balance, the measure has greatly improved, thanks to the hard work of many Members on both sides of the aisle from the House and the Senate.

Before I get to the substance of the bill, I want to recognize some of the people most responsible for getting us here today. There are a number of champions of criminal justice reform in the Senate, but I particularly want to recognize and thank Senators Dick Durbin and Chuck Grassley for their commitment to getting a bill that includes important sentencing reforms to the President's desk.

In the House, I want to thank my Judiciary Committee colleagues, Hakeem Jeffries and Doug Collins, who worked together and with us to achieve a bipartisan compromise that is the foundation of this bill.

I also thank the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, who has helped hold this legislation to a high standard, knowing that so many are counting on us to address longstanding injustices.

There are many others in the House who have fought for substantial reform for years, upon whose labors this bill was built, who deserve our thanks.

Finally, let me recognize Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, who is retiring at the end of this term. He and I have not always seen eye to eye on a range of issues, including some aspects of this bill, but I appreciate his efforts as chairman over the past 6 years to work with my Democratic colleagues on the committee. Today, we join together in supporting an important, bipartisan bill. I thank him for his leadership in bringing us to the final stage of its consideration and for his service to Congress and to the country.

As for the bill itself, S. 756 makes a number of reforms to our Federal sentencing laws. It also establishes a new system to provide incentives to some Federal prisoners to participate in programs that will reduce the risk that they will commit crimes once they are released.

The prison reform provisions in this bill are similar to those in H.R. 5682, the House-passed measure with the same name as this new bill. The bill before us today includes provisions intended to address concerns that I and many others raised about the fairness of the new recidivism reduction system for Federal prisons.

For instance, this revised bill establishes an independent review committee of outside experts to assist the Justice Department in the development of the risk and needs assessment system that would determine the programming for inmates, their risk categories, and their eligibility for early entry into prerelease custody. Also, the bill expands the option for prerelease custody to include supervised release.

Changes such as these, in addition to authorizing more funding for the expansion of programming to reduce the risk of recidivism by inmates, help make this new system more fair.

In the other direction, however, I am disappointed the bill excludes additional categories of offenders from being able to earn early entry into prerelease custody, reducing the risk reduction incentives for those who perhaps need it the most.

The prison reform provisions of this bill also include a number of very positive changes, such as banning shackling of pregnant and postpartum inmates, fixing the calculation of time off earned for good behavior, improving application of compassionate release, and providing other measures to improve the welfare of Federal inmates.

In addition, the bill reauthorizes the Second Chance Act, a historically bipartisan effort to help ex-offenders successfully reenter their communities after having served their time.

Critically, this bill would not only implement these reforms to our prison system, but it also takes a crucial first step toward addressing grave concerns about our sentencing laws, which have for years fed a national crisis of mass incarceration.

It was largely due to the absence of provisions changing our sentencing laws that some of us opposed the House version of this bill, but that exclusion has been remedied, and we now support this bill wholeheartedly.

Among the sentencing reforms contained in this bill are expanding the existing safety valve to allow judges greater authority to sentence low-level, nonviolent offenders below the mandatory minimum, applying the crack cocaine sentence reductions from the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactively, reducing certain minimum sentences for recidivist offenders, and stopping the unfair ``stacking'' of mandatory sentencing enhancements for certain repeat firearms offenders.

Although we must do far more to address the injustice of mandatory minimum sentences and other policies that lead to mass incarceration, these changes recognize the fundamental unfairness of a system that imposes lengthy imprisonment that is not based on the facts and circumstances of each offender and each case.

This legislation is not the end of the discussion. As the title of the bill suggests, it is a first step. It will not solve longstanding problems with our criminal justice system--issues and injustices that will require more aggressive and comprehensive reforms in the future-- but it does make substantial reforms, and it demonstrates that we can work together to make the system more fair in ways that will also reduce crime and victimization.

Therefore, I support this bill, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) be permitted to control the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise--along with Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, and David Cicilline, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law--to thank Danielle Brown for her service to the Judiciary Committee. She is leaving the Judiciary Committee to serve as General Counsel and Parliamentarian of the Committee on Ways and Means. As we will outline shortly, our loss is their gain.

Danielle has served in a remarkable range of positions over the course of her career on the Judiciary Committee. Growing up in Huntington Woods, Michigan, she first joined the Committee in November 2001 after graduating from the University of Michigan and working in the personal office of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. She left in May 2006 to obtain her law degree at Georgetown University, and returned to the Committee in 2008 after law school to serve as Counsel. She went on to serve as a Parliamentarian for the Minority, and later added the title of Chief Legislative Counsel and, eventually Deputy Chief Counsel, overseeing the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, as well as our clerk and whip teams. We do not know of any other individual who has served in more positions within the Judiciary Committee.

During her time on the Committee, Danielle has been a passionate advocate for justice. From her work on reproductive choice, refugees, and sex-trafficking to immigration reform, competition policy and arbitration,

Danielle has been on the front lines of the Committee's search to promote and improve justice, equal rights, and the lives of ordinary and under-privileged people. Her analysis and advice have been indispensable whether the Committee engaged in oversight or considered legislation.

Although Danielle was deeply involved in almost every single piece of Committee business over her years here, there are several areas in which she showed particular passion and enthusiasm. In her position overseeing the Immigration Subcommittee, she was a dogged defender of immigrants' rights. From comprehensive immigration reform to protecting Dreamers and those with Temporary Protected Status to reform of the EB- 5 program for immigrant investors, Danielle tirelessly fought to strike the right balance between opposing sides. Her counsel helped the Committee shed light on harmful administrative policies and prevent anti-immigrant bills from becoming law. She provided similarly excellent counsel in her oversight of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. There, she earned a well-deserved reputation as a staunch defender of the public interest, open and fair markets, access to justice, and the rule of law.

Beyond these specific responsibilities, Danielle has been intimately involved in many aspects of the Committee's operation. This has included helping the Committee organize each Congress, assisting Members and staff develop amendments for markups, reviewing Member memos for hearings and markups, drafting memos for the Ranking Member, helping to prepare Democratic dissenting views, assisting in the preparation of amendments and statements for the Rules Committee, preparing previous questions and motions to recommit, and drafting and reviewing statements for legislation and amendments on the floor. She also served as a liaison to Leadership, Majority staff, outside advocacy and non-profit groups, and the Administration. She also offered considerable instruction and creativity to fellow staff, and was a calming influence when supervising difficult or contentious matters. Danielle also was able to work across the aisle on a variety of bills. Her hard work and dedication earned her respect and admiration of Members and staff alike.

We have appreciated and benefited from Danielle's energy, enthusiasm, and insight over her time on the Committee. We wish Danielle Brown the very best in her future endeavors and thank her for her outstanding service to the Congress, the Judiciary Committee, and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7164, a bill to add Ireland to the E-3 nonimmigrant visa program.

In 2005, soon after the United States and Australia finalized the Australia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Congress created the E-3 program for Australian nationals. That program provides up to 10,500 temporary visas, similar to H-1B visas, for Australians seeking to work in the United States in what are known as specialty occupations.

As with the H-1B program, specialty occupations are those that require ``theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge'' in fields such as science, engineering, and computer programming.

Australia has never used more than a fraction of the 10,500 E-3 visas that are made available each year in the program. In light of this fact, this bill would add Ireland to the program, thus allowing Irish nationals to use some of those remaining, unused visas. As amended, the bill would take the number of E-3 visas left unused by Australia in a given fiscal year and make that same number available to Irish nationals the following fiscal year.

This is a commonsense bill that recognizes the important bond we share with two of our country's closest and most steadfast allies.

I congratulate my friends, Mr. Sensenbrenner, former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Neal, ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee--soon to be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee--for championing this bill. They both deserve credit for working across the aisle on this issue.

I would be remiss, however, if I did not also point out the continuing need to reform our immigration system in a more comprehensive and fundamental manner. Small fixes such as this bill are fine, but this body also must find ways to come together to enact broader, more meaningful reforms of our immigration system for the good of the American people.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

I again urge every Member on both sides of the aisle to vote for this bill. I applaud the bipartisan nature of it. I applaud Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Neal and Mr. Chabot for their roles in it, and this is a useful thing to do. I urge passage of the bill.

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