Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this bill, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.

Mr. Chair, I want to start by congratulating my good friend and colleague, Chairman Mike Quigley, for his leadership in bringing our tenth appropriations bill to the House floor. Speaking from experience, I know this is no easy task, and I am sure that the relationship between he and Mr. Graves will have a final product that we can all vote for.

I am proud that the work that has been accomplished here takes care of so many issues. This bill provides $24.95 billion to assist elderly and low-income taxpayers; support our entrepreneurs and grow our small businesses; ensure the products of our store shelves are safe for children and families; protect our economy by policing Wall Street; protect and strengthen the integrity of our election systems; and provide a 3.1 percent pay raise for Federal employees; and, once again, empower the District of Columbia to handle its own local affairs.

The administration has proposed to eliminate the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, risking the public-private investments that are generating economic growth in places like my district in the South Bronx. In response, Congress is investing $300 million for this invaluable program, an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2019.

This bill also provides $600 million in Election Assistance Commission security grants to help State election officials improve the security and integrity of our elections. Our election systems remain vulnerable, and additional investments like this can give voters the peace of mind that, when they cast their ballot, their vote will count and be counted correctly. As we approach elections this fall in several States across the country and the Presidential election next year, we must be ready to combat any attempts to disrupt our democratic institutions.

The Small Business Administration will receive nearly $1 billion to continue providing technical assistance and other services our Nation's businessmen need to help get their business ideas off the ground.

Out of the total amount, $150 million will go to the Small Business Development Centers Program, $35 million will help provide Microloan technical assistance, and $30 million will go toward supporting and investing in women-owned businesses through the Women's Business Centers. These investments will help create jobs.

Last but not least, this bill once again restores home rule to the District of Columbia. I cannot think of anything more insulting than telling any city across our country how they can spend their locally raised funds or requiring congressional approval to implement laws their duly elected government officials enact. The intrusive policy riders the bill removes will ensure D.C. can govern itself without congressional meddling and address the challenges it faces in serving its residents.

This is now our 10th bill on the floor. Our Appropriations Committee is doing the work of the people, and I congratulate, once again, Mr. Quigley for his work. I stand ready to vote for this with great enthusiasm.

Madam Speaker, we are now in the midst of a humanitarian crisis at the border created by the policies of the Trump administration.

Like many of my colleagues, I have been shocked by the conditions at our border stations and the lack of basic services and necessities available to migrant families and especially to minors.

This crisis has been aggravated by the anti-immigration policies of this

President. He has once against created a disaster that undermines our Nation's standing in the world and our basic American values.

No one should doubt why we are here today, but the question for me is not who is at fault but, rather, how do we as a body, how do we as a party, respond? We have a responsibility to these children now. We have an obligation to these families now. They cannot wait.

That is what this bill does. It provides the resources to alleviate the crisis and ensures that we have the money to provide migrants, especially minors, with the shelter, food, medicine, and legal services that they need.

The funding in this bill is not a blank check, however. The legislation includes numerous conditions to ensure this money is used for its intended purposes, to make sure that individuals are receiving the care and services they need, and to prevent the administration from creating further chaos and harm.

This bill takes the right steps to address the crisis and to stop what the administration is doing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. If we cry out against the crisis, then we have a responsibility to provide the funds to alleviate it. The bill does just that, and I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of Chairwoman Lowey, and I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

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

Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Crow

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

The Commerce Department has not answered basic questions related to the purpose behind its sharing agreement with the Department of Homeland Security.

Although I am not suggesting the Census Bureau will use the information for something other than statistical purposes, I think it is important to remind the Department we are mindful of how individuals' information will be handled.

Ensuring the public trust in the Census is vital to getting an accurate count, and this amendment helps in that goal.

Mr. Chair, I rise in very strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment.

The zero-tolerance experiment has been a tragic mistake. It has swamped U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and district courts with low level nonviolent cases previously handled by DHS and, if necessary, immigration courts. It has also separated thousands of families and traumatized children and parents. Children may remain with parents in DHS custody, but they cannot follow them into jail, even for such misdemeanor charges.

DOJ should focus on criminal gangs, human trafficking, and smuggling, most of which passes through, not between, the ports of entry.

The zero-tolerance policy restricts seasoned prosecutors from pursuing serious crime and distorts priorities by requiring an unbalanced and inflexible approach. It is clearly not improving things at the border.

Mr. Chair, I urge the House to adopt this very important amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I recognize what my friends from Maine are attempting to do to help an important industry in their State, but I must oppose them in favor of supporting the critically endangered Atlantic right whale.

The decision support tool that this amendment would block is used by States to determine how they can ensure they are taking steps to protect these whales. Preventing its use would, therefore, remove the ability of the States to make their own determination.

Consequently, NOAA would be forced to set a national standard. Additionally, given the way it is drafted, this amendment would block NOAA's conservation work on right whales, not just in the Atlantic, but also in the Pacific.

Other agencies that rely on this tool include the Coast Guard and Navy, who rely on it to ensure that they are in compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

As I said earlier, I understand my friend's concern, and I would support funding to help develop new and more whale-friendly fishing gear and other mitigation options. I cannot, however, support an amendment that removes a scientific tool to make informed natural resource management decisions. It would only further endanger these majestic animals.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my colleague from the Bronx's amendment.

Opioids are a serious threat to the health and well-being of our communities, and we must do everything we can to combat this epidemic.

Within the Department of Justice grant programs, the bill provides $501 million in funding, an increase of $33 million for grants to combat the crisis. This funding includes drug and veterans courts, residential treatment, and for the first time, a grant program for Law Enforcement Assistance Diversion, or LEAD, which seeks to get individuals into treatment and out of the criminal justice system.

The addition of this amendment further strengthens a bill that increases grants for treatment and prevention.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment. My colleague sends an important message by calling attention to the misuse and overuse of solitary confinement in Federal correction and detention.

In 2016, the National Institute of Justice issued a detailed study of the use of restrictive housing in U.S. detention. In addition, the Office of Inspector General in 2017 reported on the use of restrictive housing for mentally ill persons in the custody of BOP and included 15 recommendations to improve how BOP treats such inmates.

While solitary confinement represents a small percentage of restrictive housing, it is particularly concerning because of evidence that its use can be harmful and even counterproductive to correctional objectives.

Mr. Chair, I encourage the Department to take note of the concerns expressed here, and I ask that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the amendment.

When, in March, the Justice Department broke with the principle that its core mission should be to defend, not sabotage, the law of the land, it went too far.

The White House is entitled to push its own policy position on healthcare--it has made no secret of its hostility to the Affordable Care Act, despite never offering an alternative of any kind--but it cannot pick and choose which laws to support.

My friends across the aisle criticized the Obama administration for its use of prosecutorial discretion. In this case, the Department is not just neglecting to defend the law, it is using appropriated funds to directly attack it.

This amendment will, hopefully, stop that, and that is why I strongly support it.

Mr. Chair, as the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I would like to talk about the fiscal year 2020 Commerce, Justice, Science bill, which is contained in division A of the minibus.

The budget proposed by the Trump administration for the agencies in this bill was totally inadequate. The President proposed eliminating a large number of programs that Members on both sides of the aisle strongly support.

Thankfully, with an allocation of $73.895 billion, this subcommittee was able to address these problems and to invest in the future of our Nation.

This legislation makes significant investments in justice reform, economic development, and the science agencies. We increased funding for programs and research focused on climate change, as well as for efforts to address gun violence and to implement the 2020 Census.

Let me highlight a few issues.

In order to address the ongoing challenges faced by the Census Bureau leading up to next year's decennial Census, this bill provides $8.45 billion for the Census Bureau, of which more than 90 percent directly funds the 2020 Census. This amount is $2.3 billion above the administration's very inadequate request.

In addition, this legislation carries language that prevents funding from being used to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census form.

This bill also rejects the administration's proposed cuts to climate change programs. We provide over $2 billion for NASA Earth Science, a significant increase over fiscal year 2019, as well as a 17 percent increase for NOAA climate research activities. Significant increases are also included for NOAA programs that address the impacts of climate change.

To address the epidemic of gun violence in our Nation, this bill increases funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by $122 million over fiscal year 2019. We also provide $80 million for grants to help improve firearms background checks and $125 million for school safety grants authorized by the STOP School Violence Act.

To ensure our Nation's science agencies have the resources needed to continue our leadership in research and innovation, this bill adds substantial funding to NASA, the National Science Foundation, and NIST.

The bill also includes strong funding increases for economic development activities and infrastructure improvements in hard-hit rural and urban areas--in particular, for the Economic Development Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency.

We also provide large increases for the Legal Services Corporation, the Violence Against Women Act, opioid reduction initiatives, and the First Step Act, among many others.

In sum, there is a lot in this bill that both sides support, from science to economic development to justice reform.

I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to put this bill together and to manage the amendments offered on the majority staff. I thank our clerk, Bob Bonner, as well as Jeff Ashford, B.G. Wright, Matt Smith, Shannon McCully, T.J. Lowdermilk, and Trisha Castaneda. And on the minority side, I thank Stephanie Gadbois and Kristin Richmond. I also thank, on my personal staff, Marcus Garza, Angel Nigaglioni, and Matt Alpert.

I want to take a moment to say that, as you will hear, we don't always agree, Mr. Aderholt and I, but it has been a pleasure working with him in the tradition of the Appropriations Committee, which tries to find common ground.

I know that even if he tells you that he doesn't like the bill, there is a lot in here that he likes. So I am looking for maybe a ``maybe'' vote from him.

I also thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ms. Granger. It has been said before, but it hasn't been said by me, that we make history every day in this House, and what a historic moment it is that the ranking member and chairwoman are both women. That is the first time in history.

I think this is a good bill that envisions the people and priorities of this Nation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, my primary objection with the gentleman's amendment is with the offset. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, is not very well known by the American people, but it is quite important.

The NTIA is critical to the deployment of 5G wireless network technology around the country, which is an expressed goal of the majority of Members on both sides of the aisle, as well as the White House.

Additionally, NTIA is working to expand FirstNet, which ensures cell phone connectivity for our first responders in disaster scenarios.

This amendment would cut NTIA's budget by 8 percent. For all these important programs to continue, NTIA's role as the policy leader in the area of cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and data privacy, I cannot support a big cut to this budget.

Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Scalise

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, I offer amendments en bloc, which are at the desk.

Madam Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule. I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendments en bloc.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 445, I offer amendments en bloc, which are at the desk.

Madam Chair, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule and have been agreed to by both sides. I support the amendments and urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Madam Chair, I support the amendment and urge its adoption. I hope everyone votes for it, and I yield back the balance of my time

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the inclusion of the citizenship question was a unilateral decision by Secretary Ross last year. Secretary Ross chose to overrule recommendations from nonpartisan experts at the Census Bureau and ignore the potential impacts, including those the question would have on response rates to the Census, without rigorous testing and analysis.

Even more recently, additional evidence on the other side's attempts to abuse the Census in an effort to gerrymander districts has come to light. Files recently discovered from a Republican redistricting specialist revealed that the citizenship question would result in a structural electoral advantage for Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.

The Voting Rights Act enforcement excuse the Republicans lean on is nothing more than a ruse and their solution in search of what they view as a problem.

It is unfortunate that they have turned to the Census to play this political game to undermine the American people.

Most changes to the Census undergo years of testing and analysis before being added to the decennial Census form. The reason we have that process is to better understand the impact a change can have on the response rate and accuracy of the Census. It allows for the Bureau to better plan and adjust its operational and outreach strategies.

Census is only testing the impact of the question this summer with results anticipated in October, after critical milestones have passed. The administration leaves no time for the Census to mitigate the potential impact of what they may find.

Wilbur Ross refused to listen to the expert advice of advocates and experts at the Bureau who did not recommend adding an untested question so late in the process.

Additionally, there is no doubt that including this question will have a serious negative impact on the self-response rate of the Census. People would simply choose not to respond to the Census form, and the Bureau will be forced to engage in expensive, in-person follow-up that was not originally assumed in their cost estimate.

This should not be an issue that divides us. It should not matter whether you live in a red or blue State or whether you represent an urban or rural district. The question will impact everyone.

This amendment will reduce the accuracy and increase the undercount in places like Florida, Texas, Alabama, Michigan, California, and New York. This, in turn, will affect reapportionment and the distribution of Federal funds for the next decade in many of the communities we represent.

We can and should do better. Our Constitution is clear. It requires that we count all persons every 10 years.

In conclusion, the issue is very simple: If you represent a community that will be undercounted by this question, then you should oppose the amendment. If you support the strict interpretation of the Constitution, then you should also oppose this amendment.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the gentleman is correct: There is a campaign of fear, but it is not by what we are doing here. It is what Wilbur Ross wanted to do.

The Constitution is clear. Count all the people: not the Whites, not the Blacks, not the Hispanics, not women, not men, Republicans or Democrats--all the people.

And so it is really strange to me that people in many districts that do not support our position are not yelling. After all, you may not like undocumented people in your district, but they, if they get counted, bring more Federal dollars, allow for more redistricting properly. So why would you oppose that?

Let us speak to the Constitution.

Yes, there is a campaign of fear, and it was fear to try to put into people who were undocumented to say: We are going to ask you your citizenship. Although we are not supposed to ask you that, we are going to ask you that, and maybe that will turn you away from filling out the form, which is what will happen, and we will not get an accurate count.

Lastly, it is in everyone's interest in this country to get an accurate count.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time the other side has remaining.

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

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Madam Chair, I commend the gentleman and his cosponsors on this amendment, highlighting July 20, 1969, the 50th anniversary of the United States landing a man on the Moon.

I have no opposition to the amendment.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson).

Madam Chair, I urge bipartisan support and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment is consistent with the trend in recent years to acknowledge that States, D.C., and the territories are taking charge of their marijuana policy.

I urge that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment, if adopted, would pose serious risks to our economic and national security. It would undermine our efforts to help create jobs, address the deadly opioid crisis, and increase critical scientific research and legal services for underserved communities.

A 14 percent decrease would, for the Department of Commerce, close over 30 foreign commercial service posts and 10 domestic field offices and lead to the dismissal of hundreds of Commerce personnel who support and create U.S. jobs by leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses in overseas markets; cut over $1 billion from the U.S. Census Bureau, which undermines the Census Bureau's ability to invest in critical information technology infrastructure to safeguard Census data as it moves to an online platform; and limit Census' flexibility to conduct important outreach and follow-up activities in hard-to-count communities, including rural parts of the country.

This amendment would also cause massive cuts in an array of agencies and programs critical to national security, anticrime efforts, and the constitutionally required 2020 Census. It would slash funding for efforts to create jobs, fix aging infrastructure, and respond to the reality of climate change.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, very briefly, in closing, we get folks on the

floor who tell us how much money we have to cut from the budget, from the appropriations, but they really never take time to ask their constituents how they feel about new roads, about hospital help, about education, about climate change, about other issues. You would be surprised how many people who may not scream out in support or against a certain amendment would feel the pain of our cutbacks and would not be for them. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment.

The Commerce Department has illustrated that it requires additional oversight. This increase to the inspector general will restore critical positions that will provide transparency to Congress on what Secretary Ross is up to.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate and 10 a.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 20, 2019, at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of my friend from Colorado's amendment which would increase funding to improve NOAA's weather forecasting abilities.

This is an issue that we have to deal with. This is an issue that has to be dealt with in a proper way. This amendment does that. As chairman of the subcommittee that oversees this section of the bill, I approve of, and I hope my colleagues will vote for, the amendment.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor Mr. Daniel ``Danny'' M. Barber for his many years of tireless advocacy to improve the lives of Bronx residents. He is a great example of everyday contributions that African-Americans have made in my district in the Bronx and the Nation.

Mr. Barber was born in 1969 to the late Dan Walker and Janie Barber- Walker and is the youngest of five children. He attended the De Witt Clinton High School and was a member of the football team. He began his love for community work when he joined the ranks of the Salvation Army during his early years and went on to excel as Director and afterward became Assistant to the Commanding Officer.

Mr. Barber currently serves as the President of the Andrew Jackson Houses Resident Association, Inc., and is the Founder of SOY, Inc. (Save Our Youth). Recently, he was elected to serve as the Chair of the City-Wide Council of Presidents, which oversees all of the NYCHA Resident's Associations, and also serves as the Chair of The South Bronx Council of Presidents. While serving in these capacities, he also serves on several other agencies and organizations boards giving technical support and principled guidance.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Daniel M. Barber for his steadfast dedication and years of public service to our NYCHA residents, and for his longstanding commitment to improving our community.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor Ms. Monica Major for her many years of advocacy and public service in the Bronx. She is a great example of the countless contributions that African Americans make to our Nation every day.

Ms. Major previously served as the Bronx Representative on the Panel for Educational Policy of the New York City Department of Education. In addition, she volunteered for Bronx Community School District 11 for several years, and served as President of the District 11 Community Education Council. One of Ms. Major's greatest accomplishments has been serving on the Citywide Parent Commission on School Governance as a parent advocate to ensure that the voices of Bronx parents were heard in addressing school governance issues. She is still committed to addressing quality of education throughout the Bronx.

A tireless and dedicated public servant, Ms. Major currently serves as the Director of Education and Youth Services for Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr. She is a graduate of Baruch College and is a certified mediator. Ms. Major is also a member of the National Council of Negro Women, North Bronx Section. She is the mother of two and still remains very active in her community.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Ms. Monica Major for her strong commitment to students and for her vigorous advocacy on education issues.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Justice Elizabeth Audrey Taylor for her many years of compassionate service and tireless work to improve the lives of our Bronx residents. Justice Taylor is a great example of the countless contributions that African Americans make every day to the Bronx and our Nation.

Justice Taylor was born and raised in the Highbridge Section of the Bronx and is a product of the public school system. She received a Bachelor of Arts in English from Binghamton University and her Juris Doctor from Ohio Northern University School of Law. She began her career as a legislative aide in the New York City Council and then went to work in private practice, where she specialized in landlord and tenant issues. Thereafter, Justice Taylor returned to the public sector as the Senior Court Attorney to Justice Edgar G. Walker, who at the time was serving in the Bronx Criminal Court. Until 2008, she continued her commitment to public service by serving as Principal Law Clerk to New York Supreme Court Justice Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr. , who is currently serving in the Civil Term of Bronx County Supreme Court.

In addition, Justice Taylor was recently elected Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. She was first elected in 2008 to the Civil Court of the City of New York and has been honored as Judge of the Year by the Bronx County Bar Association and the Bronx Advocates for Justice.

Justice Taylor is also a member of the Military Academy Review Committee for the 15th Congressional district. She has been a member of this committee since 2014 and has been instrumental in helping our office make military academy recommendations since then. This has allowed numerous students from the 15th Congressional District to attend these prestigious schools with full scholarships.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues join me in honoring Justice Elizabeth Audrey Taylor for her consistently remarkable dedication to the law and commitment to serving her community.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor First Deputy Commissioner Benjamin B. Tucker of the New York Police Department for his years of public service and tireless work to improve the lives of our community and our city. He is a great example of the countless contributions that African Americans make every day to the Bronx and our Nation.

First Deputy Commissioner Tucker began his career with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) in 1969 as a Police Trainee. In this role, he conducted an innovative school-based drug prevention education program. He became a Police Officer in 1972 and was promoted to Sergeant in 1987. During his 22 years of service with the NYPD, Mr. Tucker performed patrol, school task force, anti-crime, and community affairs assignments. In addition, he served as a Police Academy instructor, legal advisor in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters; and as the Assistant Director of the Civilian Complaint Review Board.

In 1995, President William Jefferson Clinton appointed Mr. Tucker as the Deputy Director for Operations in the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services at the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2009, Mr. Tucker was nominated by President Barack H. Obama, and confirmed by the United States Senate, as the Deputy Director for State, Local and Tribal Affairs within the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

His unique experiences in law enforcement, public service, and academia led in 2014 to Mr. Tucker's appointment as Deputy Commissioner for Training during NYPD Commissioner William J. Bratton's tenure. Proving to be a valued member of the executive staff, Mr. Tucker was promoted to First Deputy Commissioner and entrusted to direct design and implement a broad range of policy, programs, and training to strengthen community relations and improve the performance of the Department.

First Deputy Commissioner Tucker holds a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law, and is a tenured professor at Pace University.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring First Deputy Commissioner Benjamin B. Tucker for his distinguished public service and extensive contributions in ensuring the safety and well- being of the residents of New York City.

Mr. Speaker, this bill--Commerce, Justice, Science-- comes in at $71.5 billion, which is $1.6 billion above 2018.

One of the highlights of the bill is that it restores many programs that had been zeroed out by the administration, including the Legal Services Corporation, which comes in at over $368 million.

NOAA gets extra money for climate research, and we put in $368 million for opioid epidemic issues. The President wanted $336 million; we came in at $368 million.

To me, the greatest accomplishment in this particular part of the bill is $1 billion for the Census, to continue to work on the Census. This is a major victory, and we thank the other side for agreeing that this is something that has to be done and something that is important for all of us.

So I am asking not only for you to applaud the CJS part of the bill but also to vote for the whole bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Lowey for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, as incoming chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I would like to take a couple of minutes to discuss that section of this bill and the agencies it funds.

We are currently on day 33 of the Trump shutdown. The impact is growing as employees miss paychecks, individuals and groups dependent upon Federal assistance go without, and our public safety and scientific innovation is undermined. This is particularly true for the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Just last week, the Department of Justice had to scramble to find cash to allow recipients of grant programs under the Violence Against Women Act to be funded for 1 additional month.

The New York City field office of the FBI had to set up a food bank for employees who are currently working without pay. We have heard reports that individual FBI agents are asking not to be called back to work so they can find paying jobs and that agents in training are quitting the process, with no paycheck in sight.

The shutdown is also undermining scientific research and our next generation of scientists. The National Science Foundation, NOAA, and NASA are currently unable to award grants for ongoing research or scholarships to ensure that our future scientists have the ability to continue their studies.

At the Department of Commerce, key economic statistics are being delayed. The International Trade Administration cannot investigate unfair trade practices. In total, more than 90,000 employees at the Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Marshals Service, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, are working without pay.

More than 90 percent of employees at NASA are currently furloughed without pay, and more than 86 percent of employees at Department of Commerce find themselves in the same situation--without pay.

The question I have for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is simply this: Is this worth the cost? Should we imperil our economy, our scientific leadership, and our public safety because the President wants to waste money on an ineffective and unnecessary wall?

We all know the answer to that question, although some are too afraid, unfortunately, to say it.

This bill offers us a bipartisan way out of this crisis. It is the compromise that the House and Senate negotiators worked out last fall. I think that bears repeating. This bill is the bipartisan compromise that House and Senate negotiators worked out last fall. While the CJS section does not contain everything that our side may want, it does contain important investments in science, innovation, justice, and economic development. In fact, with very few changes, this portion of H.R. 648 very closely mirrors what the Senate introduced just 2 days ago.

The CJS division of this bill includes significant increases for the Census Bureau, NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the FBI. It rejects the administration's proposed cuts to the Economic Development Administration, the Minority Business Development Agency, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and more. It is a commonsense solution to the shutdown, and it lets our Federal employees get back to the business of helping our Nation.

I urge Members on both sides to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by saying what I said before: we continue to push and push for this wall to be built. I don't spend time on whether the wall will be big or small, cement or wood or metal. For me it is simply this: this country, of all countries in the world, should never build a wall. This country is not the country that builds a wall. So in New York we have the Statue of Liberty, and in the south a wall.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to celebrate and honor the 100th anniversary of The Fordham Ram, a publication of true purpose and high achievement, whose exemplary programs and accomplishments have made many contributions to the Nation and our communities.

The Fordham Ram, hosted by one of New York City's distinguished institutions of higher education, Fordham University, is the newspaper of record and student voice at Fordham's Rose Hill Campus. The newspaper has served students, staff, alumni, and The Bronx community through award-winning, fair, and professional journalism since 1918. The staff and alumni of The Fordham Ram have remained dedicated to objective journalism in the public's interest for 100 years.

The Fordham Ram's 100th anniversary is an auspicious occasion to recognize the accomplishments of the distinguished alumni who have also written for the newspaper during their time at Fordham University. Notable alumni include Louis D. Boccardi ('58), the former President and CEO of the Associated Press; Loretta Tofani ('75), Pulitzer Prize winner at the Washington Post; Malcolm Moran ('75), former reporter for the New York Times and USA Today; Thomas Maier ('78), author and prize- winning investigative journalist for Newsday; Jim Dwyer ('79), two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and columnist for the New York Times; Michael Kay ('82), the voice of the New York Yankees on the YES Network and ESPN Radio host; Jack Curry ('86), analyst for the YES Network; and the legendary Vin

Scully ('49), the voice of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Baseball Hall of Fame broadcaster, and Radio Hall of Famer. The significant contributions these individuals have made to the field of journalism are a testament to the true spirit of excellence instilled in them at The Fordham Ram.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that my distinguished colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives join me in honoring the Fordham Ram for its 100 years of remarkable dedication to fair journalism and its longstanding commitment to improving The Bronx.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. For me, this is a very simple thought; it is the same thought I have had all along; this country, of all countries, should not be building a wall. This country, the land of opportunity, the land of freedom, the land where people come to build a new life, should not be building a wall.

So what do we do? There isn't the support necessary for building the wall, for funding it. So at the last minute, we sneak it into a so- called must-pass bill, or otherwise, you shut the government down.

But the President has already said that he doesn't mind taking credit or taking responsibility for shutting this government down. This is very simple.

People say, well, there is aid here, disaster aid. We have been dealing with this disaster issue now for over a year, and still, we don't do the right thing.

This is simple for me. We can't build a wall. This wall will be a waste of money. I don't know who, but as we speak here, there are people already who know how to get over, through, and under the wall. The wall is not what we need. What we need is immigration reform, and we need another outlook.

But, lastly, again, I repeat: of all of the countries in the world, this is the one that can't go down in history as being the greatest democracy when it builds a wall. And in my city, there is a statue that says: Give me your tired; give me your poor. But not if they come from Mexico.