Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, although I may be the newest member of the Rules Committee, I know that it is our job to discuss how our committees come up with their legislation and, by extension, how the House should consider these bills in a manner that is orderly and respectful. Unfortunately, we were not given that opportunity yesterday.

I had questions for the Intelligence Committee chairman--tough questions, maybe, but fair questions. Questions like: How do we prevent witnesses from lying in our committees? Questions like: How did the committee come up with their findings on the Russian meddling that differ so much from every other intelligence agency?

I had offered an amendment to this bill to give the House the opportunity to vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia findings, and I wanted to ask the chairman if he felt

that the House was prepared to vote on such an amendment; and, if not, why not. A tough question, maybe, but a fair question.

However, I never got the opportunity to ask that--any of that. Instead, I was shouted down by a male colleague from across the dais and cut off abruptly before I could even finish the first question. It was incredibly disrespectful and a far cry from the decorum that we should uphold as members of the powerful Rules Committee and Congress.

Never before had a member of the committee majority or minority been cut off from active questioning. That is unprecedented. As a fact, I have observed male colleagues talk to each other and ask each other to yield time to each other; but you see, as the only female Latina in that committee, that respect was not extended to me.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, what this means for our committee and this Congress. What is more troubling to me is that this is the second time a male colleague has yelled at me from the other side of the dais. This is not to be tolerated--not by me, and not by any Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, if our committee is going to function like this moving forward, it will be the Rules Committee in name only. Regular order will be a thing of the past.

Bills are already developed by the majority behind closed doors. The majority already blocks every single amendment. Now we will not be allowed to even speak. The majority has already turned this Congress into the most closed Congress in history. Now they are going to close off important debates in committee, and that is outrageous.

I take my work on the Rules Committee very seriously. As a matter of fact, the last time this happened, I sat there, patiently, quietly, listening to the debate, although I completely disagreed with what my colleagues were saying. I was respectful to them, and I waited for my turn to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can all continue to uphold that standard of mutual respect for not just the male members of our committee, but to extend that respect to the females of that committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 6237, the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019.

Mr. Chairman, nearly 1 year and 3 months ago today, the North Korean regime announced that it had successfully executed an intercontinental ballistic missile test launch. That announcement raised the real possibility of a North Korean nuclear attack on American soil.

President Trump, rightly, has spent much of last year seeking a deal for the

denuclearization of North Korea. Secretary Pompeo is actively engaged in finding a solution, and Congress should be providing him with all of the resources we can to ensure a solution is meaningful and effective.

To prevent advancement of their nuclear weapons program, we need to obtain specific information regarding North Korean revenue sources; however, the U.S. Government does not have a sufficient understanding of this critical question. That is why I have offered this amendment, which is modeled after my North Korea Follow the Money Act.

This amendment directs the Director of National Intelligence to produce a National Intelligence Estimate of the revenue sources of North Korea. Any effective agreement between the U.S. and North Korea must consider all of the sources of funding, both legitimate and illegitimate, that have enabled this North Korean regime.

I am proud to offer this bipartisan amendment with Representative Wagner, who has been a longtime partner of mine on this legislation, and I also appreciate Chairman Nunes and his staff and Ranking Member Schiff and his staff for working with me on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am hopeful that we can continue to work together for the security of our Nation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Until we know where the North Korean regime gets its money, we won't know how much money they have to spend.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and equip Secretary Pompeo with the tools that he needs to act in the best interests of our national security, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This rule makes in order two bills and four amendments: H.R. 50, Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2017; and H.R. 3281, Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act.

H.R. 50 amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This is a bill that Congress already voted on in 2015 in nearly a party-line vote in the House before dying in the Senate.

I understand my colleagues think that this is a very important issue. As a former mayor and council member, I know how difficult Federal regulations can be to implement. This legislation, however, does nothing except grind progress to a standstill, blocking improvements to our Nation's health, safety, and environmental protections.

Perhaps that is why this rule also makes in order H.R. 3281, which assaults our Nation's environmental and health standards in a different way. This legislation, which I opposed in the Natural Resources Committee, would authorize a de facto privatization of Federal infrastructure across the Western U.S., all while stiffing our taxpayers.

The bill does not require that taxpayers be compensated for the loss of publicly owned land and mineral interests. Imagine, once again, this Congress is putting the interests of private business ahead of our hardworking taxpayers.

This legislation is a proposal from President Trump's infrastructure plan, which largely seeks to enrich developers and private businesses at the expense of our hardworking taxpayers and the general public as a whole.

I could understand spending time on these bills if we had finished the pressing work before us, but with thousands--and I mean thousands-- of children still separated from their parents due to the cruel actions of this administration, is this really what we are spending time on? Where are the moral priorities and family values of this Congress?

I have spoken with the Department of Homeland Security, and I have spoken with the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement, and there has been one constant answer from both of them: They have absolutely no idea what they are doing, no idea where the parents of these children are, no idea how many children have been put into foster care, no idea when these families will be reunited, and no idea what comes next.

Congress has a responsibility to act, not next week, not next month, not next year, but today. Once we leave for August recess, let me remind you, it will be 39 days before we come back. That means 39 more days that we are going to allow children to be held in detention, in cages, in cold cells, without their parents.

The Trump administration has already missed the first deadline to reunite families. What assurances do we have that they won't miss the second deadline, or the third one, or possibly the fourth one? How many more deadlines does this Congress, this administration, need before we realize that we are complicit--complicit--in separating children from their parents who care about them?

And while we have them in our custody, we are complicit in not properly taking care of them. ``Full of dirt and lice,'' that is how an immigrant mother described her 14-month-old baby son who had been returned to her after 85 days of separation.

We must act because this administration chooses not to. Failure to do so will mean more families are broken forever, more families like Yasmin's.

On May 22, Yasmin and her two teenage daughters entered the United States and were immediately apprehended and then separated. The mother was transferred to the McAllen holding center--also known as the dog pound, as they call it--with a group of other separated mothers.

After 7 days, the mothers were told that they would be deported without their children. Many of the mothers fainted when they heard this news. One mother had a seizure in a cell. After appearing in court, Yasmin was handcuffed, shackled, and given no information on the status of her children. Family values.

After being transferred to another detention center, Yasmin was informed that her daughters had been reunited with their father. But Yasmin still remains in a detention center, where she has gone more than a month separated from her children. She has received absolutely no information about when she will see her children again and must simply wait and pray. Family values.

These people are fleeing for their lives to the promise and safety of the United States, and we aren't even considering their asylum cases.

Let me tell you another story, Mr. Speaker. A woman from El Salvador decided to flee to the U.S. with her two young boys, ages 4 and 10, after receiving grave threats from MS-13 gang members. Prior to fleeing to the U.S., she had sought protection from Salvadoran authorities through the legal process but had not received any protection.

In March of this year, she presented herself to the border officials, after making a conscious decision not to enter the U.S. at an official port of entry. She had learned that CBP officials are turning away asylum seekers in direct--direct--violation of the United States and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The mother and her two boys were apprehended and taken to a Border Patrol processing station. The mother was sent to an adult detention center in Laredo, and the boys were sent to a shelter for unaccompanied children under the Office of Refugee Resettlement within Health and Human Services.

At one point, the brothers were separated from one another and placed into two separate foster homes, but were eventually reunited and released to family on the East Coast.

Under current law and procedure--something this Congress could change today--the children have absolutely no right to an appointed lawyer. Without their mother to speak on their behalf, the 4-year-old and the 10-year-old boys must make a case for asylum on their own in separate court cases.

This is what we could be doing today: One, fixing the broken laws that have toddlers, toddlers who are barely out of diapers, representing themselves in court and fixing the root causes of these issues with the Central American Family Protection and Reunification Act, legislation I have offered with Ranking Member Engel.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we can use our limited time here to act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.J. Res. 31, sponsored by Representatives Deutch and McGovern and Raskin, which would reserve Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United by enshrining in the Constitution of the United States a democracy for all amendments, establishing the right of the American people to enact State and Federal laws that regulate spending in public elections.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) to discuss this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, who has been a leader

on this issue of money and politics for years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) to speak on the continuing horror stories about what has happened at our Nation's border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

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

One final story to remind all of us what is at stake here.

Earlier this year, a Honduran father was separated from his wife and child just days after President Trump's zero-tolerance policies went into effect. Marco Antonio Munoz crossed the Rio Grande with his wife and 3-year-old son on May 12 near the tiny town of Granjeno, Texas. Soon after Marco and his family were taken into custody, they arrived at a processing station in nearby McAllen and said they wanted to apply for asylum.

Border Patrol agents told the family that they would be separated. That is when Border Patrol officials literally ripped Marco's child from his arms. At no point did Marco attempt to attack or assault the Border Patrol staff, but due to his anguish, he was placed into a padded isolation cell.

Marco began to pray, pray for his family and pray for their safety. Hours passed, and the next morning, after receiving no information about where his family was or when he would see them next, Marco took his life.

Family values.

This is the law and order President Trump has no respect for either. He is disrespecting the rule of law and violating court orders by detaining children, babies, and he is creating

hysteria among families and confusion among Border Patrol and HHS officials.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule because we can do better than this. We have family values that we must stand for, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order 29 amendments to H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019. The underlying legislation is the product of bipartisan negotiations, which have been going on for months. Bipartisan negotiations are a really good thing, and I am glad that, on this one issue, we are finding ways to work together.

In particular, I want to recognize the work that Representative Aguilar, Representative Hurd, and many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been doing to create a path forward and look for a solution to President Trump's self-created Dreamer crisis. That is what we are supposed to be doing here: working together to solve problems.

Unfortunately, this Republican leadership doesn't believe in working with the other side. They are only interested in negotiating with their own. So it is not surprising that it isn't going very well. That is why they pulled their own immigration bill last week.

Maybe the Republican leadership, which has blocked the bipartisan Dream Act time and time again, and which has blocked the bipartisan USA Act time and time again, should trust their Members to craft and vote on compromise legislation.

But they don't have the courage or the vision to do that, do they?

Now we have another crisis, which, again, the President has created, a crisis that has outraged our constituents. Thousands of children, even infants and toddlers, are ripped from their parents at our southern border, children who have done absolutely nothing wrong, children who did not choose to come here on their own, kids too young to know the name of the country that they came from, too young to know what asylum is, too young to know what illegal entry means. Some of these kids only know two words: ``mom'' and ``dad.''

We have heard the recordings of these children crying out for their parents while being made fun of. Many of us have visited the detention centers, and it is heartbreaking and it is unnecessary.

So, while I congratulate the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on the defense bill, I have to remind the Speaker that we have 95 days to finish our work for funding the Federal Government. But I would challenge my colleagues to imagine one day, a single day, without their child, unsure if they would ever see them again.

We have some time to do the defense bill, but on the issue of family separation, we cannot afford to wait another day. Congress should be addressing this crisis today. It is not going to be easy. This administration clearly did not think through this policy that they have created.

Right now, we have children in HHS care, but where are their parents? Some are in custody of the U.S. Marshals or ICE, already deported, or maybe some are free on bond.

HHS said yesterday that they were not reuniting kids with their parents who are in detention. What does that mean? Are they going to be free? If not, what is the plan?

Let's look at the best-case scenario: a parent who gets out on bond and goes to HHS and asks for their child is told, ``Show us your documents. Prove you are really the parent,'' and this parent who has been in custody has nothing.

Where is the plan to help these parents obtain their documents? Where are these plans to help these children reunite with their parents?

Does the administration even know where all the parents are and how they are supposed to be reunited with their kids?

How are they keeping track of the babies, the babies who are simply too young to even know their name?

We have many unanswered questions. We should be making sure those kids get to their parents, making sure that every single one of those children is accounted for. That is doing our job.

Instead, we are passing another appropriations bill with the full knowledge that we will probably do what we have done every year that I have been here: We will pass a CR at the end of

the fiscal year, and then we will probably pass another CR, and then another, and then another, and then another, because we can't legislate together.

This rule makes in order 29 amendments, but not a single one of them deals with the issues of the kids. Why not allow a vote on the amendment I offered with Representative Schiff to prohibit detaining children at military facilities?

Why not allow a vote on my amendment to block certain Cabinet members from using military aircraft until the children are reunited? Is it more important for Scott Pruitt to get on a plane than for a baby from El Salvador to get back into his mother's arms? or the amendment offered by my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis? Representative Polis' amendment would have prohibited the Department of Defense from transferring resources to the Department of Justice to carry out prosecution of migrant families.

Don't our troops need these resources? Shouldn't our military be focused on keeping us safe from ISIS and North Korea, not toddlers and babies?

And why is the Republican leadership afraid to allow us to have a vote? I guess babies are too controversial for the Republican caucus. I guess keeping families together is a poison pill amendment.

By refusing Congress a vote, this House is giving up its responsibility to make immigration laws, plain and simple. This House should be a check on the administration. That is the way the system is supposed to work. But we are not doing that. Instead, by refusing to let us have a vote on the floor, the Republican House majority is endorsing President Trump's family jails.

Mr. Speaker, this House majority owns this crisis. Let me be clear: A vote for this rule is a vote for more of President Trump's cruelty to these babies. It is a vote to keep innocent children from their parents.

This House has the power to reunite these families. This House has the power to end separation. This House has the power to stop hateful immigration policies.

But this House won't act. Because of that, thousands of families may be destroyed forever. We must defeat this rule and give this House an opportunity to act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that a primary duty of this Congress is to fund the military, absolutely. There are military families serving in our Nation and abroad that deserve to get paid.

So I would like to take this moment of privilege to remind this Congress that, before I got here, my son, who joined the United States Air Force, was going to have his pay withheld. I remember him telling me, Mr. Speaker:

Mom, I signed up to serve our great Nation in the United

States Air Force, and I signed up to defend and protect my

country. I did not sign up to defend and protect the men of

my country, but I signed up to protect all of the people in

my country. And I resent Congress withholding my pay or tying

my pay to the reproductive rights of women.

So let's keep all of those things in mind when we talk about the priorities of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that I absolutely agree with my colleague from the other side of the aisle on one thing, and that is that we should be absolutely focused and work together on the issues on which we agree, such as the USA Act.

Mr. Speaker, why aren't we allowed to have a vote on the floor when that is bipartisan legislation created by a bipartisan group of Members?

If we want to talk about the rule of law, Mr. Speaker, we can't talk from both ends. Either we support the rule of law or we don't. Yet this Republican Congress, time and time and time again, has been complicit with President Trump and his family's conflicts of interest when it comes to dealing

with China, when it comes to dealing with our trade agreements, when it comes to dealing with Russia and now possibly North Korea.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration has ripped thousands of children from their parents' arms at the border, sending them all over the country. Separating children from their parent poses ongoing psychological harm and trauma, yet the government has no clear plans to reunite those families. For that reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Bass' bill, H.R. 6236, the Family Unity Rights and Protection Act, which would require the Federal Government to reunite families which have been forcibly separated at the border.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass) to discuss this proposal.

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

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

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

Let me remind this body of a brief history of our Nation.

During World War II, this country chose to round up Japanese American citizens and put them in internment camps across the country.

Some were held in my hometown at the Los Angeles County Fairgrounds, in Pomona, California.

In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. United States that the government had every right to incarcerate families in the best interest of our national security. It was wrong and immoral then, and it is wrong and immoral now, and we look back at Japanese internment as a dark moment in our history.

Just yesterday, the Supreme Court finally rejected the ruling and admitted that it was clearly unconstitutional to forcibly place Japanese Americans in concentration camps--74 years later. That is how long it took for our court system to catch up with the reality and to right a horrible wrong.

We are facing a similar dark period in our country now with what is happening at our southern borders. How long will it take this time for us to realize that what this administration is doing at our southern borders is morally repugnant, wrong, and illegal?

How long before we realize that what we are doing is causing emotional harm to families, especially to the children? How long before we consider how history will remember this moment and judge us?

What national security threat are we facing today that warrants such a barbaric response towards families and children? They are exactly that: children, families, babies.

They are coming to our borders pleading for help and protection. They are fleeing kidnapping, rape, murder, and threats. They are not MS-13; they are fleeing MS-13. They want to work and raise their children in peace. Is that so terrible?

This administration is deliberately choosing to inflict trauma onto thousands of children, holding children hostage, using child abuse as a scare tactic to deter families from coming here seeking refuge.

There are still more than 2,000 children separated from their families at this present moment. President Trump may have signed his executive order last week, but he failed to implement a plan to reunite these families--no plan to reunite these families.

We are doing nothing to fix this problem today. And let's be clear: Speaker Ryan's bill, which we may or may not consider this week, does nothing to fix this problem either. All his bill does is pave the way for long-term incarceration of families in prison-like facilities. It would be replacing one form of child abuse for another.

I visited some of these detention centers at our borders. The horrendous conditions we are exposing families to are completely unacceptable.

Where are we, as a nation, when we place children in cage-like cells, inside warehouses, with nothing but an emergency thermal blanket and a thin mat between them and the cold concrete floor, with a toilet in the middle of the cell? Criminally prosecuting every individual, every child, who crosses between a port of entry, who poses no threat to our country, is not only inhumane, it makes us less secure.

We have a limited number of prosecutors. We have to make choices. If you prosecute one crime, it means you are not prosecuting another. So when we send our prosecutors after every single border crosser, who benefits? Let me tell you who benefits. The murderers, the rapists, the drug traffickers, the drug dealers, the pimps, the muggers, and the human traffickers, that is who will benefit from this. We are taking away from where law enforcement agencies need the most and are wasting by traumatizing defenseless families. How does this make us safe?

This administration's impulsive zero-tolerance policy is harming our moral credibility. It is harming our national security. Most of all, it is harming innocent babies.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

This rule makes in order H.R. 4760, the so-called Securing America's Future Act, and two amendments in the legislation.

Before I speak on the legislation, let us consider why we are here today. President Trump has created immigration crisis after immigration crisis. President Trump is the reason Dreamers are at risk of deportation. President Trump is the reason families are being separated at our Nation's borders. This is a Trump-manufactured crisis, plain and simple.

President Trump's executive order, signed yesterday, does nothing to fix this. His order does nothing to reunite the thousands of children separated from their parents. In fact, his order directs his deportation force to now jail families at the border, which is in direct violation of current court orders. It will lead to more family separation, and the only difference now is that families will wait 20 days before being separated.

I want every Member of this body and everyone watching at home to imagine what it must be like. Imagine traveling thousands of miles to flee some of the most dangerous countries in the world, countries with the highest murder rates, and then, when you finally think you are safe, having your child ripped away from you.

In 1946 to 1948, during the Truman administration, human experiments were conducted in Guatemala. American doctors infected mostly uneducated and indigenous people with syphilis. Today, in the Trump administration, we are forcing drugs in pill form and injection on the indigenous children seeking asylum.

So this brings us to why we are here today. Mr. Speaker, everyone watching this debate should be crystal clear on what this bill does. This bill fails to solve the separation of families on our Nation's border. It reduces legal immigration. It fails to offer DACA recipients a path to citizenship. It adds $25 billion to our growing wall of debt on top of the $2 trillion that we already added when Republicans voted for their tax scam.

This bill makes it harder for those seeking asylum to receive protection, and it fails to protect the 2,000 children who have already been separated from their parents.

Many will call this legislation the more conservative option that the House will consider today. But let us be clear, this bill is not conservative at all.

After adding trillions to our Nation's debt through the tax scam, Republicans now are putting us in another $25 billion debt. Where are we going to borrow this money from?

Remember, colleagues, President Trump has declared a trade war with China. What will happen if China decides to cash in on that debt?

In addition, President Trump's family jails will cost the American taxpayer 10 times more than the alternative policy he ended for family migration.

Conservative? Absolutely not. Cruel? Inhumane? Absolutely, yes.

Mr. Speaker, last night, during consideration of this bill in the Rules Committee, my colleagues and I offered many fixes, which were all blocked by this rule. My amendment to replace the bill with the Keep Families Together Act, which would have reunited families, was blocked.

Representative Roybal-Allard and Representative Polis joined me in offering the Dream Act as an alternative, but that was blocked also.

Another Rules Committee Member, Representative Hastings, and his amendment to fix TPS, blocked.

But not all amendments were blocked. Just like President Trump's executive order contained misspellings, this bill contained a giant typo to give President Trump an additional $100 billion for his wall.

So which is it? $25 billion? $100 billion? Are Mexicans going to pay for it? What is it?

The committee has said that they are making this correction, and they did so in the middle of the night. But I doubt President Trump would be happy to hear that, so we will wait and see.

If this truly is a mistake, these kinds of corrections could have been caught if Democrats had been allowed to participate in this process, if we would have had a committee hearing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this cruel legislation now, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Goodlatte just clarified that his bill has been in print for 6 months. I thank the gentleman for clarifying. The American people should know that your real intention was to allocate $100 million for the Trump wall, and it wasn't until we shined the light on that, that in the middle of the night the Republican caucus scrambled to reduce that amount to $25 million.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to strike the text of this rule and insert House Resolution 774, Representative Denham's bipartisan queen-of-the-hill resolution. This rule would bring up four separate immigration bills to be debated and voted on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1970, a Guatemalan couple decided to send their daughter to the U.S. That young girl was I. I was welcomed here in a loving home. I was not put in a freezing cell. My parents felt they had no choice. My mother died a couple of years later.

These parents are making a choice that, frankly, I could not make today for my children. A few months ago, I was away from home for so long--4 weeks--that my grandson, a 3-year-old, felt he had to reintroduce himself to me because he had not seen me for 4 weeks. He didn't think that I would remember him. Imagine an infant when that infant is returned to their parent; they will be introduced to a total stranger.

Pope Francis just tweeted: Pray together, walk together, work together. This is the way that leads to Christian unity.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this cruel legislation. Let's help those who can't help themselves in these very corrupt countries of the Northern Triangle. They are not s---holes as the President has referred to them. Let's give them an opportunity to live another day.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the grand opening ceremony for the new compound of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) this week. The United States and Taiwan have enjoyed a fruitful partnership for decades, and I am confident that our partnership will only grow stronger with this new facility.

Our two countries' partnership has flourished because of our shared commitment to democratic values and constitutional governments. Taiwan serves as a strong example of democracy not only for the region, but also the world. We must never take democracy for granted; we must remain vigilant in protecting and strengthening it.

Our nations are also bound together by immigration, travel, and trade. More than 350,000 Taiwanese live in the United States, and an estimated 4,000 Americans live in Taiwan. Nearly 3,000 of my constituents were born in Taiwan. Additionally, Taiwan is the United States' 11th largest trading partner, and in 2017, Taiwanese businesses invested $34 billion in the United States. Travel, especially air travel, helps to further strengthen the bonds between the United States and Taiwan. In that sense, I am very pleased that the Ontario International Airport, located in California's 35th district, now offers direct flights to Taiwan.

This is a relationship I am proud to support, and I am committed to working with my colleagues to find additional areas where our two countries can partner to our mutual benefit. This week's opening ceremony is an important step, and I am confident that it will contribute to the strengthening of the U.S.-Taiwan partnership

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Staff Sergeant Frank E. Verdugo on the occasion of his retirement from 20 years of outstanding commitment through military service to this country. He is the son of Lydia Wibert, former City Councilwoman in Fontana.

Staff Sergeant Verdugo has had a remarkable career with our armed forces. He began his military career with the U.S. Marine Corps, serving from 1994-1998. He went on to serve in the Army Reserve from 1998-2002, where he was based in San Antonio. He transitioned to full time service when he entered the Army on August 1st of 2002 for his second time on active duty. Like many brave and selfless individuals, he did so as a result of the events that transpired on September 11, 2001.

Throughout his career, Staff Sergeant Verdugo has been assigned to a full range of important roles and has been stationed in many locations around the country including Fort Lewis, Fort Knox, Fort Bliss, and Fort Benning. Shortly after joining the Army, he was deployed twice to Iraq, from 2003-2004 and 2006-2007.

While Staff Sergeant Verdugo has immeasurable achievements and awards that speak to his character, perhaps the most significant contribution and legacy he has made is by helping train the next generation of leaders. He was part of the Army's first Stryker Brigade at Fort Lewis and was assigned as a Stryker instructor at Fort Knox. Because of Staff Sergeant Verdugo's experience, he served in several critical leadership roles while at Fort Bliss, where he tested new equipment and networks for the Army, and at Fort Benning, where he was a fire range trainer.

Staff Sergeant Verdugo has selflessly given of himself to this country while raising a family. He is married to Maria E. Verdugo and is the father of four children.

As Staff Sergeant Verdugo's long and honorable military career comes to a close, he is beginning a new chapter in his life. He is currently pursuing his Bachelor of Science in Homeland Security from Vincennes University, further illustrating that while he may not be in the military anymore, his commitment to working hard on issues like national security is enduring.

For his many years of selfless service to our nation, I would like to recognize and thank Staff Sergeant Frank E. Verdugo.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent of the 35th District, Mrs. Elvira Ortiz of Chino, California in celebration of her 100th birthday.

Elvira was born July 9, 1918 in Chino, California, and has resided there for most of her life. Having lived in her same home for sixty years, she has made precious memories with her loved ones in Chino.

As Elvira celebrates her 100th birthday, she has much to be proud of. Elvira's husband, the late Jesus Pacheco Ortiz, was her hero. Jesus was in the United States Army Air Corps during World War II. He participated in air combat as a tail gunner as well as other positions on his aircraft. At one point, Jesus's aircraft was shot down over Europe and survived only because of the graciousness of a group of farmers who hid him and his crew.

Elvira is devoted to her family and is loved and cherished by them in return. She and Jesus had four wonderful children, Lucille (deceased), Olivia, Michael, and George. She's held many titles over her long life, but the one she is most proud of is grandmother and great-grandmother.

Mrs. Ortiz has been a valuable member of her community. She is a practicing Catholic and has always devoted her extra time to her local church, Saint Margaret Mary Catholic Church in Chino, California.

Having lived in Chino for almost all her life, Elvira has seen many, many positive changes take place in the area, including the tremendous growth and improvement of the Ontario International Airport.

Her one hundred years is a testament to the ``greatest generation'' that ever lived in these United States of America. I am happy to wish Mrs. Elvira Ortiz a happy 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this rule makes 39 amendments in order to the appropriations bill we have been considering this week.

Unfortunately, this appropriations package is made up of three individual appropriations bills. Also, in what is a surprise to us in the minority, this rule also includes a surprising $15 billion in rescissions--cuts--to programs our communities depend on.

Why aren't we given the opportunity to bring up these bills individually? Considering that nearly 200 amendments were offered to this package while many of us were working in our districts, it is obvious to me that these bills would have benefited from a longer debate.

This rule makes in order 39 amendments to the underlying package, which includes H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019; H.R. 5894, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2019; and H.R. 5786, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019.

However, 59 additional amendments will not be given an opportunity to be heard, including bipartisan amendments like the Cicilline-Poliquin amendment to prohibit oil drilling on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf or the Foster-Hultgren amendment to increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science or the Issa-Roybal-Allard amendment to support programs that improve veteran access to care at qualified health centers. Don't these distinguished Members of this body deserve to have their amendments discussed, debated, and voted on?

This rule also makes in order H.R. 3, the GOP rescission package. Mr. Speaker, this bill has not received a single hearing--not one. This was a last-minute addition which gave no time for amendments to be considered.

The closed rule, which is how the rescissions package comes to the floor, pushes this Congress further into the record books as the most closed Congress in history.

Before I speak more on that, I do want to take a brief moment to highlight the bipartisan manner in which the appropriators acted in crafting the Military Construction and Legislative Branch bills. This is proof that, when this body wants to, we can work together and produce legislation that results in broad, bipartisan consensus.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill provides a $4.17 billion increase to the servicemembers we represent--specifically, a $3.9 billion increase to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Legislative Branch bill takes more steps we should have taken a long time ago and provides additional resources for training and to help with complaints on sexual harassment and violations of employee rights. None of us here are immune to harassers, but at least this bill moves us forward in addressing the bad behaviors of those who walk among us.

This rule makes in order amendments to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. However, this bill does not follow the same bipartisan path. Instead, this bill is full of poison pill riders that will ultimately make our time here a total waste, as those poison pill riders mean that the Senate will ignore this package as it is written.

Incredibly, when most Americans are asking Congress to make commonsense improvements to our Nation's gun laws, this bill goes in the opposite direction. That is right. This Congress is finally acting on guns--in a cowardly way, by expanding where guns can be brought onto Federal lands, ignoring the cries and the calls from our children--our children who are being murdered in their classrooms, our constituents who are being murdered in movie theaters, our constituents who are being murdered in concert halls in Las Vegas, Nevada, where people go to get married, where people go to have fun, and, yes, they make babies sometimes in Vegas too. But yet we are ignoring their calls for help.

It is amazing that we can go on months without meaningful reforms on gun violence and now we take up a giant spending package that forces Members to vote on yet another expansion of gun access. What are we trying to do?

Again, a cowardice act to expand the use of weapons in our Federal lands. For what? So we can go into the dens of bears and kill them--the momma bears and the baby bears--while they are sleeping?

That is what we are doing in this Congress.

Perhaps that wouldn't be such a problem if we had a single open rule on the House floor that would allow the House to work its will on this or any other issue Members have with portions of this legislation.

Finally, this rule makes in order H.R. 3, President Trump's and the GOP's rescissions bill. As I mentioned before, this bill saw no hearings. Zero.

But perhaps just as troubling was Ranking Member Lowey's remarks in our Rules Committee hearing last night about how the minority wasn't even consulted prior to this bill coming to the floor, ignoring the thousands of constituents that we represent. So, not only has this bill skipped the normal appropriations process, Democrats have not been given an opportunity to add the voice of their constituents.

Make no mistake, this is a highly partisan bill which does not reflect the House's will. Instead, this is what our constituents hate the most: a Congress that is most dysfunctional.

This bill makes significant cuts to programs that create jobs, grow our economy, and provide healthcare to millions of children in a transparent attempt to appear fiscally conservative after passing a tax bill that added $1.9 trillion to the deficit and gave most of its benefit to the wealthiest among us.

If we want to rescind something to balance the deficit, how about we start with the $1 trillion budget-busting tax bill that was passed for the wealthy. That irresponsible law is now the cause of Medicare and Social Security going bankrupt decades earlier.

This bill is a political gimmick to hide the Republican majority's gross mismanagement of our Nation's long-term fiscal health. While the GOP tax giveaway benefited the wealthiest among us, almost half of the cuts in this rescissions package are to the Children's Health Insurance Program. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: the Children's Health Insurance Program.

We have $7 billion eliminated from CHIP. That is right. They didn't blink an eye at a $2 trillion giveaway to the wealthy, but yet they are squeezing fractional savings from funds intended for children's health insurance.

But that isn't the end of it. So that corporations and millionaires can have a tax break, the House majority has decided to make a collection of cuts that will impact every community: Cuts to economic development; cuts to the Forest Service while the West of America is burning; cuts to Indian housing programs, cuts to foreign assistance; cuts to transportation while our infrastructure is crumbling; cuts to public housing while the growing number of Americans grow homeless; cuts to conservation; and cuts to advanced technology vehicle loans.

What is it that you want to do? Do you want to take us back to the time of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble?

I know that my Republican colleagues will say that they aren't cuts because the funding can't be used, but no Federal agencies were asked if they needed a waiver to utilize this funding where they need it the most. I doubt that my colleagues will say they couldn't use this in their communities.

Well, let me put these cuts in the voice of the Great Gazoo: those cuts are dumb and dumber cuts.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I must strongly oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow the rewriting of history. The majority has blocked over 2,000 amendments, and it is only June.

Mr. Speaker, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act would shortchange our veterans by subjecting funding for their healthcare programs to onerous budget restraints. This would force funding for veterans healthcare to compete with other important veterans programs.

Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to include Representative Lamb's legislation, H.R. 5805, to fix the VA Choice budget shortfall and Representative Carter's amendment to MILCON-VA which includes more funds for vital veteran healthcare initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

I have no doubt of the importance of the legislation this rule makes in order. However, I struggle to believe that this is the most important work we could be doing today.

Instead, perhaps we can fix the broken immigration laws that President Trump has cited as his reason for separating families and children on our Nation's border. Fear and intimidation are no way to make policy. The Trump administration has picked the cruelest way to punish those who are fleeing violence.

The result is broken families and lost children. Since October, more than 700 children have been inhumanely separated from their parents. More than 100 of these children are less than 4 years old.

Using family separation as a scare tactic to prevent families from coming to this country will never work, and it is in the same cruel mindset as using rape as a weapon of war. These families come here looking for one thing: shelter. Punishing a mother by separating her from her child is not only immoral; it is inhumane. It goes against the fundamental human right of the family unit.

Separating them from their parents is simply anti-American. However, for some reason, President Trump has repeatedly said that he is bound by the law to rip these families apart.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, what is the law requiring the separation of parents and children at the border?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason the Speaker can't answer is that the law simply doesn't exist. However, this is the United States Congress. We make the laws. But unfortunately, this isn't what we are doing here. No. Instead, we are taking up a bill to put more guns on public lands and cut funding for energy efficiency research. For this reason and many other concerns I have with the number of amendments which were not made in order, I must oppose this rule.

This Congress is now the most closed Congress in history. It is forcing its Members to vote on bills which haven't been given a real debate. It is clear the majority is attempting to rewrite history.

Mr. Speaker, Canada did not burn the White House. The American people know better. None of the work we do today will undo their deficit- busting bill, nor will it reunite the families the administration has destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 20 to division C of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs.

This amendment is meant to address an issue we have in Ontario, California. However, I expect many of the Members of this body have experienced it in their own districts at some point.

In the Rules Committee hearing last night, I referred to this amendment as giving the Secretary of Defense the ability to finish the job, and that is precisely what we should expect from our service branches when they close military bases in our districts during BRAC rounds.

Ontario International Airport was the Ontario Air National Guard Station, which was established in 1949. This facility remained in operation for decades, assisting training and support for the Korean, Vietnam, and countless other wars and conflicts.

In 1997, the facility was closed as part of the latest Base Realignment and Closure process. This meant our Armed Services moved out. But instead of the airport being able to use the newly vacant land, the old site has sat largely unchanged for 20 years due to the environmental hazards of demolition.

When military bases are closed, it can be devastating to our local communities. At the very least, we should expect our service branches to leave our communities in as good or better shape than they found them.

In Ontario, California, old Air Force facilities have been left standing at the Ontario International Airport. These abandoned buildings have been overtaken by nature and look like the remains of a lost civilization, with trees and animals roaming free at the remaining site. This valuable but currently unusable space is hindering the growth of the Ontario Airport, and communities around Ontario depend on the airport.

My amendment would simply direct the Secretary to make available funds from the existing BRAC funding made available in this legislation to remove these old facilities.

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

Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill has funding for BRAC closures. Before we proceed with any new closures, let's finish the job on the old closures.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last week, many of us spent our time in the district working, meeting with our constituents, seeing the good work that people are doing, and learning what issues people want us to take up when we return to voting.

I wish I were before you lauding the majority's leadership for finally taking up the most important and pressing work for our constituents, but, unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead, this rule brings three bills to the floor, three bills none of my constituents have been pleading for, three bills that don't require immediate action, bills that may not even see Senate consideration.

Last year, this majority set the record for the most closed rules in a session, and it seems that nothing has changed.

The first bill considered in this rule is H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act. While I understand the goal of this legislation, by attempting to improve the pretrial services programs to keep dangerous criminals off the streets, this bill fails to accomplish the real need to improve how our Nation's flawed bail systems operate. While this bill received a markup, it received no hearings and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a straight party-line vote. Surely, we can do better than this.

The second bill we are considering is H.R. 5645, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act, or SMARTER Act. Quite simply, this bill aims to weaken the Federal Trade Commission's ability to carry out the agency's antitrust responsibilities.

Maybe things are different elsewhere in the country, but I have not had one constituent call my office complaining about the need to weaken the FTC's antitrust enforcement abilities. No. People in southern California are more concerned about good wages, finding affordable housing, and getting their children a good education. However, again, we will take up this legislation, which already died in the Senate last Congress. This legislation undermines the independence of the FTC and undercuts the congressional intent and purpose for the agency's creation.

There are far more important issues under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee that we should be considering instead, including bipartisan gun safety measures and legislation to protect Dreamers. However, instead of considering these very important issues facing our Nation, we are debating a bill to make technical changes to antitrust laws that, if enacted, would only be used in exceedingly rare situations.

Finally, the third legislation included in this rule is S.J. Res. 57, a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution of a CFPB rule relating to ``Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.'' Unlike the other two bills included in this rule, this joint resolution hasn't seen a single hearing or markup in the House.

If the majority is fine with bringing up legislation that has yet to have a hearing, why not bring up the Dream Act?

Two weeks ago, I spoke about some of the more important issues our constituents care about, and nothing about my time back home in California changed my beliefs of what we should be working on. In fact, over the past 2 weeks, we have seen even more Members sign on to Representative Denham's Queen of the Hill resolution. Three more Members of the majority now support an open process.

For those who may not understand what Queen of the Hill means, it is really quite simple: let the best idea win.

If Speaker Ryan allows us, Queen of the Hill would give all the competing immigration proposals in Congress a vote on the floor. All of us would have an opportunity to vote on the four most well-known proposals: the Dream Act, Chairman Goodlatte's bill, the USA Act, and any other bill the Speaker sees fit for a vote. This is how the House should work: an open process where we take up the most important issues of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule we have before us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends like to claim that their tax scam bill they jammed through Congress last year, skewing all the benefits to the wealthy and rich corporations, is some sort of panacea that will eventually trickle down all of its benefits to American workers, curing all the ills in our economy. That tired idea hasn't worked before, and it isn't working now.

But don't take my word for it. Just ask the Republican Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, who said in a recent interview: ``There is still a lot of thinking on the right that, if big corporations are happy, they're going to take the money they're saving and reinvest in American workers. In fact, they bought back shares; a few gave out bonuses; there's no evidence whatsoever that money's been massively poured back into the American worker.''

All this Republican majority seems intent on doing is bringing up bills that benefit large banks and big businesses. When are we going to do something for workers?

As we toil on rolling back the Wall Street regulations and cutting taxes for the richest corporations, the 21st century economy is changing. Mr. Speaker, over the next decade, approximately 45 percent of all jobs will be in middle-skill occupations, which require more than a high school diploma but less than a bachelor's degree. Registered apprenticeship programs are a vital element of training for these middle-skill occupations and helping individuals contribute to an effective workforce.

A highly skilled workforce is necessary to compete in today's global economy, but this Republican majority has given working Americans a raw deal instead of extending a helping hand. Luckily for my Republican colleagues, today we will give them an opportunity to vote on legislation that will actually benefit American workers and finally help them get a better deal.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pocan's LEARNS Act, H.R. 2933, which would promote effective registered apprenticeships that would give students and workers the skills they need to find well- paying jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

As I mentioned, this rule includes three bills. One of those is H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act. The Citizens' Right to Know Act fails to address the real problems in our Nation's bail system and, instead, threatens to make things much, much worse.

I don't think many of us disagree with the need to assist our local governments in keeping dangerous criminals off the streets while respecting the rights of those who may be innocent of crimes and have yet to have had their day in court. This legislation makes things worse. It threatens Federal assistance and would encourage local governments to lean more on high bail demands.

Unlike many bipartisan proposals in Congress which seek to make real improvements to bail, this bill will likely result in more low-income individuals being kept in jail simply because they aren't one of the fortunate who can afford to pay bail. This is a real issue in southern California and why I have worked with my colleagues on legislation to implement ``ability-to-pay'' rules to bail demands. Your income shouldn't determine your freedom.

In our community, bail was so excessive that private companies found a way to get rich off people who couldn't afford to pay the high costs. We ended up with people stuck in permanent contracts, paying hundreds of dollars a month to companies that found ways to skirt the rules of bail bondsmen.

We support greater transparency in our criminal justice system; however, this bill falls short of that goal. Rather than shedding the light on our trial system, this bill undermines Americans' privacy rights and exposes defendants to vulnerability.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, has come out in strong opposition to this bill, citing privacy concerns due to the personally identifiable information that will be collected and publicly reported by the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the text of the ACLU's position letter.

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, March 7, 2018.

Re ACLU Opposes H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act of

2017.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Jerrold Nadler,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Nadler: On

behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), we write

to express our opposition to H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right

to Know Act of 2017,'' as the House Judiciary Committee

considers this bill. This legislation raises privacy concerns

for the ACLU given the personally identifiable data that is

to be collected and publicly reported by the federal

government. The bill also undermines efforts to eliminate or

reduce jurisdictions' reliance on money bail systems. We urge

the Committee to instead consider H.R. 1437, the ``No Money

Bail Act of 2017,'' and H.R. 4019, the bipartisan ``Pretrial

Integrity and Safety Act of 2017,'' two bills endorsed by the

Mr. Speaker, this bill fails to provide explicit privacy protections for the individuals whose personal information will be collected and subject to public release, and jurisdictions that fail to comply with these reporting requirements face the severe penalty of losing 100 percent of their DOJ pretrial services grant funding.

Not only does this bill fail to require consent from the defendants to publicly release information about their alleged crimes and their private information, but it also poses the very real threat of destroying their reputation. These individuals have not been convicted of a crime nor have they had their day in court, given their pretrial status.

These are the concerns that could have been raised if this legislation was given a full, robust debate through committee hearings.

I am disappointed that my amendment to this bill, which would have addressed one of the many abuses perpetrated by the money bail system, was not made in order. My amendment would have prohibited predatory companies from locking people into seemingly lifetime contracts of monthly fees.

We can do better. These are bipartisan issues. For this reason and many other concerns I have with the closed process we are operating under, I must oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.