Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be on the floor with a fellow colleague in the Judiciary Committee, and we have a similar passion for children over the years.

I am pleased to be able to acknowledge the work that the Walsh family, tragically, has had to do in honor of their son, Adam Walsh, and their reauthorization act, which has had a major impact on child violent crimes. So, in this set of bills is H.R. 1188, which I intend to speak on as it relates to protecting our children, but also are bills

H.R. 1761, H.R. 1842, and H.R. 1862, which we know would expand unjust mandatory minimum sentences.

So the Adam Walsh Act established the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act, often referred to as SORNA, as the national system for the registration of sex offenders.

Everyone knows the tragic story of young Adam Walsh and the Walsh family that has committed themselves to years of fighting against violent sex offenders who have impacted our children. The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act, however, that is included in H.R. 6847, reflects changes recommended to SORNA by the Judiciary Committee when it last reauthorized the Adam Walsh Act in 2012 to improve the requirements for States to register sex offenders. States that fail to substantially implement SORNA are subject to a 10 percent reduction in Federal grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.

Commendably, the reauthorization provisions that are included in this overall omnibus bill will allow States discretion in determining whether juvenile sex offender information will be publicly accessible via the internet, a step forward as it relates to comprehensive criminal justice reform addressing questions that recognize the difference for juveniles, and it would reduce the time that certain but not all juvenile sex offenders adjudicated as delinquent are required to register from 25 years to 15 years.

I welcome these changes as steps in the right direction, which is what happens when we work in a bipartisan manner, to address some of the existing concerns with SORNA, which I supported as H.R. 1188 last year.

Now, what has happened is that we have H.R. 6847 that incorporates a number of other bills with problematic provisions that would add new offenses to the criminal code requiring mandatory life imprisonment for certain repeat sex offenders.

No one is coddling or condoning or supporting any of these heinous acts or individuals. Under section 3559(e) of title 18 of the U.S. Code, a defendant who has been previously convicted of a felony, Federal or State, sex offense committed against a child and who is guilty of a predicate Federal sex offense against a child must be sentenced to life imprisonment.

H.R. 6847 would amend H.R. 3559 to add more Federal predicate offenses on which to base imposition of a life sentence, namely, sexual contact with a minor. Missing is the fact of not allowing judges to be involved in the sentencing of these particular offenses.

This bill would also remove the requirement that a Federal predicate offense relating to coercion or enticement of a minor be related to prostitution. As a result, this bill would allow coercion or enticement of a minor into any criminal sexual activity to serve as a basis for imposition of a mandatory life sentence. Repeat offenders, of course, would be subject to increased penalties, and, for some offenses, life imprisonment is appropriate.

Again, however, it is taking away the discretion of the judge in the review of these matters. Yet Congress should not mandate life imprisonment as the only sentencing option.

Another set of problematic provisions within H.R. 6847, unfortunately, results in the expanded imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing, and so this leads many to be concerned and to be against.

In another addition to the Federal crimes of violence already included in the statute providing penalties for failing to register as a sex offender, H.R. 6847 would add State crimes of violence as predicate offenses that, in turn, would require the imposition of a mandatory 5-year sentence to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for failing to register or comply with sex offender registration, again, taking away the discretion of the court.

The bill would also add prior military child sex offenses to several recidivist sentencing provisions, most of which carry mandatory minimum penalties of at least 15 years to life.

Lastly, the bill would amend section 2251 to create two new offenses that prohibit causing the production of a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct and the transmission or causing the transmission of a live visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, such as live-streaming.

In effect, these provisions would add a new class of offenders subject to mandatory minimum sentencing, specifically 15 to 30 years in prison. Yet this bill fails to provide any Romeo and Juliet exceptions. Consequently, the penalties apply even when conduct is consensual and when the victim and offender are close in age.

For example, if a 19-year-old and 17-year-old videoed themselves engaged in a sexual act and email the video to their own email account, the 19-year-old would be subject to mandatory minimums set by section 2251 as amended by this bill. That is why I offered an amendment when this issue was last heard before our committee.

My amendment would have been the Romeo and Juliet, which would have simply amended the provision that defines which juvenile adjudications of delinquency qualify as offenses which trigger mandatory registration.

As harsh as we need to be on these offenses, I am also concerned that we look to the reform of the juvenile system and not criminalize acts between juveniles. It would have added a new requirement that an adjudication for an otherwise qualifying offense would trigger the registration only if the judge presiding over the delinquency proceedings finds that the registration is necessary to protect the public safety based on a variety of factors.

We all have the same common goal, and that common goal is to protect our children; but, unfortunately, there are children who are actors in this, and we want to allow the judge to discern what harsh penalties they should get. Frankly, my Romeo and Juliet amendment would have responded to two kids doing what kids sometimes do. Unfortunately, those provisions were not included.

For far too long, the Federal criminal justice system has relied on an unsustainable system of mass incarceration that is largely driven by inflexible mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums are not necessary to impose appropriate sentences.

The judge at sentencing has all the information he or she needs to impose a sentence commensurate with the crime committed and the culpability of the offender. Therefore, I note the issues that we have with a good bill and then the imposition of mandatory minimums.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and former member of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, those who commit crimes against children--as I started out, I have been engaged in the tragedy of Adam Walsh from almost the very beginning and certainly support that legislation, but we realize that we must be very vigilant as relates to our children. There is no quarrel with that.

There is a question of mandatory minimums and the importance of giving our courts that discretion. So those who commit crimes against children deserve to be punished, and repeat offenders most certainly deserve to face increased penalties.

Nevertheless, there is a mass of us who have seen the results of mandatory minimums that result in mass incarceration. I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing and, therefore, this legislation. I believe that judges are best suited to determine just and appropriate punishment in these matters. It would have been more appropriate to separate out the Adam Walsh reauthorization legislation.

Even conservative groups agree that expanding the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences is costly and unjust. Yet, without mandatory minimum sentences, individuals convicted of serious offenses would still receive appropriately lengthy sentences.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that again. Yet, without mandatory minimum sentences, individuals convicted of serious offenses would still receive appropriately lengthy sentences.

How can we underestimate the judgment of our Federal courts and others who see these cases and know the dastardliness of them? We should not create a one-size-fits-all policy approach.

For the foregoing reasons, I would like to have these bills divided so that we can move on good bills and begin to work together for the appropriate way to punish, and punish strongly, but not build on the mountain of mass incarceration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6847, the ``Preventing Child Exploitation Act of 2018,'' for several reasons.

Regrettably, I must oppose this bill because, although it substantially includes the text of H.R. 1188, the ``Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act,'' which both the House Judiciary Committee and the House passed last year, H.R. 6847 also includes the text of three other bills, H.R. 1761, H.R. 1842, and H.R. 1862 that, although the House passed last year, would expand the scope of unjust mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

The Adam Walsh Act established the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act--often referred to as ``SORNA''--as a national system for the registration of sex offenders.

The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act, as included in H.R. 6847, reflects changes recommended to SORNA by the Judiciary Committee when it last reauthorized the Adam Walsh Act in 2012 to improve the requirements for states to register sex offenders.

States that fail to substantially implement SORNA are subject to a 10% reduction in federal grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

Commendably, the reauthorization provisions included in H.R. 6847 would allow states discretion in determining whether juvenile sex offender information will be publicly accessible via the Internet.

And, it would reduce the time that certain, but not all, juvenile sex offenders adjudicated as delinquent are required to register from 25 years to 15 years.

I welcome these changes as steps in the right direction to address some of the existing concerns with SORNA, which is why I supported H.R. 1188 last year.

Unfortunately, H.R. 6847 also incorporates a problematic provision that would add new offenses to the Criminal Code requiring mandatory life imprisonment for certain repeat sex offenders.

Under Section 3559(e) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a defendant who has been previously convicted of a felony federal or state sex offense committed against a child--and who is guilty of a predicate federal sex offense against a child--must be sentenced to life in prison.

H.R. 6847 would amend Section 3559 to add more federal predicate offenses on which to base imposition of a life sentence, namely sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12, aggravated sexual contact with minors between the ages of 12 and 15, and illicit sexual conduct with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen.

The bill would also remove the requirement that a federal predicate offense relating to coercion or enticement of a minor be related to prostitution.

As a result, this bill would allow coercion or enticement of a minor into any criminal sexual activity to serve as a basis for imposition of a mandatory life sentence.

Repeat offenders should, of course, be subject to increased penalties, and for some offenses life imprisonment is appropriate. Yet, Congress should not mandate life imprisonment as the only sentencing option.

Another set of problematic provisions within H.R. 6847 unfortunately results in the expanded imposition of mandatory minimum sentences.

In addition to the federal crimes of violence already included in the statute providing penalties for failing to register as a sex offender, H.R. 6847 would add state crimes of violence as predicate offenses that, in turn, would require the imposition of a mandatory 5-year prison sentence to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for failing to register or comply with sex offender registration.

And, the bill would also add prior military child sex offenses to several recidivist sentencing provisions, most of which carry mandatory minimum penalties of at least 15 years or life.

Lastly, H.R. would amend section 2251 to create two new offenses that would prohibit causing the production of a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct; and the transmission, or causing the transmission of, a live visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, such as live streaming. In effect, these provisions would add new classes of offenders subject to mandatory minimum sentencing, specifically 15 to 30 years in prison. Yet, this bill fails to provide any ``Romeo and Juliet'' exceptions.

Consequently, the penalties apply even when conduct is consensual and when the victim and offender are close in age. For example, if a 19- year-old and a 17-year-old videoed themselves engaged in a sexual act, then emailed the video to their own email accounts, the 19-year-old would be subject to the mandatory minimums set by Section 2251, as amended by this bill.

Unfortunately, the commendable provisions to reauthorize the Adam Walsh Act in H.R. 6847 are weighed down by the bill's inclusion of various problematic proposals that will expand mandatory minimum sentencing.

For far too long, the federal criminal justice system has relied on an unsustainable system of mass-incarceration that is largely driven by inflexible mandatory minimum sentencing.

Mandatory minimums are not necessary to impose appropriate sentences. The judge at

sentencing has all the information he or she needs to impose a sentence commensurate with the crime committed and the culpability of the offender.

Therefore, I must oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Those who commit crimes against children deserve to be punished and repeat offenders most certainly deserve to face increased penalties.

Nevertheless, I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing and, therefore, I must oppose this legislation. I believe that judges are best suited to determine just and appropriate punishments in these matters.

Even conservative groups agree that expanding the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences is costly and unjust. Yet, without mandatory minimum sentences, individuals convicted of serious offenses would still receive appropriately lengthy sentences, but we should not create a one-size-fits-all policy approach.

For the foregoing reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6847.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the House concurrent resolution. I thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee for his leadership.

I want to indicate that, first and foremost, this bipartisan resolution expresses the sense of Congress that child safety should be the top priority of any custody and parenting court adjudications, and that courts should resolve safety risks and claims of domestic violence first, before taking any other interest into consideration.

The resolution also underscores Congress' strong support for the use of scientific-based evidence in family court, including reliance on expert professionals with expertise in relevant types of abuse, trauma, and behaviors of victims and perpetrators by, among other things, establishing specific standards for the preparation of professional reports.

This resolution also encourages States to consider models through which such professional experts can be appointed and paid directly by the courts as needed, and expresses the sense of Congress that we hold hearings examining family court practices with regard to the fair adjudication of children's safety and civil rights.

I think many of us as Members of Congress who deal in family issues, and as the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, and being a student of the Family Protective Services--Child Protective Services, I have seen more than one case where a child is returned to a family and gets caught up in the unfortunate practices of that family situation, that home situation. Yes, they wind up losing their life, children as young as 1 and 2 and 3 years old, helpless, without being able to help themselves.

H. Con. Res. 72 acknowledges that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has found that the United States has failed in its legal obligation to protect women and children from domestic violence.

It certainly seems appropriate, as we debate this, that I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and it is not too late, to join me in putting the Violence Against Women Act on the floor of the House with over 160 cosponsors that specifically address the question of domestic violence, domestic abuse. So many of our collaborating groups from all over the country, both conservative and otherwise, are arguing and advocating for the passage of the Violence Against Women Act before its expiration on September 30, 2018. It would be a complement to this sense of Congress.

In recognition of the fact that the problem of domestic violence is among the most serious social problems in this country, the resolution makes a number of important findings in this regard. Child abuse, in and of itself, is a major public health issue. It costs billions of dollars annually and, unfortunately, the loss of children's lives.

But the cost of child abuse cannot be measured in simple monetary terms because, as a study by the Centers for Disease Control tells us, children who experience adverse childhood experiences are at a greater risk to develop certain chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer. The consequences for children who experience abuse and neglect are long-lasting, long-reaching, and cannot be measured easily.

As this resolution finds, child sexual abuse, too, as horrific as it is, is a matter that goes routinely underdocumented and underaddressed. Time and again, research confirms that allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, and child sexual abuse are often discounted when it comes to child custody litigation.

This is with family members or guardians of a particular child. Tragically, abusive parents are often granted custody or unprotected parenting time, which places children at constant risk. The risk of abuse to the child increases when a perpetrator of domestic violence separates from a domestic partner.

Most disturbing is the resolution's finding that documents a minimum of 568 murders of children in the United States in a 10-year period by a parent involved in divorce, separation, custody, visitation, or child support proceedings. In many of these instances, the family courts granted access to the child by the abusive parent over the objection of the protective parent.

Finally, this resolution recognizes the need for courts to appoint well-qualified professionals, at court expense, who will apply scientifically sound and evidence-based theories to assist in the adjudication of custody litigation. Because such assistance is not routinely provided, parents seeking to vindicate their rights in custody disputes often incur overwhelming debt and may even need to file for bankruptcy relief as a result. In the United States, this should be unacceptable.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 72.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 72.

First and foremost, this bipartisan resolution expresses the sense of Congress that child safety should be the top priority of any custody and parenting court adjudications and that courts should resolve safety risks and claims of domestic violence first, before taking other interests into consideration.

The resolution also underscores Congress's strong support for the use of scientific-based evidence in family court, including reliance on expert professionals with expertise in relevant types of abuse, trauma, and behaviors of victims and perpetrators by, among other things, establishing specific standards for the preparation of professional reports.

This resolution also encourages States to consider models through which such professional experts can be appointed and paid directly by the courts, as needed.

And, it expresses the sense of Congress that we hold hearings examining family court practices with regards to the fair adjudication of children's safety and civil rights.

House Concurrent Resolution 72 acknowledges that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has found that the United States has failed in its legal obligation to protect women and children from domestic violence.

In recognition of the fact that the problem of domestic violence is among the most serious social problems in this country, the resolution makes a number of important findings in this regard. Child abuse, in- and-of-itself, is a major public health issue--and it costs billions of dollars annually. But the ``cost'' of child abuse cannot be measured in simple monetary terms because, as a study by the Centers for Disease Control tells us, children who experience ``adverse childhood experiences'' are at greater risk to develop certain chronic diseases, like heart disease and cancer. The consequences for children who experience abuse and neglect are long-lasting and long-reaching and cannot be measured easily.

As this resolution finds, child sexual abuse, too, as horrific as it is, is a matter that goes routinely under-documented and under- addressed. But, time and again, research confirms that allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, and child sexual abuse are often discounted when it comes to child custody litigation. Tragically, abusive parents are often granted custody or unprotected parenting time, which places children at constant risk, and the risk of abuse to the child increases when a perpetrator of domestic violence separates from a domestic partner.

Most disturbing is the resolution's finding that documents a minimum of 568 murders of children in the United States in a 10-year period by a parent involved in divorce, separation, custody, visitation, or child support proceedings. In many of these instances, the family courts granted access to the child by the abusive parent, over the objection of the protective parent.

Finally, this resolution recognizes the need for courts to appoint well-qualified professionals, at court expense, who will apply scientifically sound and evidence-based theories, to assist in the adjudication of custody litigation. Because such assistance is not routinely provided, parents seeking to vindicate their rights in custody disputes often incur overwhelming debt and may even need to file for bankruptcy relief as a result. In the United States, this should be unacceptable.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 72.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me certainly thank Mr. Sessions, my colleague out of Texas, for his very important words and moving commentary. I thank Congressman Rutherford for his service and commitment, and the other cosponsors of this legislation, because it really has more impact.

Let me conclude my remarks by acknowledging a tragedy in my district. As a hardworking mother was separating from her spouse, it had not yet gotten to the court, but it is evidence of what can happen. The remarks of the dad were, ``Bring them over for me to see them one more time.''

And even though the relationship between mom and dad was hostile, mom wanted to be cooperative, and brought them over and left them for a moment as she went to her small business.

The next call she got was the shrill of police and neighbors screaming, and his call to her, the parent's call, the father's call, and he said, ``Now come over and see your two dead children, because I have killed them.''

So this is constant throughout the Nation, and we need intervention and we need recognition of the tragedies that can happen.

So as I previously stated, I strongly support passage of H. Con. Res 72. It is a sober acknowledgement of how family courts in the United States are failing to protect the very children they are sworn to protect in cases involving domestic violence, and obviously these cases have histories of domestic violence. But also as a legislative body, we have far more effective ways to deal with these problems. They can complement H. Con. Res. 72.

So I would like to, again, reinforce the bill that was introduced last July--this July, that I introduced, over 150 cosponsors, I believe. I introduced a robust bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

This VAWA reauthorization seeks to address the problem of domestic violence from a holistic perspective by attacking the problem from many different angles with resources, recognizing all the different components that are now before us. We need to reauthorize VAWA, not in any watered down fashion, and we need to do it in complement to H. Con. Res. 72. And if we hope to make any dent in this very serious problem and to protect women and children and men who are abused and victimized day in and day out, this is how we need to do it, pass bills like the concurrent resolution and also VAWA.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and join me in this bipartisan effort as well to pass VAWA.

As I previously stated, I strongly support passage of House Concurrent Resolution 72. It is a sober acknowledgement of how family courts in the United States are failing to protect the very children they are sworn to protect, in cases involving domestic violence.

But, as a legislative body, we have far more effective ways to deal with these problems than merely passing concurrent resolutions. Last July, I introduced a robust bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. This VAWA reauthorization seeks to address the problem of domestic violence from a holistic perspective, by attacking the problem from many different angles. We need to reauthorize VAWA--not in any watered-down fashion--if we hope to make any dent into this very serious problem and to protect women, children and men who are abused and victimized day in and day out.

I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 72.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6580, the ``Kerrie Orozco First Responders Family Support Act,'' which amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to provide for expedited naturalization processes for the alien spouses of first responders who die because of their employment.

This act is named for Kerrie Orozco who died in the line of duty in May 2015, just a few weeks after giving birth to a premature infant.

Officer Kerrie Orozco was a seven-year veteran of the Omaha Police Department and a new mother.

As a member of the Metro Area Fugitive Task Force, she was conducting surveillance just before 1 p.m. that Wednesday, May 20, 2015, when the suspect being pursued fired at officers after being spotted.

She is remembered not only for her police work but also for her extensive involvement in community service.

She was active in coaching baseball and had been coaching since 2009 at the North Omaha Boys and Girls Club.

She volunteered with Special Olympics and was president of the Police Officer Ball to benefit Special Olympics in Nebraska.

Kerrie was a Girl Scout Leader, participated with Shop with a Cop, and assisted with the Latino Police Officers Easter Egg Hunt.

Shop With A Cop is an annual event where 50 children from the Open Door Mission shop for their families and for themselves with an officer at a few local Walmart stores in Omaha.

When she went to work on May 20, 2015, she did not know that she would not be returning home that night.

Her husband is still waiting for his U.S. Citizenship while he deals with the heartbreak of his wife's death.

For most immigrants, becoming a United States' citizen is the culmination of many years of hard work.

Being a citizen offers new opportunity to have a greater say and a stronger voice in determining our country's future.

There is room in our country for law-abiding individuals from all over the world to come and be a part of the goodness and greatness that the United States of America has to offer.

Our first responders put their lives on the line every time they enter the line of duty.

As the senior member of the House Committees on Judiciary and Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, I am humbled to call first responders my friends and also my protectors.

I am committed to working tirelessly to assure that they have full support of Congress in getting the resources and training they need to protect our communities but also to ensure the welfare of their families.

This legislation provides the same courtesy that is given to the families of men and women in uniform who are killed.

The burden on families that have lost a family member is cumbersome enough on its own.

By enacting this legislation, we can provide an uplifting moment in their period of grief and sorrow for this generation of spouses and hopefully ameliorating the situation of future spouses in similar circumstances.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to stand with me in the support of H.R. 6580.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1872, the ``Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2017,'' which promotes access for United States officials, journalists, and other citizens to Tibetan areas of the People's Republic of China.

As a co-sponsor of this bill, I am acutely aware of the importance of this legislation.

The Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2017,'' is the first step in opening access to Tibet because it would restrict access to China as long as the government of China restricts access to Tibet.

The act requires the State Department to submit an annual, publicly available report to Congress that includes a list of individuals holding specified senior Chinese leadership positions and an assessment of the level of access Chinese authorities granted U.S. diplomats, journalists, and tourists to Tibetan areas in China.

In turn, the listed persons shall be ineligible to enter or to be present in the United States if specified restrictions on foreign travelers entering Tibetan areas remain in effect.

When we grant Chinese diplomats' access to parts of the United States, we should take into account the extent to which China grants U.S. diplomats access to parts of China, including the Tibetan areas.

For far too long have we allowed Chinese officials to enjoy our freedoms of movement and expression while we condoned with our silence their draconian restrictions on those very freedoms.

China considers any evidence of Chinese or Tibetans showing loyalty to or being in communication with the Tibetan government in exile to be illegal and subject to harsh punishment.

Chinese authorities tightly restrict travel and news media in Tibet.

Individuals who use the internet, social media, or other means to disseminate dissenting views or share politically sensitive content face arrest and harsh penalties.

Tibetan cultural expression, which the authorities associate with separatism, is subject to especially harsh restrictions; those incarcerated in recent years have included scores of Tibetan writers, intellectuals, and musicians.

As a nation that stands for basic freedoms of faith and expression, it is imperative that we do not remain bystanders in the perpetual struggle for justice and human rights.

This bill is created for the benefit of not only U.S. officials and workers in human rights who have no access into Tibet, but also Tibetans living in oppression and in exile who desperately hope every day for a breath of freedom in the Chinese security apparatus.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to stand with me in the support of H.R. 1872.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5433, the ``Hack Your State Department Act''.

This act would direct the State Department to establish what is known in the cybersecurity community as a `bug bounty' program.

Bug bounty programs, also known as Vulnerability Disclosure Programs, are comprehensive efforts by an organization to lay out the method by which members of the public may report any security vulnerabilities to an entity.

They also lay out which of their resources are covered by this policy, and how any identified vulnerabilities will be addressed.

At a time when the computer networks of our government are under constant attack, and have suffered serious breaches in recent years, we must take action to ensure that the information of our citizens and the ability of federal agencies to carry out their duties are resilient.

As a long-time advocate of a government that works efficiently for the people, it is clear that current information security practices of federal agencies, including the State Department, must evolve to keep pace with improved standards and policies.

Without an honest effort to seek awareness of the security of the State Department network, users, and devices, we will continue to be increasingly vulnerable.

To that end, H.R. 5433 recognizes the importance of a dynamic approach that will help secure federal networks and data, beginning with the State Department, as well as provide improved information on vulnerabilities and security practices across the various agencies.

Without codifying this concrete measure to improve awareness of federal network security at the State Department, this important agency will remain vulnerable.

We have seen an unfortunate loss of cybersecurity talent at the State Department this year.

Further, even despite this, the White House has eliminated the position of Cybersecurity Coordinator from the National Security Council.

This occurred even after Federal Risk Determination Reports found that communication of threat information within agencies is also inconsistent, with only 59 percent of agencies reporting a capability to share threat information to all employees within an enterprise so they have the knowledge necessary to block attacks.

Federal agencies are not taking advantage of all available information such as threat intelligence, incident data, and network traffic flow to improve situational awareness regarding systems at risk and to prioritize investments.

For this reason, earlier this Congress, I introduced H.R. 3202, the ``Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Reporting Act'', which was passed by the full House and is now in the Senate.

H.R. 3202 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on the policies and procedures developed for coordinating cyber vulnerability disclosures.

The report will include an annex with information on instances in which cyber security vulnerability disclosure policies and procedures were used to disclose details on identified weaknesses in computing systems that or digital devices at risk.

The report will provide information on the degree to which the information provided by DHS was used by industry and other stakeholders.

I would also like to recognize the University of Houston, which has been recognized by the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency as a Center of Academic Excellence for the programs in cybersecurity and cyber defense.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 5433, the ``Hack Your State Department Act''.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years, members of the Judiciary Committee and my committee, the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, which I serve as the ranking member, have worked extensively with groups all over the Nation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and we have done so in a bipartisan and nonpartisan manner.

The bill is written. It was introduced on July--just a month ago--26, 2018.

Victims are waiting for the reauthorization that will improve the Violence Against Women Act. In fact, law enforcement are waiting, victims are waiting, those who have experienced sexual assault and sexual harassment.

And I would just tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, Republican leadership needs to put that bill on the floor of the House and put it on the floor now.

Again, this is not a partisan bill. It has been crafted and supported by faith organizations and advocacy groups for women and victims. It is supported by law enforcement.

So, Mr. Speaker, we can do our job and we should do our job. When we come back from our recess that we work in our districts, let us put on the floor the Violence Against Women Act and let's vote for it now.

Mr. Speaker, on the 17th anniversary of the attack launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, I rise to remember the victims of that horrific tragedy and those first- responders who risked, and in too many cases, sacrificed their lives to rescue the occupants of the besieged World Trade Center Towers.

The morning of September 11, 2001 is, and will always be, a day like no other.

It is a day all living Americans will remember because not since Pearl Harbor had there been such a dastardly and deadly attack on American soil.

Seventeen years later, my heart still grieves for those who perished on flights United Airlines 93, American Airlines 77, American Airlines 11, and United Airlines 175.

When the sun rose on the morning of September 11, none of us knew that it would end in an inferno in the magnificent World Trade Center Towers in New York City and the Pentagon and in the grassy fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives.

My prayer is that for those who lost a father, a mother, a husband, a wife, a child, or a friend will in the days and years ahead take comfort in the certain knowledge that they have gone on to claim the greatest prize, a place in the Lord's loving arms.

And down here on the ground, their memory will never die so long as I any of the many of us who loved them lives.

Mr. Speaker, as hard as it is to believe, out of a tragedy so overwhelming and horrific, something good and great emerged in the aftermath of September 11.

On that day there were no Republicans or Democrats.

There were no Northerners or Southerners or West or East Coasters.

We were not Red State or Blue State.

We were all simply Americans.

On that day, we were united in our shock and anger and sadness.

We were united in our resolve to defend our country and protect the freedoms that has made America the greatest country in the history of the world.

We lit candles, held hands, helped neighbors, and prayed for our country and its leaders.

A united America can never be defeated as Operation Enduring Freedom showed.

The brave and valiant armed forces of the United States swiftly toppled the Taliban and liberated Afghanistan.

As President George W. Bush announced to the American people and to the world: ``Whether the terrorists are brought to justice or justice is brought to the terrorists, justice will be done.''

And though he ran and hid for almost ten years, Osama bin Ladin could not hide forever and evade the long arm of American justice, which, under the leadership of President Barack Obama, caught up with him on May 2, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, Americans take care of their own.

Americans cherish freedom. Americans cherish liberty.

And Americans want peace.

Not just for themselves alone, but all persons in every corner of the globe.

Mr. Speaker, ensuring that American is safe and secure and protected from another attack on American soil is the least we owe to the heroic passengers on Flight 93 and to the brave firefighters of the FDNY and officers of the NYPD and the officers and civilians we lost in the Pentagon who gave faithful service to our nation.

Americans want their country to remain safe, free, and invulnerable to another cowardly attack like the one we witnessed seventeen years ago today.

We owe that much to the Americans who lost and gave their lives.

We owe it to them to ensure that their children and loved ones will never again experience such pain, suffering, and loss.

We can do this. We must do this. After all, we are Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to remember and pay tribute to Ronald V. Dellums, the pioneering, legendary, brilliant, and dynamic former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who represented the residents of California's 9th Congressional District in this body for 27 years.

Ronald Dellums died peacefully on July 30, 2018, at his home in Washington D.C. after waging a heroic but losing battle against prostate cancer; he was 82 years old.

Born November 24, 1935 in Oakland, California, to Verney and Willa Dellums, Ronald Vernie Dellums would go on to lead a consequential life marked by public service, active engagement, and passionate leadership.

These qualities--service, engagement, passionate commitment--were Dellums family traits; Ron's father was a longshoreman and active in the labor movement and his uncle, Cottrell Laurence Dellums, helped A. Philip Randolph organize the Brother of Sleeping Car Porters, before being elected President of the union in 1966.

In 1954, after graduating from high school, and during the height of the Cold War, Ronald Dellums enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and served two years before being honorably discharged in 1956.

His honorable service to the nation enabled him to attend college on the G.I. Bill and in 1958 he earned an Associate of Arts degree from Oakland City College, followed by a Bachelor of Science degree in 1960 from San Francisco State University, an M.S.W. from the University of California at Berkeley in 1962.

Upon graduation from UC-Berkeley, Ronald Dellums worked as a psychiatric social worker for the California Department of Mental Hygiene and taught at San Francisco State University and the University of California at Berkeley, work which soon led him to become involved in local politics.

In 1967, at the age of 32, Ronald was elected to the Berkeley City Council, where he served until 1970, when he was elected to Congress as an anti-Vietnam War activist, defeating the incumbent in the primary, and winning the general election in a landslide.

In 1972, Ronald Dellums was reelected to the 93rd Congress and to the succeeding Congresses, never winning election with less than 57 percent of the vote.

During his tenure in Congress, Ronald Dellums served on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, the District of Columbia, Post Office and Civil Service, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Armed Services, which he chaired from 1993 to 1995 and was Ranking Member from 1995 until his retirement from the House in 1998.

Throughout his congressional career, Ronald Dellums, who cofounded the Congressional Black Caucus in 1971 and the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 1991, was one of the Capitol's leading authorities and voices challenging the underlying assumptions of the U.S. military budget.

Ronald Dellums also led the congressional opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa, winning passage of the Comprehensive Anti- Apartheid Act of 1986 by congressional override of President Reagan's veto, the first override in the 20th century of a presidential foreign policy veto.

Ronald Dellums championed for equal rights for Americans and was one of the first to call for the integration of gays and lesbians into the military.

In addition to championing equal rights, Ron Dellums was a strong supporter of historic preservation.

He emerged as one of the most radical and outspoken Congressmen in Washington, and a spokesperson for African American community affairs and for his radical political beliefs.

After retiring from Congress in 1998, Ronald Dellums served as president of Healthcare International Management, an organization that worked with the newly democratic South African government to develop low cost, affordable healthcare and bring awareness, prevention and treatment in response to the AIDS epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, Ron Dellums lived a long and fulfilling life and made his mark in the world by making a difference in the lives of untold numbers of individuals.

I hope that Ron's family and loved ones are comforted by the fact that the lives of millions of people here at home and around the world were touched by the service of one of the great social activists, political leaders, and statesmen of the 20th century.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Ronald V. Dellums, a tireless and eloquent voice for justice and equality, who did so much to ensure that America always strives to live up to the promise of its founding ideals and remain a beacon and example for the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of my great school districts. I have many in my congressional district, but I particularly want to cite the Houston Independent School District suffering from Hurricane Harvey and under the threat of the Texas Education Agency to be closed.

What a state of mind for parents and children, many of whom have been displaced.

Now, let it be very clear, there are a number of school districts in my congressional district, and I salute them all and the teachers and students; but in this instance, over the past couple of months, there was a question of, on opening day, would six or seven schools of HISD be closed.

I always went throughout the community to the meetings when I was in the district, and the refrain was: The schools will not be closed.

I am an optimist. I believe in our children and our teachers. And on August 27, a few days before, the TEA had indicated that the test that the children take, the scores that came out in early August, that they had passed, and the schools that were in jeopardy of closing were not going to close, and others had been given an extension because of the devastation of Hurricane Harvey and the complete displacement of our children.

So on that opening day of August 27, I went to four or five of my schools. I went with the mayor and the school board members, and I thanked them and our great school superintendent, because a lot of the work attributed to their success, TEA noted it was the great superintendent that we have in HISD. And I believe we should keep her. She is doing an excellent job.

Congratulations to the children, the teachers, the school district, because our children are our most precious resource.

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

I will take the opportunity to say good morning to the manager of the bill, my co-member on the House Judiciary Committee. I start this way, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues, because I always want to emphasize when I am on the floor that the Judiciary Committee has had many instances of bipartisanship.

I am very glad to have been on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee for more than a number of years. I have seen our work, and it has certainly been in a bipartisan mode.

I want to acknowledge the chairman of the committee, Mr. Goodlatte, and the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Nadler. In many instances on the crime reform issues, we have tried to work hand-in-hand together.

It seems that criminal justice reform has partners on both sides of the aisle. It is certainly an issue that draws a vast number of stakeholders, particularly my friends in the faith community; social justice community; my friends in the libertarian community, if you will; and, certainly, giants like the ACLU, the Lawyers' Committee, and many others that have been engaged in these issues, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. So you can see that we bring people together.

So I rise to discuss H.R. 6691, the Community Safety and Security Act of 2018, which amends section 16 of title 18.

Section 16 sets forth the universal definition of what constitutes a crime of violence for the entirety of the criminal code. Therefore, this definition is critically important, and I am deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are introducing such an important amendment in such a hasty, precipitous manner.

Although my colleagues claim that the introduction of this bill has not been hasty and that it has been vetted for months on their side of the aisle, on our side of the aisle, we have had no engagement.

This bill has been laid before us for 7 days. Last Friday, it was singly introduced when Members were not here and, as well, before a 3- day weekend.

Let me be very clear. Criminal justice reform is not a sausage. We would work over the months and years with academic experts; victims; law enforcement--that is our family; and beyond, our prosecutors; our law enforcement; and, certainly, the Sentencing Commission, for example; our judges. We are concerned about thei viewpoints.

So I know there may be one or two who have written and may be supporting this, but this is not the way we get to the floor.

H.R. 6691 would expand the definition of crimes of violence in section 16 in two ways: enumerating certain offenses that do not currently exist under Federal law, and it would have been good to have a hearing or a series of hearings on this to be recognized for crimes of violence for Federal purposes; and by adding alternative definitions to already-existing Federal offenses, in order to have these new definitions also qualify as Federal crimes of violence.

Again, here is the trigger: More and more people incarcerated maybe could find another way of addressing these questions, even by law enforcement.

The Supreme Court recently decided Sessions v. Dimaya, holding that subsection (b) of section 16, known as the residual clause, is unconstitutionally vague. Subsection (a) in the Dimaya case left untouched defines a crime of violence as one that requires as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.

In response to Dimaya, my colleagues are now putting forth a bill to substitute subsection (b) for a list of crimes of violence, many of which have no element involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.

In addition, even the residual clause stricken down by Dimaya requires that a crime of violence at least be a felony. H.R. 6691 strips away the felony requirement.

For these reasons, this bill radically amends section 16. We go back to the old days of throwing everybody in jail.

This bill does not just list a few statutes that are obvious crimes of violence. It enumerates at least 32 separate crimes, some of which are not Federal crimes. It even offers alternative definitions for several Federal crimes. This requires careful consideration.

How dare anyone suggest that anyone on this side of the aisle is soft on crime. Some of my best friends, as we have heard others say in other settings, are law enforcement. I speak to my police officers every time I see them in the district. I am talking to the command frequently. Sometimes I congratulate them for a successful capture of a dastardly criminal.

Obviously, many of those crimes are State laws. But I know the State of Texas has been working to reduce the numbers of persons incarcerated. There is no doubt with law enforcement who the bad actors are. On the Federal level, it is the same.

But here we are, with a 1-week-old baby that has not been vetted and helped and nurtured to be able to make it work. This is serious work that we do here. So rather than proceeding through regular order by having a hearing to ascertain the relevant information from experts that will help us establish the best approach for dealing with the constitutionality of section 16, and the Federal definition of crimes of violence, we have been given 1 week to vote, with no markups to allow amendments germane to the bill's purpose.

Mr. Speaker, regular order is not a crime. Instead of taking the time to fashion a definition that takes into consideration the many legal ramifications of changing this term as proposed, the bill's sponsors are haphazardly pushing forward an overly expansive definition of crime of violence for political purposes.

Where are my civil libertarians? Where are my persons who believe in the Constitution, due process?

The bill is overbroad; two, unnecessary; and three, it could have substantial harmful effects.

First, the bill is overbroad and includes in its list of crimes of violence a number of offenses that have no element of violence or force at all. No one likes burglary, but burglary, for example, is included in the enumerated list of crimes of violence, though it would simply mean remaining in a building without authorization and, while there, forming the attempt to commit even a minor, nonviolent offense.

Likewise, the bill lists coercion through fraud as a violent felony, though violence plays no part in that criminal offense.

The bill would also make simple assault a crime of violence, even in the circumstances where the underlying act is merely a push or a shove.

None of us applaud any of that, but we recognize in this vast country that our citizens have basic rights. One of the more egregious examples of an offense listed as a crime of violence is fleeing by automobile, which is knowingly operating a motor vehicle and failing or refusing to comply with a law enforcement officer's signal to bring the motor vehicle to a stop, or fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer. This definition does not even require intent to elude law enforcement.

Under this bill, what could have amounted to a traffic violation is, instead, a crime of violence.

It doesn't mean that we do not utilize these elements, but we are able to have vetted it in a way that truly is the crime that law enforcement seeks to protect themselves against and the public against.

Another specific area of concern is in the context of juvenile justice. If the Federal Government is prosecuting a juvenile, this bill would authorize the government to seek the transfer to adult court of someone as young as 15 years old if they were accused of committing a felony crime of violence. That may be a burglary, unintentionally in a building. We note where teenagers are and how they behave.

Under this new definition is even interference with a flight crew or an argument with a flight attendant over a Diet Coke.

And we want safety everywhere, on the highways and byways, throughout our neighborhoods and schools. We want to make sure that we attend to this, but this is serious work and it should have been done in regular order.

The consequences of H.R. 6691 are dangerous, especially as we look to the new attitude of the Justice Department, which is charging on every offense. Unlike the comprehensive and collaborative manner previously utilized in the past administration, working with faith leaders, working with law enforcement, working with advocates for social and criminal justice, U.S. attorneys were directed to not charge up, to focus on the highest crime.

Now we have the tendency to use a sprawling, overbroad definition of violent crime to justify more arrests and prosecutions and long prison sentences.

Has anybody met an ex-felon, many of them wanting to do right? I see a lot of them where good businesses have hired them. They want their head down, they want to work, they want to get an apartment, they want to support their family. They are not interested in going back again, nor are they interested in being accused of a minor offense and being ``felonized,'' if you will.

Second, a new definition of ``crime of violence'' is unnecessary, even in light of Dimaya. The court in Dimaya held that the residual clause is unconstitutional, but left in place subsection a. While perhaps not an ideal formulation, subsection a can, for now, suffice as a placeholder until Congress can undertake a more deliberate approach. Even so the Senate would have a companion bill, which to our knowledge, it does not. It is important to take note of the fact.

Third, changing the definition of a crime of violence can have other harmful effects; for example, it could have

significant exclusionary effects for criminal justice reform legislation. There is proposed legislation that excludes people convicted of a crime of violence from pretrial release considerations, expungement of crimes, and receiving visitors. So it would exclude people convicted of a crime of violence from pretrial release consideration, expungement of crimes, and receiving visitors while in custody. Unnecessarily expanding who is ineligible for these provisions is both unwise and counterproductive.

So as I have indicated, it is important that when we work together, we must work together through the goals of reforming our criminal justice system, which Congress has acknowledged needs dire fixing. Let's work together.

I am pushing for the revisions of criminal justice reform for juveniles. Reforming the juvenile justice system that locks up juveniles forever and ever because they are not sentenced in many instances. Certainly there are few juveniles in the Federal system, but in our State systems. And when we use the bully pulpit, States begin to reform their systems.

In addition, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, ACLU, Center for American Progress, and several others have opposed this bill.

We are on the Judiciary Committee. We believe in justice. Along with the advocates, we need true experts, and we are experts on these subject matters. And we are troubled by the reckless speed in which this bill was brought to the floor.

We understand the intent. We welcome it. But I have listed the fractures, the problems, the undermining of due process, the throwing the key away on good people who want to do better or who did not intend to exercise some of the elements that are in this bill.

So I ask my colleagues in this instance to recognize that this is too fast and to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss H.R. 6691, the ``Community Safety and Security Act of 2018,'' which amends section 16 of Title 18.

Section 16 sets forth the universal definition of what constitutes a ``crime of violence'' for the entirety of the criminal code.

Therefore, this definition is critically important and I am deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side are introducing such an important amendment in such a reckless manner.

Although my colleagues claim that the introduction of this bill has not been hasty and that it has been vetted for months, on this side we have had this bill for seven days. It was introduced exactly one week ago today, on the day before a three-day weekend. That is reckless.

H.R. 6691 would expand the definition of crimes of violence in section 16 in two ways: (1) by enumerating certain offenses that do not currently exist under Federal law to be recognized as crimes of violence for Federal purposes; and (2) by adding alternative definitions to already-existing Federal offenses in order to have these new definitions also qualify as Federal crimes of violence.

The Supreme Court recently decided Sessions v Dimaya, holding that subsection (b) of section 16, known as the ``residual clause,'' is unconstitutionally vague.

Subsection (a), which Dimaya left untouched, defines a crime of violence as one that requires, as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.

In response to Dimaya, my colleagues are now putting forth this bill to substitute subsection (b) for a list of ``crimes of violence,'' many of which have no element involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.

In addition, even the residual clause stricken down by Dimaya required that a crime of violence at least be a felony. H.R. 6691 strips away the felony requirement.

For these reasons, this bill radically amends section 16. This bill does not just list a few statutes that are obvious crimes of violence. It enumerates at least 32 separate crimes, some of which are not Federal crimes, and it even offers alternative definitions for several Federal crimes. This requires careful consideration.

But rather than proceeding through regular order by having a hearing, to ascertain relevant information from experts that will help us establish the best approach for dealing with the constitutionality of section 16 and the Federal definition of crimes of violence, we have been given one week to vote, with no markups to allow amendments, germane to the bill's purpose.

Instead of taking the time to fashion a definition that takes into consideration the many legal ramifications of changing this term as proposed, the bill's sponsors are haphazardly pushing forward an overly-expansive definition of ``crime of violence'' for political purposes. The bill is (1) overbroad, (2) unnecessary, and (3) could have substantial harmful effects.

First, the bill is overbroad and includes in its list of crimes of violence a number of offenses that have no element of violence, or force, at all. Burglary, for example, is included in the enumerated list of crimes of violence though it could simply mean remaining in a building without authorization and, while there, forming the intent to commit even a minor, non-violent offense. Likewise, the bill lists coercion through fraud as a violent felony, though violence plays no part in that criminal offense. The bill would also make simple assault a crime of violence even in circumstances where the underlying act is merely a push or a shove.

One of the more egregious examples of an offense listed as a crime of violence is ``fleeing by automobile'' which is ``knowingly operating a motor vehicle and--(A) failing or refusing to comply with a law enforcement officer's signal to bring the motor vehicle to a stop; or (B) fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer.'' This definition does not even require an intent to elude law enforcement. Under this bill, what could have amounted to a traffic violation becomes, instead, a ``crime of violence''.

Another specific area of concern is in the context of juvenile justice. If the Federal government is prosecuting a juvenile, this bill would authorize the government to seek transfer to adult court of someone as young as 15 years old if they are accused of committing a felony ``crime of violence'' under this new definition--even for something as minor as getting in an argument with a flight attendant over a Diet Coke.

The consequences of H.R. 6691 are dangerous, especially in the hands of a Sessions Justice Department, which has displayed a general tendency to use a sprawling, overbroad definition of violent crime to justify more arrests and prosecutions and longer prison sentences.

Second, a new definition of crime of violence is unnecessary, even in light of Dimaya. The Court in Dimaya held that the residual clause is unconstitutional, but left in place subsection (a). While perhaps not an ideal formulation, subsection (a) can for now suffice as a placeholder until Congress can undertake a more deliberate approach, instead of the reflexive one proposed by H.R. 6691.

Third, changing the definition of a crime of violence can have other harmful effects. For example, it could have significant exclusionary effects for criminal justice reform legislation. There is proposed legislation that excludes people convicted of a crime of violence from pretrial release considerations, expungement of crimes, and receiving visitors while in custody. Unnecessarily expanding who is ineligible for these provisions is both unwise and counterproductive to the goals of reforming our criminal justice system, which Congress has acknowledged needs dire fixing.

Families Against Mandatory Minimum (FAMM), ACLU, Center for American Progress (CAP), and several other organizations have opposed this bill.

We on the Judiciary Committee, along with advocates that are true experts on these subject matters are troubled by the reckless speed with which this bill was brought to the floor today.

We should take the time to explore why.

According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center on January 12, 2018, the number of African Americans in prisons are 33 percent. The number of Hispanics are 23 percent. Therefore, together they make up 56 percent of today's prison population.

Mr. Speaker, if I might respond to the gentleman's presentation.

Due process is denied and could be denied, based upon the fact that there is no element of the offenses that are just listed in a laundry- list type. That would come about if we had done this in an extensive manner of review.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, reserving the status quo is the very point we are making, that the status quo is the unclarity, if you will, and, therefore, it is important that we pursue this in a manner of constructively understanding what is the best approach to protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire how many speakers the gentlewoman from Georgia has remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier I indicated the work of the Judiciary Committee, and it has been enhanced by the ranking member, Mr. Nadler. We have worked on criminal justice issues bipartisanly, and I want to thank Mr. Nadler for doing so. That is the tragedy of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the Judiciary Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, sometimes vagueness is the extinguishing of constitutional rights. I know, and I will have the numbers, that the predominant numbers of incarcerated persons throughout the Nation are African Americans and Hispanics. That is men and women. A rising number of women are being incarcerated, some of them tied to crimes of their boyfriend, husband, or other significant other.

Juveniles are also being incarcerated throughout the State system.

Mass incarceration is a big deal, so it behooves us to be diligent. In this particular bill, yes, Mr. Speaker, it should have been collaborative and bipartisan, because none of us will yield to a dastardly criminal act that impacts our constituents or the American people. But a fact is a fact. This generates racial disparities.

As my friend from California indicated, individuals who put on the uniform, who may be legal permanent residents, veterans, have the potential, in spite of the uniform that they put on and their willingness to sacrifice their life for America, caught in the wrong situation, could be deported.

This is not to be taken lightly. Frankly, if my friends had studied the Constitution and read the Supreme Court decision, they would have seen the statement that Justice Kagan made, and that is that this is dividing the Federal appellate courts. She raised the question: Does car burglary qualify as a violent felony under 16(b)? She indicated that some courts say yes, some courts say no.

She went on to say, residential trespass, what is that? The same is true. She went on to say, it does not exhaust the conflict in the courts.

Well, you don't answer the conflict by doing as was stated in the Families Against Mandatory Minimums letter dated September 6. On substantive grounds, H.R. 6691 has the potential to have severe unintended consequences on sentencing in our justice system writ large.

Under this bill, seemingly nonviolent offenses will be considered violent offenses, for example, under H.R. 6691, burglary of an unoccupied home. How many teenagers--I am not condoning that--may we find in an unoccupied home? I am not condoning burglary, but it would be considered a violent offense.

Burglary is a serious offense, but should it be considered violent if the perpetrator does not even interact with another person? Yes, they should be prosecuted. But you have in this bill violent offense.

Then, of course, in this legislation, legal service providers who filed an amicus brief, these are the guys and ladies who are our public defenders who see these people every day--the indigent, and many of them minority--they wind up, as everyone says, up the road in these large, massive prisons, and their lives are ruined because we have not fixed the criminal justice system.

Legal service providers who filed the amicus brief in the Dimaya case described the different applications of subsection (b) of section 16 across Federal circuits, using the example of residential trespass, which was considered a crime of violence by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals but not by the Seventh Circuit. This bill does little to resolve the inconsistent way courts apply the crime of violence based on subsection (b) because it includes vague definitions of offenses and creates definitions for the same crimes that differ from those currently in the criminal code.

That is a denial of due process, and that is not taking on this important issue. As was mentioned, there is a list of important elements. I support the fact that these are difficult and a terrible dilemma. But it can be done in a manner that is preferable, and that is through unceasing commitment and effort.

Mr. Speaker, this is why we are here today having different positions. I cannot yield to what will be claimed as individuals who do not understand how important this bill is when I know the young African American men and young men of color who are entrapped in this system, and that the better approach and the better angels are for us to do comprehensive criminal justice reform and, I might add, immigration reform as well.

But let me indicate that we support victims of crime, especially those who are victims of violent crimes. We want relief for them.

This bill dangerously leads to overcriminalization, and we should not take the task of amending the definition of ``crime of violence'' lightly.

In the Rules Committee, we addressed overcriminalization and mass incarceration. Representative Torres aptly stated that we should not proceed with haste, which will further exacerbate the overcrowdedness in our prisons.

One Member suggested, in the Rules Committee, just build prisons, that is how we stop this criminal siege, as indicated, even though the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics have indicated that crime is going down.

Yes, we have our concerns. Even conservative groups that work with these very complicated and important criminal justice reform issues, like the Cook Foundation and Right on Crime, do not agree that building more prisons is the answer. Right on Crime states that, by reducing excessive sentence lengths and holding nonviolent offenders accountable through prison alternatives, public safety can often be achieved.

We recognize that the violent perpetrators should be incarcerated. If that is the case, I would stand with my colleague.

I would also stand with the Mothers of the Movement who saw their sons gunned down, in that we need to have relief in that direction.

There are many issues of criminal justice reform that should be on this floor--as I mentioned, sentencing reduction and juvenile justice reform--but we have not come to that point.

So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues vote ``no,'' because as Justice Kagan said in her opinion, the interpretation of crime and violence has divided the Federal appellate courts because the answer is not obvious. Therefore, we must carefully consider the alternatives to the approach prepared in this bill. We must do more than eliminate vagueness. We must achieve a just and fair result.

Nothing in this Supreme Court opinion, nothing, says, go alone, put a bill on the floor for 1 week, give Members no chance to amend, try to deny due process, build more prisons, make sure that the disparities of those who go into our jails rises and goes up, rather than giving our young people opportunities, a fair chance, and justice. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the National Center

for Lesbian Rights, and immigrant rights organizations ranging from the National Immigrant Justice Center to others.

Mr. Speaker, I leave my colleagues with a simple challenge. The simple challenge is: Read the Constitution.

Vagueness can be the death of us. This bill is that kind of death, and I would hope that we would have the opportunity to do this as it should be: constitutionally sound and in a bipartisan way to save lives.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We support victims of crime, especially those who are victims of violent crime. But classifying particular offenses as crimes of violence has tremendous consequences for the individuals accused of committing them. This bill dangerously leads to over-criminalization and we should not take lightly the task of amending the definition of ``crime of violence.''

At Rules on Wednesday, we addressed over-criminalization and mass incarceration. Rep. Torres aptly stated that we should not proceed with haste, which will further exacerbate the over crowdedness in our prisons. Rep. Bucks responded that we should build more prisons to address that problem.

Even conservative groups that work with these very complicated and important criminal justice reform issues, like the Koch Foundation and Right on Crime, do not agree that building more prisons is the answer.

Right on Crime states, ``by reducing excessive sentence lengths and holding non-violent offenders accountable through prison alternatives, public safety can often be achieved.''

In a recent forum, the Koch Foundation stated, ``After four decades of increasing punitiveness and sky-rocketing levels of imprisonment, American incarceration rates have declined in many states over the past five years. In fact, a bipartisan consensus has emerged in favor of major criminal justice reforms that would reduce mass incarceration much further.''

The original spark for this coalition of ``unlikely bedfellows'' has come from a group of conservative leaders who emphasize a variety of different factors, ranging from economic, to

freedom, to religious groups embracing redemption and second chances.

The Koch Foundation went on to say, ``Although the 2016 presidential election temporarily halted this movement's momentum, the coalition has reemerged recently and seems prepared to make progress in 2018.''

So I disagree with the notion that we should build more prisons and not exercise due diligence to ensure that in responding to the Supreme Court's finding that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, that we are doing so in a well-informed, heavily-engaged and thoughtful manner.

Due to the seriousness of our criminal justice system, we should always use due care and give thorough considerations when amending the criminal code.

For all these reasons, I oppose this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having the opportunity to speak about former Congressman Ron Dellums at a lengthier time, but I wanted to stand and pay tribute to him at this time, and to indicate what an important experience it was to serve with him for the short period of time that I had to do so.

One of my predecessors, the Honorable Mickey Leland, who died in Ethiopia some many years ago trying to serve those who were starving, had a strong bond and friendship with Congressman Ron Dellums, and it was clear, when I came to the United States Congress, why. Both men had a deep and abiding passion and conscience for what is right.

And even as Mr. Dellums ascended to the chairmanship or leadership of the Armed Services Committee, he was always committed and dedicated to his values, and that was peace, and reconciliation, and the idea that it was important to invest in people, as opposed to investing in enormous, large budgets for the defense.

We thank him for his work on HIV/AIDS but, more importantly, on his counseling and mentoring, and we are grateful to his family for sharing him with America.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand here with our good friend just leaving the podium, the Honorable Lacy Clay.

It is good to see the kind of family attitude that we are all expressing. Each person has gone to hug the Honorable Barbara Lee because she is the closest to Congressman Ron Dellums, and we want his family to know of the intensity of our love and respect.

Congressman Lacy opened up the gate for me and the door for me because I think Congressman Ron Dellums understood, as Frederick Douglass did, that, where there is no struggle, there is no power. Without struggle, there is no power. For all that he stood for, even in his early years, he had no fear of struggle.

So I stand today on the floor of the House to be able to pay tribute to our friend and, might I say, our brother, to be able to thank the gentlewoman from California for her wisdom in allowing us to share this time with him. I thank the gentlewoman so very much for giving us this beautiful portrait for us to stand next to and for America to be reintroduced to the Honorable Ron Dellums.

Ron Dellums was a Member of Congress, former bay area Congressman and Oakland mayor, first African American elected to Congress from northern California, tireless champion of racial and social justice, Marine Corps veteran and peace warrior, and Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus cofounder. That is a long litany of brilliance, but, as well, a pioneer--legendary, brilliant--and a dynamic former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. And the fact that he represented constituents so ably.

I am glad, as I came here as a newbie, as a new Member of the United States Congress, wasn't I fortunate to get the last years of service of the Honorable Ron Dellums? I saw him as the lead Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, just missed his service as a chair of the Armed Services Committee.

I listened to Leader Pelosi, and she will be able to tell her stories going forward as they celebrate in Oakland. Might I pay tribute to his family members who will celebrate in Oakland.

Let me say to the family members, my deepest sympathy, but joy for his life, and thank you for sharing him with us.

I must start with the story that I heard, which was of the appointment of Ron Dellums and Pat Schroeder to, I believe, the Armed Services Committee, as the committee was convened then by individuals who held themselves high and mighty, including the chairman. There was only one chair, and that chair had to be shared by the first woman and the first African American to be on that committee.

Yes. Can you imagine? They were told to sit in one chair.

But I am grateful that through that struggle--power in his birth in 1935; power to his parents, Verney and Willa Dellums, and all of his relatives; and, as well, power in what he did in life--his engagement and his passionate commitment were traits of the Dellums family.

His father was a longshoreman. There lays the foundation for his love of labor. I understand Cottrell Laurence Dellums helped Asa Philip Randolph organize the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, of which my grandfather was a member.

He graduated from high school. He enlisted in the Marine Corps during the Cold War, but he also came back to his community and used the GI Bill. He developed a pathway for education, an associate of arts degree out of Oakland City College, then on to get a bachelor of science degree from San Francisco State. What I want most of all to say is that he then carved his pathway.

And Barbara Lee continues to remind us that she is a social worker. Well, Ron Dellums got his MSW from the University of California at Berkeley in 1962.

Yes, this manly man, this man of men, was a social worker who understood the needs of people who were vulnerable, a psychiatric social worker where he worked in the department of mental health and mental hygiene and taught at San Francisco State.

Interestingly enough, he became a council member, of which I was one as well, at a young age, served only for a short time. And then, in his thirties, he went to the United States Congress and never looked back. He never lost. He ran against an incumbent as an antiwar, anti-Vietnam candidate, and he won overwhelmingly.

Again, there is no power without struggle. That was not a friendly place to be, against the war. It was well known to follow you throughout your career. It was viewed as unpatriotic, maybe even as NFL players today are viewed as they take a knee for issues that they believe in.

But Ron Dellums was a dignified patriot. He loved his country. He loved his flag. And he came to this Congress with a love of the institution as he served on so many committees, Foreign Affairs.

I remember the Post Office Committee because Mickey Leland was on the Post Office Committee, and they

served together. They became good friends. It is important to acknowledge them together as good friends.

I met Ron, maybe for the first time, as an unelected official when Mickey brought the Congressional Black Caucus to Houston, Texas. It was a day we will never forget. It was a day of happening. It was a day of celebration. We couldn't believe it. The Congressional Black Caucus was coming to Houston, Texas, to the Shamrock Hotel that used to be a segregated hotel, and all of us came to pay homage, tribute, and honor to these Congresspersons who had come to celebrate.

He was of grand stature, being a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and then, of course, going on to be a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus. I stand here as the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation to express my deepest appreciation for that service.

In the Progressive Caucus, Ron Dellums again became a soldier on the battlefield for so many issues, in particular, ending and breaking the shackles of apartheid in South Africa.

Remember, when I started out, there is no power without struggle. He participated in that struggle, and I remember that fight, that magnificent day when he brought forward this bill in 1986 to overturn Reagan's veto, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. He had a congressional override where the President of the United States was vetoing the sanctions that Congress was attempting to put forward. That was a legacy, or that was the pathway, the struggle, that helped to propel the end of apartheid, the vicious cycle of apartheid in South Africa.

He continued to champion Africa even after he retired. He continued to mentor and to stay around to give us inspiration, to tell us that we could do it, that we could be strong.

Of course, how I remember when this Congresswoman, the Honorable Barbara Lee, came and touched all of us and came with that inspiration and that idea and vision that Ron Dellums had about ending the horrors of HIV/AIDS in Africa, the whole idea of PEPFAR, the whole idea of the Millennium Fund. All of these were visionary ideas that came about for him to help save lives.

So as I said, in my early years, he retired in 1998, but he then continued on to be the man that he is, being the mayor of Oakland, and being a striking mayor, a truth-telling mayor, somebody who was loved and beloved by all those whom he had the privilege of serving.

Then, of course, to his family, he was that giant, that husband, that father and brother and just someone whom they could look up to.

So I thank the gentlewoman for organizing this Special Order, and I thank this giant of a man in stature but, as well, in purpose and in heart. I thank him so very much for serving his nation and showing us what patriotism is, what the flag really means. It is the opportunity to protest, petition, and to speak to your government, and also to protest to make your government a better place.

This is a great, great nation. Ron Dellums understood that. Marine Corps Ron Dellums understood that. Social worker Ron Dellums understood that. Husband, father, and relative understood that. And, of course, United States Congressperson Ron Dellums understood that.

But never would he yield his values, his heart, his passion, and his sense of justice just because he had a title. He believed that America's greatness was one based upon her people's willingness to challenge her and to make her the very best that she can be.

My heart goes out to his family and I continue to mourn, but I celebrate his life with joy.

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

At a time when the aviation transportation sector is undergoing substantial changes, it is crucial that we take steps to ensure the Transportation Security Administration is able to protect the skies.

Any holes or deficiencies in the security of our aviation sector pose a great risk to the traveling public.

As a tireless advocate for public safety, I am pleased to see that this bill would establish a National Deployment Office within TSA that has the ability to help fill security gaps.

Because of the nature of air travel, the security risks posed to the aviation sector are constantly changing. These shifting risks can depend on a number of various factors, and it is important that TSA have the capacity to adapt in a flexible way to changing circumstances.

The National Deployment Office will allow TSA to deploy additional security officers when:

Airports request them due to emergencies, staff difficulties, or other unforeseen issues.

Special events that may potentially affect National Security are occurring.

A natural disaster or weather event occurs, and additional security staff are needed.

It is absolutely critical that TSA has adequate resources to ensure that the traveling public is both protected, and confident in the safety of air travel.

To that end, this measure emphasizes the importance of a flexible approach that will give TSA greater capabilities for rapid response to a security risk.

Mr. Speaker, 1 minute is really not enough time, but I really wanted to highlight, as quickly as I can, some crucial issues that we have experienced over the work recess.

First of all, I condemn the actions of Saudi Arabia as it relates to the bombing of the two or at least one bus of children. I believe the United States should address this question immediately, for children are our most precious resource.

I am concerned that now 497 children still remain without their families at the border, that 300 of those parents have been deported, and most of the children are under 5. This is inhumane, cruel. And it is, of course, the most tragic act that this Federal Government could have done. I ask the Trump administration immediately to respond.

Listening to the hearings of Justice Kavanaugh, let me indicate that there is no comment on the character of the man, but there is a comment on the appointment. And that appointment involves an individual, the President of the United States, who is under investigation, and, also, the papers that are needed have not been provided.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that I note that the State Department and the Defense Department decided to cut the funding for Pakistan. Pakistan is a nation that we should attempt to continue negotiations and diplomacy, and we should recognize that those military dollars are important for the fight against terrorism. These things should be taken up on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the 1918 influenza pandemic also known as the ``Spanish Flu'', which killed 50 million people worldwide, including 675,000 in the United States.

The Spanish Flu was the deadliest known global pandemic of the world, second only to the Bubonic Plague.

In 1918 there was no health insurance; people paid for healthcare out of their own resources and many had a harder time gaining access to healthcare.

There was no flu vaccine to protect against the influenza infection and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that are associated with influenza infections, control efforts worldwide were limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as isolation, quarantine, good personal hygiene, use of disinfectants, and limitations of public gatherings, which were applied unevenly.

Today we have the antibiotics, However, when the next pandemic hits it will be a full out race to not only identify the pandemic but also to develop a cure and lessen the amount of mass casualties.

It is time that we cease this debate on universal healthcare as if it is not a societal benefit.

The Affordable Care Act assures that millions of Americans have access to healthcare which includes annual flu vaccines.

It is important to remember that before the era of modern medicine, the Spanish Flu pandemic infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide, which at that time was about one-third of the Earth's population.

The Spanish Flu killed 10 percent of the 500 million people who contracted the disease.

Mortality was high for people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old, and 65 years and older.

The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic.

While the Spanish Flu virus has been synthesized and evaluated, the properties that made it so devastating are not well understood.

The Spanish flu occurred during WWI, and in fact killed more soldiers than those lost in baffle.

On September 24, 1918, the Houston Chronicle reported that there were between 600 and 700 cases of the Spanish Flu at Camp Logan, now Memorial Park.

By the end of October 1918, more than 106,000 residents in Texas' urban centers had been afflicted.

It is estimated that 20,000 Texans died during the pandemic.

There have been three additional flu pandemics since the Spanish Flu of 1918, including the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic which spread to over 214 countries and overseas territories or communities, but none has been nearly as deadly.

We must continue to provide resources to fund our disease preventing and disease fighting institutions throughout the Federal government including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Homeland Security and others who work tirelessly to protect the health and welfare of our citizens.

As global citizens, we must also keep our borders open and continue to share information with our neighbors and global partners, like the World Health Organization who are committed to the prevention and arresting of pandemics.

We know that when a fatal pandemic strikes there is no limit to where its reach might spread.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in remembering the 675,000 Americans who died during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.

I also call on my colleagues to continue supporting research and innovation into these and other diseases that will build a greater global preparedness for the next pandemic which we know is inevitable.

We must remain ever vigilant to the possibilities of future pandemics that could have a similar impact as the Spanish Flu.

As leaders of this nation, we must stress the need to be prepared while also hoping that we never see this kind of devastation again.