Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget, which is a more credible and responsible alternative than the underlying Republican budget.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican Committee budget starts off by cutting taxes by $4 trillion and claims this can be revenue neutral.

Simple arithmetic, therefore, requires a $4 trillion tax increase, and the budget doesn't mention a word about where that money is going to come from, not a loophole closing or any other tax increase. And therefore, the budget starts off with a $4 trillion hole in it.

Their budget then expects people to believe that they will make $4 trillion in cuts by repealing the Affordable Care Act provisions for tax credits and Medicaid changes that have resulted in millions of people getting insurance for the first time. They are going to lose that coverage.

Do they think that is going to happen?

Do they think they are going to be able to increase the age for Medicare recipients and reopen the doughnut hole?

Do they think they are going to be able to make the cuts in the budget to Medicaid, denying access to health care to millions of low- income Americans, requiring millions to lose their nursing home coverage?

We know that that is not credible. Neither is it credible that over $100 billion in cuts to supplemental food assistance--we know that is not credible. They tried to cut $40 billion last year, then $20 billion, couldn't do that. They ended up with 8. Now they are going to say, well, all of a sudden we can do 100.

The budget fails to say where the other cuts are going to come from, whether it is going to come from education or job training or research or transportation, or other.

You have unspecified cuts. And to the extent that they are unspecified, that $4 trillion isn't going to happen. So they have a $4 trillion hole in revenues. They have a $4 trillion hole in spending cuts, $8 trillion hole in their budget.

You can talk about it being balanced, but until you come up with the specifics of where that $8 trillion is going to come from, it is just not a serious budget.

In stark contrast, the Congressional Black Caucus budget puts numbers on the page. We show our math. We show not only that we can raise $2 trillion in revenues, we show where it can come from by laying out over $4 trillion in options, specifics, not $4 trillion unspecified, but $4 trillion specified, $2 trillion needed to make the budget.

We eliminate sequestration. We have proposed a $500 billion jobs package that will end the recession by putting millions back to work, and approximately $400 billion for an antipoverty initiative that will restore cuts to the social safety net and enable people to get job training and education to make them able to work their way out of poverty.

Mr. Chairman, this is simple, straightforward arithmetic.

Our budget calls for policy changes and comprehensive immigration reform, a public option for health care, and others, and it will be scored at $1.8 trillion, real live reduction in the deficit, compared to the CBO baseline.

Our budget is a credible, job-creating alternative to the unrealistic, draconian plan offered by our Republican colleagues, which has an $8 trillion hole in it.

I ask you to support the Congressional Black Caucus budget.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 4323, the Debbie Smith Act, which was originally enacted in 2004. During Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we have the opportunity to take an important step in continuing a program that helps address the problem of sexual assault.

The Debbie Smith Act has helped State and local law enforcement reduce the Nation's large backlog of untested DNA samples. Grants are used to hire personnel and to purchase supplies for processing samples and for including them in the Combined DNA Index System.

Grants have also been directed to DNA training and technical assistance for law enforcement and courts and to sexual assault nurse examiner programs. Crime laboratories have almost unanimously reported that the DNA Backlog Grant Program is essential to their capacity to process samples, but the backlog still remains.

Hundreds of thousands of DNA samples, each representing an unsolved crime, remains untested. Regrettably, over 200 untested samples remain in Los Angeles alone that have outlasted the statute of limitations for prosecuting cases, so we have to do everything we can to process these samples.

We must also do everything we can to strengthen the nationwide database and reduce the DNA backlog, so that cases of sexual assault can be solved and prosecuted without delay. Reauthorizing the Debbie Smith Act will bring perpetrators of sexual assault to justice before they can attack more victims.

I am proud to acknowledge that Debbie Smith is a constituent of mine. She lives in Charles City County, Virginia. She waited more than 6 years for the DNA from her rape kit to be processed and checked against the national database in order to identify her attacker.

Her attacker was identified, but unfortunately, during those 6 years, he attacked at least two other women--crimes that would not have happened if his DNA had been tested in a more timely manner.

Debbie has spent her time and effort over the last few years with her organization, HEART, which stands for Hope Exists After Rape Trauma. She has been advocating for a reduction in the DNA backlog and has been offering assistance to victims of sexual assault.

I commend my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for working together to expedite the consideration of this bill.

I also want to acknowledge the original author of the Debbie Smith Act, the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), for her hard work and continued advocacy on behalf of sexual assault victims.

I urge my colleagues to join me in further honoring the work of Debbie Smith's by voting for this bill--to reauthorize the bill that bears her name.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who has been working hard on this issue for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the author of the original legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to encourage my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Debbie Smith Act. I thank my colleague from Virginia for his support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from New York for organizing this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, today I join my colleagues in recognizing the importance of Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Sexual assault is far too prevalent in modern society. It is estimated one in five girls and one in twenty boys will be a victim of child sexual assault. Nearly a quarter of all women attending college will also become victims during their academic career.

This issue has been a key issue for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, which I have the privilege to serve as ranking member. The subcommittee is not only focused on investigating and prosecuting offenders, it also looks to provide law enforcement with the necessary funding and resources and training to immediately help survivors beginning the healing process.

Just yesterday, the full Judiciary Committee reported a bill that will reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act. This will provide funding to reduce the DNA analysis backlog in our Nation's laboratories and speed up justice to victims of sexual assault.

Debbie Smith is a constituent of mine, and the horror she endured while waiting 6\1/2\ years for the DNA to be tested is beyond unacceptable. What is even more unacceptable is that during the time of delay, her attacker abducted and robbed two other women. If the DNA sample had been tested in a timely manner, it is almost certain that those two women would not have been victims of crime. The Debbie Smith Act helps ensure that we can bring perpetrators to justice more quickly and helps survivors on the road to recovery.

Madam Speaker, during Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we need to focus on actions that we can take to reduce the incidence of sexual assault. For example, we have a profound responsibility to the children within our foster care system, and unfortunately we have found that those in foster care have experienced sexual assault at a much greater rate than average. Ensuring safety is a responsibility that we have.

Studies show that nearly 70 percent of children who fall victim to child sexual trade are runaways from the foster care system. By the time they run away, they have already been molested or assaulted by either a family member or somebody in the foster care system.

When we find children that are victims of sex trafficking, we must ensure that these children are treated as victims, not as criminals. A child cannot consent to sex. Sex with a child is rape and needs to be prosecuted as such. I urge my colleagues and my counterparts in the States to implement safe harbor laws so that victims of child sex trafficking are not victimized again when they encounter the law enforcement officials.

When rescued, efforts to support these children must be improved. These survivors require multidisciplinary care and resources that recognize the distinct and severe physical and psychological harms inflicted on them.

The potential for victimization does not end at childhood. The rates of campus sexual assault far exceed the rates during any time of a young person's life. Most of the victims know their attackers. Colleges need to ensure the safety of those entrusted in their care. A recently established campus safety center can go a long way in setting up the protocols to both reduce sexual assault for those on campuses and to properly respond when the assaults occur.

Last year we reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act to ensure stronger protections for female victims of crime. Since its passage in 2000, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act has significantly increased prosecutions of adult and child sex traffickers.

We just recently, in the last few months, the new regulations under the Prison Rape Elimination Act has also gone a long way in reducing sexual assault in our prisons.

As I said before, prosecution of offenders is a critical part of the equation, but it is not the only part. We need to ensure that we prevent such assaults from occurring in the first place and ensure that survivors are provided with the resources they need and support that they need. Strategies will evolve over time, but during Sexual Assault Awareness Month, we need to encourage actions to eliminate sexual assault.

Again, I thank the gentleman from New York for his support for this awareness month and for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride to call attention to a group of young students who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the city of Portsmouth, Virginia. The I.C. Norcom Greyhounds boys' basketball team had a remarkable season and I believe the Greyhounds deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments.

On March 13, 2014, the I.C. Norcom Greyhounds beat the John Handley Judges of Winchester, Virginia, to win the Group 4A boys' state basketball championship. The Greyhounds completed their 2014 season with an impressive 23-5 record. I.C. Norcom won the championship with a nearly unbelievable comeback. Down sixteen points with seven minutes left in the game, the team went on a 21-0 run, outscoring the Judges 33-12 in the fourth quarter. At the end of the game, the Greyhounds had prevailed with a final score of 59 to 52.

I.C. Norcom's boys' basketball team has had a consistent run of excellence in recent years. With this year's championship, I.C. Norcom has won three state championships in the past five years, becoming a dominant force in Virginia high school sports.

I.C. Norcom was founded in 1913 as the High Street School, the first public high school for black students in Portsmouth. It was renamed in 1953 in honor of its first supervising principal, Israel Charles Norcom, a pioneering educator, civic leader and businessman. Now, more than 100 years and three locations later, I.C. Norcom High School is still an innovating and inspiring place for Portsmouth students.

In addition to excelling on the basketball court, the Greyhounds are also doing great things in the classroom. I.C. Norcom houses a Center of Excellence in Math and Science, which provides students with additional classes in science, math, and technology. Seniors completing the Center's curriculum this year will receive Center of Excellence Diplomas which require five science course credits, one more than necessary under the advanced diploma. In addition, I.C. Norcom students have been participating in the First College program--attending Tidewater Community College this semester and taking up to 14 college credits before they graduate. I.C. Norcom is doing a great job cultivating excellence both on and off the athletic field.

I would like to extend my enthusiastic congratulations to the I.C. Norcom players, their families, Principal Dr. Rosalynn Sanderlin, Coach Leon Goolsby and the rest of his coaching staff, on the occasion of this historic Boy's basketball Championship. On behalf of the citizens of the Third Congressional District of Virginia, I.C. Norcom alumni, and the entire city of Portsmouth, I commend them for this historic win and wish the program years of continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I intended to vote ``no'', but was recorded as having voted ``yes'', on H.R. 2824 (rollcall 141), which would overturn Reagan-era protections for streams and communities in Appalachia. I would like the record to reflect my strong opposition to H.R. 2824.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1459, the ``No More National Monuments Act.'' I have experienced the Antiquities Act firsthand through my community's efforts and success in establishing Fort Monroe as a national monument in November of 2011.

The history of Fort Monroe is older than the history of the United States, and the story of Fort Monroe is really the story of our Nation. Fort Monroe is also known as ``Freedom's Fortress,'' witnessing both the beginning and the end of slavery in our Nation, and it played a crucial role in nearly every military engagement right up to its closure in 2005. After its closure, the city of Hampton and the entire Hampton Roads region united in support for the inclusion of Fort Monroe in the National Park System.

The creation of Fort Monroe National Monument was the culmination of years of hard work led by then-Hampton Mayor Molly Ward, the citizens of Hampton, conservation and historic preservation groups, Hampton's City Council, Virginia's Governor, and Virginia's congressional delegation. These parties worked together at the local, State, and Federal level to urge the President to use his powers under the Antiquities Act to take immediate action to establish Fort Monroe as a national monument.

While I supported legislation introduced by my neighboring colleague, Congressman Scott Rigell, to enshrine Fort Monroe as part of the National Parks System, this bill stalled in committee and was never given a proper hearing. Without the President's statutory authority to protect this land, it is doubtful that Fort Monroe and the history of the site would be protected as it is today.

Mr. Chairman, had the underlying bill been law in 2011 when President Obama designated Fort Monroe as a national monument, we would be nearing the 3-year approval deadline included in this bill, and the powerful role that Fort Monroe played in our Nation's history would be in danger of

being lost to future generations as the legislation to authorize the President's designation lingered in committee.

While this legislation has been introduced to promote more public participation in the designation process, in my experience, the administration, including the President and the Secretary of the Interior, both went to great lengths to make sure that public input was a top priority in the decision to designate Fort Monroe as a national monument. This legislation, should it become law, would jeopardize the ability of other communities to protect sensitive Federal lands in their areas the same way that my community was able to do.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose the passage of H.R. 1459, and I hope other Members will oppose the legislation as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3771, the Philippines Charitable Giving Assistance Act. As the Democratic cochair of the U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, I commend all of the sponsors of the bill who came together to support this legislation.

The United States and the Philippines have had a very close relationship for more than 100 years. The gentleman from California has outlined the support of the military, and the United States has been one of the Philippines' top trading partners and one of the largest foreign investors. Furthermore, there are over 3 million Americans of Filipino ancestry in the United States today.

In light of the close friendship that the United States and the Philippines enjoy, it is even more important that we rise to the occasion of supporting our friends in the Philippines as they continue to recover from Typhoon Haiyan.

Last November, the typhoon ravaged the Philippines' coast and was the strongest recorded storm ever to make landfall. Sixteen million people were affected, 4 million were displaced, and tens of thousands of lives were lost during the devastating storm.

While the response of both the United States and the international community has been strong and unified, more can obviously be done. The bill before us allows donations made to relief and recovery efforts directed at the Philippines to be deducted from one's income taxes when filing a 2013 return, rather than having to wait until 2014 to have the tax benefit from the donation. It is a simple measure that provides a small incentive to encourage Americans to continue to show their solidarity with those affected in the Philippines.

This bill is not unprecedented. Congress recently acted to provide a similar incentive after the earthquake in Haiti, which occurred in January 2010. The bill we are considering today, like the one passed after that earthquake, simply speeds up the process and encourages folks to donate now when the relief is most needed.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill so our friends in the Philippines will have all of the resources they need to continue during the path of recovery.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of my friend and former colleague in the Virginia General Assembly, Dr. Benjamin J. Lambert III, who passed away on Sunday, March 2, 2014.

Benny, as he was affectionately known by his friends, family, and constituents, was a pioneering figure in Virginia politics. We were both elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1977. In 1980, Benny became the first African American elected to represent the Commonwealth on the Democratic National Committee. In 1985, he was elected overwhelmingly to fill the seat vacated by then-Lieutenant Governor Doug Wilder. During my time serving alongside Benny, I always admired his ability to build strong relationships with his colleagues, work across the aisle, and take the tough positions that were not always politically popular but were the ones he believed were right for his constituents.

Benny was born in Richmond on January 29, 1937 to Frances and Benjamin J. Lambert, Jr. He attended Henrico County Schools at a time when they were still racially segregated. He graduated from Virginia Randolph High School in Glen Allen, just outside of Richmond. He went on to earn his undergraduate degree from Virginia Union University, and his graduate degree from the Massachusetts College of Optometry. After graduate school, Benny returned to Richmond and practiced optometry in the Jackson Ward neighborhood. He was an active member of the Virginia, National and American optometric societies and was chosen as Virginia's Optometrist of the Year in 1980.

Benny came to the Virginia General Assembly after years of political and civic activism, which helped him to become a very influential and effective legislator during his 30 year tenure. He severed on several committees in the General Assembly, including Education and Health, General Laws, Privileges and Elections, General Government, and Health and Human Resources. He also has the distinction of being the first African American in the 20th century to serve on the Virginia Senate Finance Committee.

Additionally, he chaired the Subcommittees on Higher Education and General Government, the Brown v. Board Scholarship Commission, and the Lead Abatement Subcommittee. Benny also served as a member of the Joint Commission on Health Care, the Joint Subcommittee Studying the Election Process and Voting Technologies, the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Commission, the Commission on State Employees Health Benefits Reform, and the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus. In 2010, Governor Bob McDonnell appointed him vice chair of the Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring.

Outside of government, Benny had a very active civic life. He was a member of the NAACP, the Richmond Crusade for Voters, the Jackson Ward Civic Association, the Richmond Jaycees, the North Richmond YMCA, and he served on the board of his alma mater, Virginia Union University. Benny was also an active member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc.

Benny devoted his career in and out of public service to the citizens of Richmond and Central Virginia, always doing what he thought was best for his community, regardless of the political consequences.

Mr. Speaker, words alone cannot express the tremendous loss to the Richmond community and the Commonwealth of Virginia with Benny's passing. Benny Lambert was a humble optometrist that achieved so much on behalf of his community during his 77 years of life. My thoughts and prayers are with Benny's wife Carolyn, his children and grandchildren, and his many friends and admirers during this difficult time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because it needs an amendment. I rise today in order to ask, when the motion on the previous question to end the debate is brought up, that we vote ``no'' so that at that point an amendment can be introduced.

If that possibility is available, I would like to bring up the provisions of H.R. 1010, which will provide a long overdue increase in the minimum wage. The bills that we are considering today are just distractions from the issues that are most important. We need to be addressing the problems that people are having.

Mr. Speaker, today's families are struggling to pay for basic needs, such as housing, health care, groceries, transportation. Someone working full time at a minimum wage job today only earns about $14,000 a year. At that Federal minimum wage today of $7.25, a parent working full time, year round, doesn't earn enough to get above the poverty level. When I say a ``parent,''

that is because studies have been done and have shown that the average minimum wage worker is 35 years old;

Raising the minimum wage not only increases workers' income and reduces turnover, it stimulates the economy. That is because people earning the minimum wage are spending every dime that they get, thus helping the economy. We have heard fears about possible job losses, but the effect of an increased minimum wage on jobs has been studied for decades, and these studies have proven that no job loss can be expected with a modest increase in the minimum wage.

We have a clear choice. We can choose to require a fair, living wage so that people can afford food and housing for their families, or we as taxpayers can be left picking up the tab through increased public assistance when they cannot pay their bills, and we can be left with a stagnant economy that is not as improved as it would be with an increased minimum wage.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' when the previous question is moved. I also encourage them to support legislation to increase the minimum wage so that we can improve the quality of life for millions of Americans and improve the economy in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the motion. I am not opposed to the bill

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the inability to unlock cell phones means that the original wireless carrier has an unfair and unnecessary competitive advantage. In many instances, the sole purpose of locking a cell phone is to keep consumers bound to their existing networks.

Consumers often buy a new cell phone as part of their initial purchase of service from a carrier's wireless network. Because the phone is locked into that carrier's network, at the end of the first term of service, the consumer is forced to stay with that provider, sometimes at a higher rate, or being stuck with a useless locked phone.

Allowing a phone to be unlocked will allow a consumer to keep his phone and switch carriers to a more appropriate, affordable, or suitable plan and have that opportunity, without having to purchase a new phone. So I support H.R. 1123, as amended, as it will restore a consumer's ability to unlock their cell phones.

Now, obviously, allowing millions of consumers who wish to unlock their cell phones and switch to another provider, obviously, that has widespread support. The White House, the Federal Communications Commission, and others that the chairman of the committee have mentioned have all urged Congress to allow cell phone unlocking.

The bill, as amended, makes improvements to the bill as reported by the Judiciary Committee. The new language in the bill makes it clear that the sole purpose of the bill is to allow unlocking in order to switch carriers.

This bipartisan legislation enhances consumer choice in the cell phone market, and accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, am I correct that this legislation is meant to preserve the Registrar of Copyrights' findings on bulk resale of new phones in both the 2010 and 2012 rulemakings and is not intended to apply to used phones?

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Also, I think you have indicated that the Fraternal Order of Police is supportive of this provision as well?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1944, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, I have been concerned that States and municipalities could use this decision to expand their power of eminent domain, whether for the benefit of private parties or for public projects, to the detriment of those who are least powerful in the community.

While I believe the power of eminent domain has been abused, particularly against those lacking economic or political power, in the 9 years since the Kelo decision, States have properly addressed the issue on their own, and we should respect their judgment rather than impose this awkward, one-size-fits-all Federal legislative response.

I have reached this conclusion for several reasons. The first and foremost is that it is important to note that in Kelo, the Supreme Court acknowledged that State courts may interpret their own eminent domain powers in a manner that is actually more protective of property rights. I am, therefore, encouraged that no fewer than 43 States have followed that advice and taken steps to restrict their own powers of eminent domain to guard against abuse.

Given the fact that our system of federalism appears to be working and that the States have already enacted legal protections that are needed to prevent abuse of eminent domain power, I do not believe that Federal intervention is necessary or appropriate at this time.

Second, the bill's enforcement provisions are very troubling. A jurisdiction found in violation of this legislation would be stripped of all Federal economic development funds for 2 years, which could have a devastating impact on its financial health.

The Supreme Court has long held that, ``when Congress attaches conditions to a State's acceptance of Federal funds, the conditions must be set out 'unambiguously.''' But the term ``Federal economic development funds'' is, in fact, ambiguous and could conceivably include transportation, housing, and all kinds of significant Federal funding.

Those who could bear the heaviest burden of cuts and programs like the Community Development Block Grants could be precisely the same communities that have suffered the most under the abuse of eminent domain power in the past, that is, the powerless in our communities.

Furthermore, the impact of this legislation could be severe, even if a city or State never exercised the power of eminent domain. That is because no lender could ignore the risk of a future administration violating this legislation by using them in a domain for a prohibited purpose and, consequently, facing the devastating penalties during the life of the bond, thereby affecting the city's ability to make the payments on the bond.

This bill gives no discretion and no flexibility with respect to the penalty. It fails to take into account the severity or magnitude of the violation, so even a small violation would have to result in a complete loss of all economic development funds for 2 years.

No matter how clean a city's record may be, the danger that some future violation would have such a devastating effect could negatively impact its bond rating.

Finally, against this backdrop, we need to remember that eminent domain has a long and shameful history

of disproportionately impacting foreign minority communities.

Inner-city neighborhoods that lacked institutional and political power were often designated as blighted areas slated for redevelopment through urban renewal programs. Properties were condemned, and land was turned over to private developers.

That abuse was not confined to the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Many of those abuses would still be allowed under this bill. You can trace the cost of any major highway in America to see where poor and minority communities were located. You can map political power, where it is and where it isn't, by the proposed route of the Keystone pipeline today.

This bill does nothing to protect property owners like the witness who testified before the House Judiciary Committee about how her property was taken to benefit the foreign corporation building that pipeline.

The bill does not even give property owners the right to sue to stop an illegal taking in the first place. Suits can only be brought after the property is taken, after it is too late. Despite the draconian penalties in the bill, the actual property owner would get nothing.

This underscores why it is important that we continue to monitor the facts on the ground to determine whether Federal action is warranted. If so, what effective action should be taken?

If the States fail to protect our citizens, Congress should remain ready, willing, and able to do so. However, as the States have already acted to curb reviews, we in Congress should allow them to maintain their authority to act.

Even if you believe the bill achieves the correct balance between State authority and Federal intervention and prohibits the inappropriate use of eminent domain, the irrational penalties it imposes and the fact that individual property owners are not even protected still require that the bill be defeated.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1447, the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013. This bill would require State and Federal law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of Justice information about the deaths of individuals in their custody.

We have learned from history how useful this information can be. In the 1980s, there was increased focus on conditions in State and local jails and prisons and the problem of prisoners dying in custody. The interest in oversight of this issue was generated partially because of the rise of wrongful death cases brought in relation to these deaths.

Press reports in the 1990s concerning prison abuses and deaths of those incarcerated being attributed to suicide led Congress to develop legislation in response to this problem.

The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 was enacted to require States to report quarterly to the Attorney General information regarding the death of any person in the process of arrest or who was otherwise in custody, including jails, prisons and juvenile facilities. The reports are brief, essentially stating who died and a brief description of what happened.

The law expired in 2006, which led to an effort to reauthorize substantially the same requirements on States and extend those requirements to the Federal agencies as well. And that is what H.R. 1447 would do.

With this statistical data, policymakers at the State, local, and Federal levels can make informed judgments about the appropriate treatment of prisoners and to develop ways to lower the prison death rate. This policy cannot be made if we don't have this information that the law requires.

In fact, since the focus on deaths in custody emerged in the 1980s and enactment of the law in 2000, reports showed significant declines in suicides and homicides for those in custody.

H.R. 1447 is a strong reaffirmation of the importance of requiring that States submit this information, and the bill expands the commitment to Federal law enforcement agencies as well.

The bill also requires the Attorney General to study the information the Justice Department receives and to issue a report to include a discussion of how the data may be used to reduce preventable deaths.

With the enactment of this legislation, we can make even more progress with respect to reducing preventable deaths of those in custody, which is surely an obligation of government when it incarcerates so many of its citizens.

This initiative has a history of strong bipartisan support, and I thank my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, especially the gentleman from Georgia, and my colleague from Virginia, the Judiciary Committee chairman, Bob Goodlatte, for supporting the bill in committee and bringing it to the floor today.

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

Yes, I have one additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume just to thank the gentlelady from Texas for her statement; the gentleman from Georgia; the chair of the committee, Mr. Goodlatte; and the ranking member, the lead cosponsor of the legislation, Mr. Conyers, for their work. This is an important bill. We could use this information. And I want to thank again all of those that made today possible.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that child abuse is a horrific problem, and the abuse of Kilah Davenport is a tragedy. We must take appropriate steps to try to prevent such future tragedies.

Child abuse is a widespread problem. In 2011, approximately 681,000 children were victims of maltreatment, and approximately 3.3 million children received preventative services from Child Protective Services agencies in the United States. Furthermore, nearly five children die every day in America from abuse and neglect, and more than 78 percent of reported child fatalities as a result of abuse and neglect were caused by one or more of the child victim's parents.

In addition to harming children directly, child abuse contributes to future crime.

Children who experience child abuse and neglect are about 9 times more likely to become involved in criminal activity. We should therefore get serious about reducing child abuse by enacting the type of meaningful legislation proven to actually reduce child abuse--and save money in the process--like nurse family partnerships.

Nurse family partnerships are an evidence-based community health program that provide home visits from registered nurses to low-income, first-time moms from pregnancy until the child turns two years old. In medical and scientific journals, nurse family partnerships are most often cited as the most effective intervention to prevent child abuse and neglect.

The approach of H.R. 3627 is to allow sentences of up to 10 years for those convicted for the third time for domestic abuse which, with this bill, will include child abuse. But it only applies to those offenses committed in national parks, military bases, Indian country, and on other federal land.

So of all of the cases of child abuse committed nationally, this bill unfortunately reaches only a negligible portion of the cases--those committed on federal land by people with two prior offenses.

Moreover, I am concerned that by increasing the penalties for third offenses, this bill implies that federal judges don't know what to do

with a defendant convicted for a third time of these heinous offenses.

As I have described, child abuse is a serious problem, and in order to determine the appropriateness of expanding federal laws, we should have had a hearing on this issue, which we did not. We have received no evidence suggesting that federal judges impose such sentences on these third-time offenders that they keep getting out of prison and committing child abuse again.

The reason the bill before us today can only apply to federal lands is because we do not have jurisdiction over local crimes. The issue of child abuse is traditionally a matter for the states, and therefore this issue might have been best, first considered by the over- criminalization task force.

If our goal is to actually reduce the ravages of child abuse, we should not limit our efforts to the negligible number of prosecutable cases involving third offenses on federal lands.

I say prosecutable because most child abuse is not reported at all, and many chases that are reported are difficult to prosecute because family members may be unwilling to testify against one another. In fact, we have received no evidence that this bill would have even applied to the Kilah Davenport case, which does not appear to have occurred on federal land or have been committed by a third-time offender.

We need to focus federal efforts on supporting programs which will prevent these crimes from happening in the first place.

H.R. 3627 does, however, include a worthwhile provision that requires the Attorney General to issue a report outlining the child abuse laws in the 50 states. The states can then review their statutes to see how they compare to other states and decide if their state laws need to be amended.

I agree with the desire to do more to protect our children from such tragic victimization, and we should work together to reduce child abuse. However, I think there are better ways to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3626, which will extend by 10 years the authorization of the Undetectable Firearms Act, a statute which is in effect through December 9 of this year.

The Undetectable Firearms Act prohibits the import, manufacture, sale, transport, or possession of firearms that are undetectable by metal detectors or x ray machines. Signed into law by President Reagan in 1988, this statute remains critical to public safety.

The law helps protect us from firearms that are undetectable by some of the most conventional means of firearms detection. The law prevents the commercial production and proliferation of such weapons that could be used either by individuals or organized terrorist groups seeking to commit crimes in secure areas, such as courthouses or airplanes. Unfortunately, the need for such protection has grown in recent years.

This statute was originally authorized for 10 years, and subsequently reauthorized for periods of 5 and then another 10 years. The authorization of this prohibition has been incremental because Congress recognized that technology would evolve, and that we may need to update the statute to maintain its effectiveness. In fact, this is what has transpired.

The current law has a critical loophole that may enable and encourage the production of firearms that may escape detection. Under the statute, someone may produce a plastic firearm which is detectable only because it has as metal component--which is not essential for the operation of the firearm--but is easily removable by a firearm user seeking to avoid detection.

In fact, some designs made available on the Internet to assist the manufacture of such guns using 3-D printers include just such a feature. We need to strengthen the law to address this obvious problem, and we should adopt the Undetectable Firearms Act modernization proposal sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

He is proposing that the statute be updated to require that the metal which makes a firearm detectable be included in the essential components of the firearm so that, if removed, the gun would not operate. This is a simple and effective means of addressing the problem.

While I support the reauthorization of the Undetectable Firearms Act for 10 years, a 10-year extension should not be interpreted as an agreement that the statute should remain unchanged for that entire term. We need to work quickly to update the law, but it does not appear that we will be able to do that in the time left before the statute's expiration. However, we cannot allow the law to expire and the existing--even if imperfect--protections to lapse.

Finally, with the continued toll of gun violence on our communities, Congress must act immediately on other measures to strengthen our gun laws. We are nearing the first anniversary of the killing of 20 students and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. While such tragic mass shootings bring increased attention to the problem of gun violence, we must recognize that the scope of the problem is much greater; an average of over 30 people a day are murdered with firearms in America.

However, during this Congress, the House has taken no steps to address the problem. The Judiciary Committee has held no hearings, and has not even considered any of the other measures which have been proposed to make us safer from gun violence. For example, we must make a priority of extending the Brady Act to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, and we should take action on H.R. 1565, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act, which would expand the Brady background check requirement to firearms sold at gun shows and through commercial advertisements.

We should also consider bills such as H.R. 1318, the Youth PROMISE Act, designed to promote proven crime prevention strategies. With respect to the bill before us today, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for introducing the measure to extend the term of the current statute. The Undetectable Firearms Act continues to help protect public safety, and we should reauthorize it while also working to update and improve it without delay. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3626.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his comments and for his legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Nevada and the chair from Ohio for their strong work and, particularly, for talking about some of the things that the Congressional Black Caucus has accomplished over the last year.

I want to take an opportunity to highlight the CBC's work on advocating for a responsible budget, on offering responsible solutions to address the budget deficit, to cancel the sequester, and to grow the economy.

Last March, we offered our budget for fiscal year 2014 as an alternative to the budget that was adopted by the House. The CBC budget makes tough choices but not at the expense of our most vulnerable communities. The CBC budget offers a concrete plan that both cancels the economically disastrous sequester and then pays for that cancelation. Our budget is able to do so while also protecting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP nutrition benefits, and other vital safety net programs that protect millions of Americans from poverty.

The CBC budget also reduces the Nation's budget deficit by approximately $2.8 trillion over the next decade compared to the February baseline calculated by the Congressional Budget Office.

Other ideas have been presented in the past to either cancel the sequester or reduce the deficit, but they almost always include significant cuts to Social Security and Medicare. These ideas have included changing the way the Social Security benefits are calculated-- the so-called chained CPI, which reduces the cost of living benefits-- or raising the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67.

The CBC budget is able to pay for the cancelation of the sequester and reduce the budget deficit without these harmful cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Our budget is in stark contrast to the Republican budget that passed the House earlier this year. That budget claimed--claimed--to reduce the budget deficit by $4.6 trillion over the next decade by making draconian spending cuts in non-defense discretionary spending and unspecified savings in mandatory spending. That is the category that is mostly comprised of Social Security and Medicare. They are going to get savings, better known as ``cuts.''

That budget also included a $5.7 trillion tax cut that was paid for with an asterisk--meaning that the Ways and Means Committee and the Appropriations Committee would have to figure out how to fill the $5.7 trillion hole. Now, arithmetic requires you to recognize that you can only fill that hole by either raising taxes or in additional cuts. We know that the Republicans are opposed to tax increases, and the only real big ticket item left that can come anywhere close to filling that hole would be Social Security and Medicare--the only thing left on the table to pay for that.

The CBC budget does not include an asterisk or other types of budget gimmicks. Our budget outlines a concrete plan that makes tough choices and presents credible options that can be used to achieve our budget reduction targets.

The CBC budget calls for revenue enhancements totaling $2.7 trillion over the next decade. Our budget outlines how the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee can reach this number by highlighting several revenue options totaling $4.2 trillion that could be used to reach the $2.7 trillion revenue target.

These revenue options include: $1.1 trillion that can be obtained by limiting deductibility of corporate interest payments; $1 trillion by closing special tax breaks and corporate loopholes; over $800 billion by taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income; almost half a trillion dollars by having a 5.4 percent surcharge on that portion of your income over $1 million; over $300 billion by enacting a Wall Street Trading and Speculators tax of 0.25 percent; $200 billion by ending the Bush-era tax cuts or that portion of your income over $250,000; over $100 billion by returning to the estate tax exemption that was in existence in 2009; and over $100 billion by reducing the tax gap through better enforcement of the IRS Tax Code.

Those are specifics. They may be unpopular, but at least they are specific, in stark contrast to go find $5.7 trillion unspecified that the Republican budget included.

The revenue enhancements provided in the CBC budget would allow Congress to totally cancel the sequester and then pass a jobs package of at least $500 billion. At $50,000 each, that is over 10 million jobs that could be created in 1 year with a jobs bill of that magnitude-- almost enough to hire everybody drawing unemployment today and to provide an additional $300 billion in long-term investments in our economy through education, job training, health care, and advanced science and research.

As I said earlier, the reforms contained in the CBC budget would reduce the deficit $2.8 trillion over the next decade compared to CBO's baseline. That would put our Nation on a strong sustainable path, all without jeopardizing programs that support our seniors and programs that educate the next generation of leaders and business, science, and technology.

As we move forward to 2014 and the next budget deadline, the Congressional Black Caucus will continue to advocate these priorities contained in our budget.

It is imperative that Congress pass a budget that expands economic opportunity, invests in the American people, and reduces our deficit. The CBC budget presents a concrete plan--backed by actual numbers, not by asterisks--that shows how we can reduce our deficit while not being required to make further cuts in vital programs that support our Nation's safety net, especially Social Security and Medicare.

Most importantly, the CBC budget presents a clear path towards both economic prosperity and fiscal responsibility for our Nation.

I want to thank the CBC budget for the opportunity to work on this budget because it is a responsible budget, does the right thing, and it has specifics that you can actually look at, in stark contrast to the asterisk gimmicks and other assumptions that cannot be fulfilled without going into Social Security and Medicare that the Republican budget has.

I yield back to the gentleman from New York.