Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my colleagues in unequivocally condemning the President's gross assault on the independence of the federal judiciary by stacking the federal courts with unqualified nominees.

Since his inauguration a year and six months ago, the President and his supporters in the Senate have proceeded at breakneck speed to nominate ideological, often-unqualified candidates.

In his first 330 days in office, the President had won confirmation for 12 of his appeals court nominees--the most in an administration's first year since creation of the circuit court system in 1891.

The President's appellate nominees were approved by the Senate in an average of just 20 days after being voted out of the committee--which is eight times faster than President Obama's nominees.

As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I am concerned by the pervasive lack of oversight and partisanship that has poisoned our judiciary far more than the collection of highly publicized incidents would have us believe.

We must remember that the judiciary abuses of this Administration are the continuation of the shameless partisanship of Senate Republicans first began with the theft of the seat of Judge Merrick Garland.

Judge Garland had long been considered a prime prospect for the high court, serving as chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit--a frequent source of justices that is sometimes called the ``little Supreme Court.''

Widely regarded as a moderate, Judge Garland had been praised in the past by many Republicans, including influential senators such as Orrin Hatch of Utah.

But even before President Obama had named Judge Garland, and in fact only hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared in February 2016 that any appointment by the sitting president would be null and void.

Senator McConnell foreclosed any consideration of a nominee for the vacancy until after the 2016 election, nearly a year away.

Mr. Speaker, Supreme Court picks have often been controversial.

There have been contentious hearings and floor debates and contested votes.

But never has a nominee been ignored entirely, as if no vacancy existed.

A federal lawsuit was filed to compel Senator McConnell to hold a vote on Judge Garland, but it was dismissed because the plaintiff lacked stand-ins.

This president has used the levers of his office to continue to divide, rather than unite.

When confronted with a replacement to the Supreme Court's swing vote, the President has chosen an ideologue and a foot soldier of

the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

To be sure, Brett Kavanaugh has acceptable credentials and has enjoyed an undistinguished tenure as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But, it is not his credentials or his pedigree which is worrisome.

Rather, throughout his entire career--as a deputy in the right-wing's crusade against President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, as a political operative fighting to prevent the recount in Florida in 2000, which paved the way for the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, and thereafter a decade as a stalwart conservative on the country's most important federal appellate court--Brett Kavanaugh has used his legal acumen in the service of decidedly and uncompromisingly conservative causes.

Instead of ensuring that the court will protect the rights of minorities, women, children, and society's most vulnerable, the President has chosen to politicize our halls of justice.

This President has used his Constitutional powers to push down on the scales of lady justice.

Both of the President's Supreme Court appointees--Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh--have drawn withering criticism from respected organizations across the nation.

Marc Morial, the president of the National Urban League, the oldest and largest community-based nonpartisan civil rights organization of its kind, condemned Neil Gorsuch's nomination and the regression of the Supreme Court on civil rights issues.

More recently, the National Urban League, National Action Network, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense Fund & National Coalition on Black Civic Participation urged citizens to contact Senators to delay confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonprofit formed in 1963 at the request of President Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services addressing racial discrimination, explicitly denounced Kavanaugh's nomination.

President and executive director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke remarked that in this critical time for civil rights protections under attack by the administration, ``it would be an abdication of [the Senate's] constitutional responsibility to merely rubber stamp Kavanaugh's nomination'' on partisan grounds.

Rev. Al Sharpton, civil rights leader and President of National Action Network (NAN), released the following statement following President Donald Trump's announcement of the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh:

Some will pass this off as a middle of the road pick. Don't

be fooled. On every issue, Kavanaugh has proven to be an

ideologue who will ignore our rights . . . This is a fight

for the soul of our country, and we at National Action

Network call on the Senate to stop Kavanaugh's nomination at

any cost--his confirmation would be a disastrous attack on

basic human rights.

The NAACP--with its cherished heritage of struggling for fair-minded justice, including when it was instrumental in defeating a Herbert Hoover nominee to the Supreme Court, John Parker--characterized the Kavanaugh nomination as an effort to ``re-make the Court in President Trump's own image.''

Fatima Goss Graves, President and CEO of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) expressed strong concern that Kavanaugh's nomination could put women's health, equality, dignity, and even lives on the line: ``it will shift the balance of the Court, and could roll back rights for an entire generation.''

The backlash has not only to do with the abandonment of the pursuit of justice for blatant partisanship, but also the flagrant breach of protocol in nominating Kavanaugh.

Usually, the White House Counsel's office maintains a list of potential nominees on hand, along with some basic information about them, long before an opening appears.

An informal working group is assembled from several sections of the White House, including not just the counsel's office but legislative affairs, the vice president's office, the chief of staff, and the Attorney General.

Congressional leaders from both parties are consulted, as well: GOP strategist Ken Duberstein, who helped shepherd half a dozen Supreme Court nominees, said in an interview that it is critical the administration reaches out to both parties on Capitol Hill, as ``there has to be some consultation, on both sides of the aisle, coming from the White House.''

Instead of this time-honored, bipartisan process, the President has relied heavily on the Federalist Society--a nationwide organization of conservative lawyers that openly seeks to ``reorder priorities within the legal system to place a premium on conservative values.''

Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, went as far as to take leave from the Society to construct a list of nominees for the President: granting such unprecedented access to an unashamedly partisan organization is a departure from convention.

This approach--partisanship above justice; loyalty above protocol-- should be concerning and insulting to every American whose civil liberties are at stake.

But more disturbing than partisanship in judicial nominations is the deliberate appointment of unqualified candidates.

Thomas Farr, the Raleigh attorney nominated for a judicial appointment to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, received the wholehearted support of the President and North Carolina's two U.S. senators, while two qualified African- American women could not even get a hearing.

Farr has been the lead attorney in a series of recent legislative efforts to suppress political participation by African Americans in the state.

In 2010, Farr advised the General Assembly in what federal courts later termed a ``racial gerrymander'' of North Carolina House, Senate and U.S. Congressional districts.

In separate lawsuits, each redistricting plan was proven to have intentionally discriminated against African-American voters.

In 2013, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a bill that shortened early voting, required voters to present government-issued IDs and eliminated same-day voter registration and out-of-precinct voting--all of which are forms of marginalization and voter suppression.

Farr advised the legislature on the bill and then became lead counsel in a three-year battle to defend it.

Federal courts ruled the law unconstitutional and an attempt to disenfranchise African-American voters ``with almost surgical precision.''

Farr began his notorious in voter suppression and race-baiting career as a campaign aide to Senator Jesse Helms, who entered public life in campaigns that urged ``White People Wake Up'' and smeared the University of North Carolina as ``the University of Negroes and Communists.''

Helms was infamous for his diatribes against ``Negro hoodlums'' and ``forced integration,'' and for touting the ``purely scientific statistical evidence of natural racial distinction in group intellect.''

Helms became the state's most vociferous opponent of the civil rights movement, which, as late as 2005, Helms railed had ``ripped away at the customs and institutions people cared about.''

During Farr's time on the campaign, the Helms Campaign Committee sent more than 105,000 post cards to African Americans falsely warning that they were ineligible to vote and could be arrested for voter fraud if they appeared at the polls.

Farr denied having any knowledge of this effort, but a former Department of Justice official said the Helms disciple ``absolutely'' was involved in this and earlier illegal voter suppression tricks that the campaign described as ``ballot security efforts.''

A 1992 consent decree prohibited the campaign from tactics ``to intimidate, threaten, coerce, deter, or otherwise interfere with a qualified voter's exercise of the franchise''--and Thomas Farr signed the decree.

More than 20 years later, during Farr's defense of the election law that the Fourth District Court ruled targeted African-American voters ``with almost surgical precision,'' the judge in Winston-Salem asked Farr, ``Why don't y'all want people to vote?''

A track record that continues to raise this question should prevent anyone from being appointed to the federal bench.

But the problem is compounded by the fact that Farr would preside over the Eastern District, which contains a majority of the state's counties with the highest percentages of African-American residents.

Despite being home to North Carolina's ``Black Belt,'' the Eastern District has never had an African-American judge in its nearly century and half of existence.

Senator Burr says Farr will ``serve North Carolina well,'' and Senator Tillis--a supporter of the massive voter suppression and racialized redistricting that allowed Republicans to take a super majority in the state legislature--calls the President's nominee ``impeccably qualified.''

In doing so while blocking the hearings of May-Parker and Timmons- Goodson, these Senators insist North Carolina be revealed as backward- looking and bitter during nationally televised Senate hearings for a morally stained and unrepentant figure like Thomas Farr.

Being a conservative is not the same thing as spending almost 40 years fighting to block full citizenship for all Americans.

This nomination is not just about what Thomas Farr stands for--it is about what America stands for.

Some nominations have been entirely inconsiderate of any standards of qualification that judicial nominees would otherwise be subject to.

Matthew Petersen, a Trump nominee to a lifetime appointment on the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia, withdrew from consideration for the seat in December 2017 days after a video clip showed him unable to answer basic questions about legal procedure.

Petersen, a graduate of the University of Virginia Law School, was a member of the Federal Election Commission since 2008 but had no trial experience.

His only connection to the Trump Administration was that his tenure on the FEC overlapped with that of White House counsel Don McGahn for about five years.

Petersen was one of three judicial nominees picked by President Trump to have withdrawn in that week amid criticism about their qualifications.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley told the White House to ``reconsider'' the nominations of the other two nominees, both of whom were reported to have endorsed positions or groups that embrace discrimination.

A day later, both nominations were pulled.

This gross disregard for competence is inconceivable in any profession, much less our government.

One of the two withdrawn for discrimination was Brett Talley.

Talley had been rated ``unanimously unqualified'' for the post by the American Bar Association after an evaluation that questioned his experience.

Talley had never argued a case, or even a motion, in federal court, he testified.

Mr. Talley nevertheless won preliminary approval from the Judiciary Committee's Republican majority to be a judge.

Even after Talley's nomination advanced through the Senate Judiciary Committee on an 11-9 party-line vote, media reports and good government groups cast doubt on his credentials for the spot on the U.S. District Court in Alabama.

As he was awaiting a Senate floor vote, it emerged that Mr. Talley had not disclosed that he was married to White House Counsel Don McGahn's chief of staff.

It was further publicized that he had failed to disclose that he had apparently written thousands of pseudonymous posts on a University of Alabama sports fan website, including one defending the early Ku Klux Klan.

Talley's withdrawal is celebrated as a case in which civic awareness and activism by various groups from media to good governance organizations pressured the government to do the right thing.

One such organization that is critical to safeguarding fairness of justice in our courtrooms is the American Bar Association, which gave Talley the ``unanimously unqualified'' rating.

Since 1953, this venerable legal organization has played a critical, behind-the-scenes role in assessing judicial nominees and their fitness to serve on the bench.

By the end of President Trump's first year, the ABA deemed at least four of Trump's judicial nominees ``not qualified.''

But with the ABA emerging as a major stumbling block in President Trump's effort to transform the courts, our colleagues in the GOP accused the nonpartisan group of holding a liberal slant and is seeking to sideline it.

Instead of being equally concerned of the quality of judicial nominees put forth by this Administration, our colleagues chose to ignore the ABA and discredit the century-old group.

ABA President Hilarie Bass said the group is a ``nonpartisan organization that has focused on legal issues and not politics'' and that it has vetted thousands of judicial nominees ``fairly and in a nonpartisan fashion'' under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

However, our colleagues are engaged in a desperate charge against factual truth itself.

``The ABA's record on judicial nominations has been highly questionable,'' said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, ``it has demonstrated over past decades repeatedly partisan interests and ideological interests.''

Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee and is a vocal GOP critic of Trump, added: ``Not a big fan of the ABA.''

``It's blatantly political,'' Flake said. ``Often. Not always.''

In a shift from the Obama Administration and a return to the policy of President George W. Bush, the administration decided earlier this year not to allow the ABA to review potential candidates before they were nominated.

Trump officials are abandoning the practice so Republicans can push through younger, conservative attorneys who may not have as much--if any--experience to a lifetime position on the bench.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in opposition of the Trump Administration's misguided and foolish judicial nominations.

I stand today as a woman, who fears for my fellow woman's right to choose.

I stand today as a granddaughter of immigrants, who recognizes the value of immigration to our, society and national identity.

I stand today as an African American, who celebrates the progress our community has made in expanding civil rights in our nation, but recognizes the struggle yet left ahead.

I stand today as a mother and grandmother, who is determined to hold our courts accountable to safeguarding our nation's civil liberties for generations to come.

I stand today as an American, because a judiciary that dispenses evenhanded justice is what defines who we are and what we stand for.

Mr. Speaker, fellow members of Congress, let us be unequivocally clear that it is our responsibility and our high call of service to our fellow citizens to defend the rule of law and preserve our courts as the bastion of justice in our nation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect corrective actions by this body and the other body, and so I rise today to reinforce the importance of the translators' notes as it relates to the meeting between the President of the United States and President Putin.

If there is anything more important for the American people, it is to know whether we are safe, whether our military is safe, and whether we are secure.

Secondarily, I am so disturbed that there is some thought of providing our public servants--Ambassador McFaul's name was mentioned as being an exchange target, if you will, for President Putin to play with.

I will be introducing legislation to protect all our ambassadors from foreign nations that may desire to undermine their leadership here in the United States.

Also, I am intending to announce next week my introduction of a temporary protective status to help those Central Americans and others who this administration has precipitously taken away their TPS and jeopardized them in 2018.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must reunite the children, and we must do it now.

Mr. Speaker, viewing Monday's display in Helsinki as a devastating manner is not exaggeration. It is not hyperbole. It is not exaggerating.

Frankly, I think it is important for the Congress to adhere to its responsibilities in Article I, which indicates that all legislative powers herein are vested in this Congress.

We must do our job on behalf of the American people.

So let me read: ``President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you, sir, is: Who do you believe?''

This is a reporter from the AP.

``My second question is: Would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin--would you denounce what happened in 2016, and would you warn him to never do it again?''

The answer of the President of the United States: ``So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee? I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months, and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server, and what is the server saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.

``My people came to me. Dan Coats came to me, and some others, and they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be.

``But I really do want to see the server. But I have confidence in both parties. I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server.''

He goes on to say:

So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I

will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and

powerful in his denial today.

And what he did is an incredible offer.

He offered to have his people working with our people.

Thank you.

In response, Senator John McCain, a POW, said these words: ``Today's press conferences in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American President in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump's naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.''

``President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seem to be speaking from the same script, as the President made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.''

Let me remind you that the question of the reporter was: My first question to you, sir, is, who do you believe, Mr. President? My second question is: Would you now, with the world watching, tell President Putin would you denounce what happened in 2016?

It is clear that the Russians invaded and altered the election of 2016. It has been stated by our intelligence community, Director Coats, that at least they invaded and impacted and that they are doing it now.

It is time for the Congress to ask or subpoena the translator's notes. It is time for us to have a detailed relaying to the Congress, in a classified manner, what were the contents, what were the discussions, what were the agenda items, what was said in the meeting singularly by our President and President Putin. Then we must pass legislation for extreme sanctions on anyone

that even thinks of interfering with the elections of 2018 and those who interfered with 2016.

Finally, I believe it is important for a full-throated apology of the White House to the intelligence community and the American people. I remind you that I do not stand here singularly by myself. I stand here standing on a constitutional democracy which is the United States of America.

Article I powers of this Congress is that we must act. We cannot correct it with a typographical correction--wouldn't over would. The reporter directly asked: Who do you believe? It was never answered that it was the American people in the intelligence community, Mr. Speaker. It was indicated that Mr. Putin gave a strong response of denial, and it was implied in that, that I believe Mr. Putin, and I am not going to answer the question to say that I believe my intelligence community. Therefore, I would indicate it is time for the Congress to act.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to eliminate the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership, or

programs, that are for the reforestation of urban areas. In fact, I celebrate and support the increase in funding. This amendment is particularly helpful, I hope, to create the legislative history of the importance of the urban reforestation program.

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member as well as the chairman of this committee for recognizing the importance of urban reforestation.

This amendment emphasizes the importance of the Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership in urban forests and preserves our ability to return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children. I have offered similar amendments because I want an ongoing creation of legislative history to ensure that this program is kept.

In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all of our urban trees, a loss of over 600 million trees. Eighty percent of the American population lives in dense quarters of the city. Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to concrete areas that can help remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars in stormwater management costs.

I have certainly seen the devastation of droughts right in large cities. In particular, Houston, a couple years ago, lost many, many trees in a severe drought that we experienced over the summer. It took many community investors--when I say that, nonprofits--and Federal dollars to restore green life to Houston.

We know that asthma is on the rise. In people below the Federal poverty threshold, we see asthma increasing. Asthma comes when children have to be subjected to polluted air.

Some of the reasons individuals at lower income may have increased risk of asthma are increased exposure to indoor and outdoor pollutants, cigarette smoking, secondhand smoke exposure, and nearby industrial pollutants and highway traffic.

The good news is that trees provide the source of oxygen that is so necessary, and it comes about through a scientific process that I will discuss a little bit later.

We have a headline here from Science Daily that says: ``Cities and Communities in the U.S. Losing 36 Million Trees a Year.''

And then another headline: ``Researchers Suggest Reforestation Around Urban Areas to Reduce Ozone Levels,'' which enhances, creates, makes worse the asthma that many of our children suffer from.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to Division A of H.R. 6147, the Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and to commend Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their leadership in shepherding this bill through the legislative process.

Among other agencies, this legislation funds the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution, which operates our national museums including the National Zoo.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important message from the Congress of the United States.

The Jackson Lee Amendment emphasizes the importance of Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships and urban forests, and preserves our ability to return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children.

Similar amendments were offered and accepted in the Interior and Environment Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Year 2018 (H.R. 3354), Fiscal Year 2017 (H.R. 5538), Fiscal Year 2016 (H.R. 2822), Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 2643), and Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5386), and were adopted by voice vote.

Mr. Chair, surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious danger.

In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our urban trees--a loss of over 600 million trees.

Eighty percent of the American population lives in the dense quarters of a city.

Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete area that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars in storm water management costs.

I have certainly seen neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban reforestation.

In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real estate.

Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban sprawl and deterioration.

Mr. Chair, a real commitment to enhancing our environment involves both the protection of existing natural resources and active support for restoration and improvement projects.

Several years ago, American Forests, a leading conservation group, estimated that the tree cover lost in the greater Washington metropolitan area from 1973 to 1997 resulted in an additional 540 million cubic feet of storm water runoff annually, which would have taken more than $1 billion in storm water control facilities to manage.

Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen.

People breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.

A typical person consumes about 38 pounds of oxygen per year.

A healthy tree, say a 32 ft tall ash tree, can produce about 260 lb of oxygen annually--two trees supply the oxygen needs of a person for a year.

Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and pollen with their leaves.

A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 pounds of the small particles and gases of air pollution.

Trees help combat the effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels that is causing our atmosphere to ``heat up.''

Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt, concrete and metal surfaces.

Buildings and paving in city centers create a heat-island effect.

A mature tree canopy reduces air temperatures by about 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit.

A 25 foot tree reduces annual heating and cooling costs of a typical residence by 8 to 12 percent, producing an average annual savings of $120 per American household.

Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds, and reduce annual energy use for home heating by 4-22 percent.

Mr. Chair, trees play a vital role in making our cities more sustainable and more livable.

The Jackson Lee Amendment simply provides for continued support to programs like Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships that reforest our urban areas.

For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee Amendment and thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together this legislation.

[From Science Daily, Apr. 18, 2018]

Cities and Communities in the US Losing 36 Million Trees a Year

Source: USDA Forest Service--Northern Research Station

Summary: Nationally, urban/community tree cover declined

from 42.9 percent to 42.2 percent between 2009-2014. This

translates to losing an estimated 36 million trees or

approximately 175,000 acres of tree cover annually.

Scientists with the USDA Forest Service estimate that

between 2009 and 2014, tree cover in the Nation's urban/

community areas declined by 0.7 percent, which translates to

losing an estimated 36 million trees or approximately 175,000

acres of tree cover annually. Pavement and other impervious

cover increased at a rate of about 167,000 acres a year

during the same period, according to research by USDA Forest

Service scientists.

Nationally, urban/community tree cover declined from 42.9

percent to 42.2 percent. Twenty-three states had a

statistically significant decrease in tree cover, with a

total of 45 states showing a net decline. Trees improve air

and water quality, reduce summer energy costs by cooling

homes, reduce noise, mitigate runoff and flooding, and

enhance human health and well-being, making them important to

human health and urban and community infrastructure. The

annual benefits derived from U.S. urban forests due to air

pollution removal, carbon sequestration, and lowered building

energy use and consequent altered power plant emissions are

estimated at $18 billion.

The study by Dave Nowak and Eric Greenfield of the USDA

Forest Service's Northern Research Station, ``Declining urban

and community tree cover in the United States,'' was

published in the journal Urban Forestry and Urban Greening.

A table showing tree cover and impervious cover change by

state is available at: https://www.nrs.fsis.fed.us/news/ release/resources/cities-communities-losing-tree-cover/ ``Urban forests are a vital part of the nation's

landscape,'' said Tony Ferguson, Director of the Forest

Service's Northern Research Station and the Forest Products

Laboratory. ``Forest Service research puts knowledge and

tools into the hands of urban forest managers that supports

stewardship and the wise allocation of resources.''

States or districts with the greatest annual net percent

loss in urban/community tree cover were Rhode Island and the

District of Columbia (minus 0.44 percent), Georgia (minus

0.40 percent), and Alabama and Nebraska (minus 0.32 percent

each). States with the greatest annual net loss in tree cover

were Georgia (minus 18,830 acre/year), Florida (minus 18,060

acre/year) and Alabama (minus 12,890 acre/year).

Three states--Mississippi, Montana and New Mexico--had

slight, nonsignificant increases in urban/community tree

cover. Nationally, Maine has the highest percent tree cover

in urban/community areas with 68 percent tree cover. At 10

percent tree cover, North Dakota ranked as having the lowest

percent urban/community tree cover.

``Urban forests are an important resource,'' said Nowak.

``Urban foresters, planners and decision-makers need to

understand trends in urban forests so they can develop and

maintain sufficient levels of tree cover--and the

accompanying forest benefits--for current and future

generations of citizens.''

As of 2010, urban land occupied 3 percent, or 68 million

acres, of the United States, while urban/community land

occupied just over 6 percent of the United States, or 141

million acres.

Overall, urban/community impervious cover had a

statistically significant increase from 14.5 percent to 15.1

percent (an increase of o.6 percent), States with the

greatest annual net percent increase in impervious cover were

Delaware (0.28 percent), Iowa (0.26 percent), and Colorado,

Kansas and Ohio (0.24 percent each). States with the greatest

annual net increase in impervious cover were Texas (17,590

acre/year), Florida (13,900 acre/year) and Ohio (8,670 acre/

year).

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from California.

As I indicated, I think that creating the additional legislative history of the importance of this particular program is what I hope will strengthen it.

May I ask, Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member, to discuss the urban reforestation program, and I thank her for her leadership.

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

Mr. Chair, let me conclude my remarks by saying I have certainly seen neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban reforestation. In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and psychological, as well as increased property values of surrounding real estate. But when you have had a drought, you know how important this program is. Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban sprawl and deterioration.

Finally, let me say, photosynthesis, how many of us remember that in our classrooms? I love that process. That happens in plants, generally involves the green pigment chlorophyll, and generates oxygen as a byproduct, cleaning the air. That is what these programs do in urban America.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the chairman of this committee for considering my amendment.

My amendment is prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to limit museum outreach programs administered by the Smithsonian Institution. Again, for programs like this, this is to advocate and create the legislative history of the importance of these programs, and I am glad to have this amendment presented to the Congress at this time.

Mr. Chair, in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission--the increase and diffusion of knowledge--the Smithsonian seeks to serve an even greater audience, and this has come about over the years by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities who otherwise would be deprived of the vast amount of cultural history offered by the Smithsonian.

The Smithsonian's outreach program serves millions of Americans, thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 States through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions,

and sharing of educational resources via publications, lectures, presentations, training programs, and websites.

Let me say from personal experience, one of my predecessors, the Honorable Mickey Leland, that many people know died in an airplane going into an Ethiopian mountain trying to bring food to starving people in Eritrea and Ethiopia, had introduced the first bill for a museum dealing with slave history. He did not live to see that legislation go forward, but later, John Lewis introduced the legislation to create the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture.

We have it today, and it is a museum that has seen more people attend it, and the outreach is crucial: the board members, who are so proud to be a part of it, and the Congressional Black Caucus, that was the anchor of passing this legislation. Now we have an outstanding exhibit on Oprah Winfrey, and all are there to see this historic figure and many others.

It is important that the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum and many others have the opportunity to reach out to Americans and let them know of these very special resources, these assets that are here.

So this is a very important emphasis to have, and I would like to make sure that we continue to do it robustly so that more Americans can know their history.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of my amendment to Division A of H.R. 6147, the ``Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019.''

Let me also thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their leadership in shepherding this bill to the floor.

Among other agencies, this legislation funds the Smithsonian Institution, which operates our national museums, including the Air and Space Museum; the Museum of African Art; the Museum of the American Indian; and the National Portrait Gallery.

The Smithsonian also operates another national treasure: the National Zoo.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important message from the Congress of the United States.

The Jackson Lee amendment simply provides that:

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member, and thank her again for her leadership.

Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentlewoman for really letting us know what a joy the Smithsonian is, even in front of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I want to emphasize that the Smithsonian outreach programs increase connections between the Institution and targeted audiences: African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and new Americans, and provide kindergarten through college age music education and outreach opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, I failed to say that when we were putting this together, once the African American museum was established, the museum personnel leadership, Dr. Lonnie Bunch, went on the road across America collecting artifacts from African Americans and historic families to put in this museum, real items of slave history and the history from through the years, through the centuries, and it made the museum a living example of the history of our time here in the United States.

That has been done by the Smithsonian in many different groups. And so I would offer this article that says: ``New National Data Reveals the Economic Impact of Museums Is More Than Double Previous Estimates.''

The American Alliance of Museums released two

groundbreaking reports revealing indisputable evidence that

museums contribute more to the United States economy than

previously thought and have widespread support.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I would like to include in the Record this American Alliance of Museums report dated February 13, 2018.

[From the American Alliance of Museums, Feb. 13, 2018]

New National Data Reveals the Economic Impact of Museums Is More Than

Double Previous Estimates

(By Laura Lott)

Arlington, VA.--The American Alliance of Museums (AAM), the

only organization representing the entire scope of the museum

community, today released two groundbreaking reports

revealing indisputable evidence that museums contribute more

to the United States economy than previously thought and have

widespread public support that transcends political

affiliations and geographic locations.

Armed with the two new reports and a wealth of data, on

February 27 hundreds of museum professionals will visit with

members of Congress and their staff to ask them to support

funding for vital federal agencies and tax incentives for

charitable donations. The Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal

announced by President Trump yesterday calls for the

elimination of multiple agencies that support the arts and

humanities.

``Never before in the 112-year history of the Alliance have

we possessed such comprehensive and statistically robust

studies to support what we've always known,'' said Alliance

President and CEO Laura Lott. ``Our legislators,

policymakers, funders, and trustees can be confident in the

fact that museums are important economic engines that support

jobs and bring revenue to their local communities. In

addition, our studies show that the American public is

overwhelmingly supportive of museums in general, and

specifically supports maintaining or increasing their federal

funding.''

Two Reports Reinforce the Value of Museums

The first study, Museums as Economic Engines, reveals that

museums support 726,000 jobs in the United States, and

directly employ 372,100 people, more than double that of the

professional sports industry, according to the Bureau of

Labor Statistics. The study, conducted by Oxford Economics

with the support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, shows

that for every $100 of economic activity created by museums,

an additional $220 is created in other sectors of the US

economy as a result of supply chain and employee expenditure

impacts. These impacts mean that museums contribute

approximately $50 billion to the US economy each year, a

number that's more than twice previous estimates.

The report is also the first to show that US museums

generate more than $12 billion per year in tax revenue to

federal, state, and local governments. The museum field's

largest economic impact is on the leisure and hospitality

industry (approximately $17 billion), but it also generates

approximately $12 billion in the financial activities sector

and approximately $3 billion each in the education/health

services and manufacturing sectors.

Museums provide important economic impacts to every part of

the nation. The top 10 states driving this impact are

geographically diverse and account for 57 percent of the

gross value added to the national economy. States with the

highest economic impact from the museum sector included

California ($6.6 billion), New York ($5.4 billion), and Texas

($3.9 billion). However, those that rely most heavily on

museums due to their relatively higher concentration include

the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Alaska.

The second report, Museums & Public Opinion, examines the

opinions of Americans concerning museums, their educational

and economic value, as well as their thoughts about federal

funding and support for museums in their community. Conducted

jointly by AAM and Wilkening Consulting, the study was

fielded by the market research experts at Ipsos and polled

more than 2,000 Americans. The survey results overwhelmingly

demonstrate the high degree to which Americans believe in and

support their museums, regardless of political affiliation,

geographic location, and whether they visit museums or not:

97 percent believe that museums provide valuable

educational experiences to their communities

89 percent recognize the important economic contributions

and jobs that museums bring

96 percent would approve of elected officials who act to

support museums including acting to maintain or increase

federal funding.

``The data speaks clearly: whether urban or rural,

conservative or liberal, or a museum-goer or not, Americans

treasure the museums in their communities and want elected

officials to support them,'' Lott said.

Findings from the two reports will be discussed by leaders

from the Alliance and its research partners February 26 at

Museums Advocacy Day in Washington, DC and May 7 at the

Alliance's Annual Meeting & Museum Expo in Phoenix.

Congressional Honorees

During Museums Advocacy Day, the Alliance will present

awards to legislators who have demonstrated exemplary support

for the nation's museums:

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) used her position on the

Senate Appropriations Committee to advocate for funding for

key federal agencies. She is also an original cosponsor of

legislation that would reauthorize the Institute of Museum

and Library Services.

Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) is a co-founder of

the Congressional STEAM Caucus, and a leader in seeking

funding that will help school districts provide a well-

rounded education.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman very much and I am glad that she emphasized the work that the Environmental Justice grants have done in Puerto Rico, and the fact that they are citizens of the United States.

But I have seen what the Environmental Justice grants have done because they are small. As Mr. Calvert indicated, the administration recommended $2 million. These grants are small, and they help communities clean up. They help communities deal with violators of environmental rules, both in the State and Federal, mostly State, and gives them the ability to clean and deal with neighborhood issues. That is how small these grants are.

It also has provided assistance to Environmental Justice clinics that can work with community organizations on how to petition for something that is both an eyesore and environmental damage, to rid it of it, or to get the entity, the corporation, the small business, whatever it is, to clean it up. It makes it better for all concerned.

Mr. Chair, I would just ask and recognize that this is part of civic participation, and these grants should be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, last school year was a deadly year for so many of our children going to school in America. School shootings shocked the very core of Americans and communities across the country.

As we approach the beginning of school, this Congress has passed no gun safety legislation, no universal background check, no banning of assault weapons, no holding parents responsible for children getting guns.

Although I understand that there are many discussions about school security, the proliferation of guns is one of the issues that contributes to the dangers that our children face.

We know that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but there is nothing in the Second Amendment that does not allow us to have sensible gun safety legislation.

It is time for us to recognize that a Nation that has more guns than citizens can stand down in order to provide a safe educational climate for our children.

Are they not our most precious resource? It is time to act now.

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in history that require the deliberate and thoughtful response of the most powerful body in the world, the United States Congress, this House and the other House.

While Americans are preparing for recreation and fellowship with family members during this period of summer, when schoolchildren are out, as others are dealing with the excruciating heat, others dealing with the impact of climate change, gun violence, the need for putting back in the terrible cuts of the Republican budget on Medicare and Medicaid, and a number of other issues dealing with their communities and neighborhoods, and, I would say, frankly, keeping their children safe and recognizing the values of this Nation that include not snatching children away from family members, I get that and I understand the responsibility of this Congress to pass laws, to work together to ensure that the beauty of what America stands for, her values and her opportunities for so many others, is heard.

But I also think it is important because, as I have traveled in the last 24 hours, I saw Americans concerned about their Nation and wanting to be able to understand what transpired in Helsinki yesterday, Monday, July 16. As many have said, Republicans and Democrats, it was a disgraceful display of unpatriotic behavior. The tragedy of it is that it came from the Commander in Chief of this Nation.

As I read the Constitution, it says that executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States, and he shall hold his office for a period of time. His powers under section 2 include that the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of several States, when called into actual service. And, as well, it indicates that he shall appoint ambassadors.

That is translated into the President's responsibilities over the intelligence communities and many aspects of our defense. Also, the power of the President articulates the foreign policy of this Nation.

Yesterday, the display that was shown was that the foreign policy, and the patriotism, and the stature, and the leadership, and the Constitution of the United States became a footstool to a despot by the name of President Putin.

No one is against engagement, diplomacy, or resolving conflict, but President Putin stands very proudly as ex-KGB to have poisoned his own citizens, to have shot journalists, to have shot down an airplane over Ukraine with 300 innocent family members, children, and others, and, as well, has taken over a land of another country.

So here we stand with this picture to the world. As well, when posed a question of, who do you believe, the Commander in Chief, to the absolute dismay of those of us who have lived through 9/11 here in Congress, and who saw the loss of life in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, were amazed that the sacred aspect of our work, and that is voting, was determined by the intelligence community of this Nation, that Russia invaded in our 2016 election and literally stole the election, and will continue to do so today, as emphasized by the Director of National Intelligence, Director Coats, and the intelligence community.

A report given by the Mueller investigation indicted 12 intelligence agents of Russia--not of any other country, not civilians, but intelligence agents, military--who had direct orders from President Putin. You would think that the President of the United States would forcefully say to the President: Stop it and stop it now.

That is a patriot. That is one who has the powers of the Presidency under Article II, section 2.

Yet this is what came about. President Trump was asked by a reporter: ``You first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016.''

It is amazing how my time goes because I am talking about the President. But, in any event, let me conclude by saying that this document reports that the President said that he stands with Putin over the United States of America. Congress must demand the transcripts. We must have congressional hearings, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious matter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4989, Protecting Diplomats from Surveillance Through Consumer Devices Act.

H.R. 4989 directs the Department of State to: (1) establish a policy on the use of location-tracking consumer devices, including GPS-enabled devices, at U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities by U.S. government employees, contractors, locally employed staff, and members of other agencies deployed to or stationed at such facilities; and (2) submit a related report to Congress.

This bill states that existing and new employees at such facilities shall, as a part of their security briefings, be informed of such policy and given instructions on the use of location-tracking consumer devices on and off facility premises.

The State Department may coordinate policy formulation with other agencies whose employees are deployed to or stationed at U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities.

The public release earlier this year of GPS tracking data from the American fitness company Strava revealed highly sensitive information on U.S. activities abroad, such as military base locations, jogging paths of personnel located at these bases and, in many cases, also identified paths with individual accounts.

This data was collected from wearable electronic devices such as Fitbits and other technologies and presents a glaring security vulnerability that our adversaries may exploit to undermine our interests, thereby putting our personnel serving abroad at extreme risk.

While the issue has most seriously affected U.S. military installations, in lieu of a policy on the use of these devices, State Department personnel remain at risk as well.

As such, H.R. 4989 requires the Department of State to establish and disseminate a policy on the use of location-tracking consumer devices by diplomats and other employees at U.S. embassies and consular facilities outside the United States.

This is a commonsense step to ensure we are doing all we can to protect our diplomatic personnel serving our nation abroad.

Our enemies and adversaries work around the clock to undermine our interests.

We should not make it any easier for them.

I thank my colleague and good friend, Congressman Joaquin Castro, for introducing this important legislation.

By passing H.R. 4989, we can help ensure the safety of our nation's dutiful diplomats.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 4989.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman and ranking member, Mr. Calvert and Ms. McCollum, for their leadership on these issues of preservation.

The Jackson Lee amendment increases grant funding by $500,000 so that organizations interested in historical preservation, especially in underrepresented communities, have the ability to study, survey, and nominate properties to the National Register of Historic Places.

Due to lack of resources, certain communities are underrepresented in this process, so this amendment ensures that they have a greater opportunity.

The Jackson Lee amendment ensures that sites important to our American history are no longer overlooked due to mere lack of resources. It accomplishes this goal by promoting research that uncovers information to assist in telling the full American story.

Historical places create connections to our heritage that help understand our past, appreciate our triumphs, and learn from our mistakes. And they cover all of the cultural backgrounds, from African Americans, to Anglos, to Hispanics, and to Asians, all in this wonderful, diverse country who have had a story to tell, as well as Native Americans and many others.

Such stories might otherwise be lost because urban renewal and out- migration of Blacks destroyed or led to the abandonment of many African American communities. Preservation helps recognize, save, revitalize, and protect Americans' historic places, build communities, and foster education and pride.

I am reminded of Freedmen's Town in my home city and Emancipation Park, which was the first park bought in the entire State of Texas by freed slaves.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 8 to Division A of H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019.

This Jackson Lee Amendment increases grant funding by $500 thousand so that organizations interested in historical preservation, especially in underrepresented communities, have the ability to study, survey, and nominate properties to the National Register of Historic Places.

Due to lack of resources, certain communities are underrepresented in this process so this amendment ensures that is no longer the case.

This Jackson Lee Amendment ensures that sites important to our American history are no longer overlooked due to mere lack of resources, it accomplishes this goal by promoting research that uncovers information to assist in telling the full American story.

Historical places create connections to our heritage that help us understand our past, appreciate our triumphs, and learn from our mistakes.

Madam Chair, by understanding and designating landmarks we stimulate local revitalization and foster interest in places that otherwise may go unnoticed, despite cultural and historic significance.

By preserving historic sites that tell the story of Americans in this country, we draw attention to the contributions of both ordinary and extraordinary people.

Such stories might otherwise be lost because urban renewal and the out-migration of blacks destroyed or led to the abandonment of many African American communities.

Preservation helps to recognize, save, revitalize and protect America's historic places, build communities, and foster education and pride.

The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) provides matching grants to State and Tribal historic preservation offices.

These HPF grants are used to pay for research and surveys of historic sites, training for staff, and the work involved in nominating these sites to the National Register of Historic Places.

In short, it makes preservation possible to communities that otherwise would not have the means to engage in the nominating process.

The Jackson Lee amendment is essential because it provides funds to preserve sites that are directly connected to the Civil Rights Movement.

For example, earlier this year I introduced H.R. 4745, the Emancipation National Historic Trail Act that seeks a federal designation of the Emancipation National Historic Trail.

The Emancipation National Historic Trail extends approximately 51 miles and marks the migration of newly freed slaves, who, upon learning of the Emancipation Proclamation two years after the President had signed it into law, departed from what is now the Osterman Building and Reedy Chapel in Galveston, and charted a course along Texas State Highway 3 and Interstate Highway 45 North to Freedmen's Town and Emancipation Park in Houston.

Increasing grant funding for this program would make projects like the Emancipation Trail possible.

Madam Chair, it is imperative that we preserve and codify the historical record and memorialize significant events of our past.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for Jackson Lee Amendment No. 8 to Division A of H.R. 6147 as it is vital that we support the preservation of important sites.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for that, and I want to give an example that earlier this year I introduced H.R. 4745, the Emancipation National Historic Trail Act, that seeks Federal designation of the Emancipation National Historic Trail, that it would extend 51 miles and mark the migration of newly freed slaves. But, more importantly, it takes us from Captain Granger in Galveston, who brought the slaves in Texas who were freed in 1865, 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and it tracks the historic markers all the way to Freedmen's Town and Emancipation Park.

This is an opportunity not only for the communities to be joined together but, again, to reemphasize history that is intertwined. A study shows the connection between culture, heritage, and tourism, and that 37 percent of global tourism has a cultural motivation, and 57 percent of travelers are strongly influenced by history and culture in their choice of holiday destination. This will help underserved communities.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of this committee for their commitment to historic preservation.

Since 1837, Historically Black Colleges and Universities have served the needs of higher education for the African American community. The first HBCUs were established in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee.

After the Civil War, there was an influx of HBCU establishments throughout the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Jackson Lee amendment provides an additional $1 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, and within that fund to be allocated to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, institutions that are uniquely American, fundamentally historical, and distinctly beneficial to the American culture and history.

In my State of Texas, it joins with any number of States throughout the United States in the North, the South, the East, and the West. Interestingly, these schools are not relegated to the South. They are actually all over the United States, and they are older structures. For those of us who visited these schools, we recognize the importance of continuing to preserve their historic structure.

I mentioned earlier that there are great results in funding and profits for those who can provide historic opportunities for travelers to visit.

In 2017, Congress appropriated $4 million for the Historic Preservation Fund to rehabilitate historic structures on campuses of HBCUs that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places either individually or as contributing to the National Register of Historic Places. I can assure you that these are great assets to America. The projects must meet major program selection criteria, and all work must meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines for archeology and historic preservation.

Simply, what we are doing is allowing our history to be preserved. The network of more than 100 historic institutions, established as early as 1837 for former slaves and by former slaves and freedmen, contain repositories of important books, papers, and memorabilia of Black history.

Black history, as other history, is American history, and the opportunity to preserve it and to continue to expand the opportunity to improve buildings that will now educate this generation of students is an important role for us to play.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 10 to Division A of H.R. 6147, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Financial Services Appropriations Act of 2019.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 10 provides an additional $1,000,000 for the Historic Preservation Fund to be allocated to Historically Black Colleges and Universities--institutions that are uniquely American, fundamentally historical, and distinctly beneficial to American culture and history.

Since 1837, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have served the needs of higher education for the African American community.

The first HBCUs were established in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee.

After the Civil War there was an influx of HBCU establishment throughout the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest.

Since the 1990s, the National Park Service has awarded over $60 million in grants to over 80 of the remaining active HBCUs.

These grants work to preserve the historic structures on HBCU campuses, many of which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

In 2017, Congress appropriated $4 million from the Historic Preservation Fund to rehabilitate historic structures on campuses of HBCUs that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places either individually or as contributing to a National Register historic district.

Projects must meet major program selection criteria and all work must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.

HBCUs represent a significant place in American history.

This network of more than 100 historic institutions established as early as 1837 for former slaves and freedmen contain repositories of important books, papers and memorabilia of Black history.

In addition, HBCUs served as meeting places during the civil rights struggles of the 1900s.

Against substantial odds, HBCUs have played a unique role in transforming the landscape of higher education in the United States, and continue to prepare the African American professional and civic leaders needed by communities, employers and the nation.

In 2013, HBCUs comprised 3 percent of all four- and two-year colleges and universities, but enrolled 10 percent of African American

undergraduates, produced 18 percent of the nation's African American college graduates, and generated 25 percent of African Americans with bachelor degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Created to educate black students at a time when society had yet to integrate, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU's) have had an outsize impact on the success of the black community and therefore the American community as a whole.

HBCUs do not only educate--HBCUs have and will continue to fill an important role in education opportunity and engagement for millions of young people from diverse backgrounds.

Ensuring HBCUs receive the funds necessary to succeed enriches our culture as a nation and promotes a more complete history of our country to be preserved.

Emphasizing the importance of diversity is the best way to tell the complete story of the American experience, and when the American story is told by all of those who helped shape its success as a nation, we perpetuate American exceptionalism.

Madam Chair, our HBCUs are not just academic institutions, rather, incubators that stimulate black excellence that, more importantly, preserve the rich and true history of those of African descent--again, contributing to the fabric of American culture as a whole.

Texas Southern University, an outstanding HBCU, is a major contribution and asset to the 18th District, serving as a distinct example of the benefits that these institutions offer to the community.

HBCUs not only enjoy historical campuses, but they are also repositories of expertise on American History.

In a 1998 study, more than 100 HBCUs identified 712 historic properties that were owned by the schools in responses to a survey from the U.S. Government Office of Accountability.

Nearly half of those buildings, 323, are on the National Register of Historic Places indicating significance in American history, and the others were eligible for the national register based on surveys by state historic preservation officers or considered historic by the colleges and universities.

According to the surveys at that time, 103 HBCUs estimated $755 million in costs to restore and preserve the properties, such as improving accessibility to people with disabilities, roof replacement and removing lead-based paint or asbestos, both known for containing cancer-causing material.

Routine maintenance costs were not part of the estimates.

We, as a nation, have a responsibility to foster education, culture, knowledge, diversity and leadership; and with that, Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to ensure that HBCUs continue to serve as repositories of American History and thrive as academic institutions and continue to benefit society as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for Jackson Lee Amendment No. 10.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Calvert, and, again, I thank the ranking member who has been so gracious.

I believe Texas Southern University--not as old as 1837--Prairie View A&M, and others throughout the Nation will benefit from preserving these historic buildings, and, as well, providing them as a source of learning for everyone around the Nation.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congressional Black Caucus and Congresswoman Yvette Clarke for anchoring this important Special Order.

On the 150th Anniversary of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, a landmark moment for progress and equality, the President announced his nominee to fill a seat on the highest court in the land.

Unfortunately, however, the search for the next jurist to take a seat on the United States Supreme Court resembled a circus and I am concerned that the person selected, Brett Kavanaugh, will be antagonistic and hostile to the progress that the 14th Amendment has helped achieve.

As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I am appalled by the manner in which the President is pursuing this solemn obligation and concerned by the choice this process may yield.

The President has used the levers of his office to divide, rather than unite.

The Supreme Court is not just any court.

In our great Republic, it is the tribunal of last resort and routinely resolves constitutional questions of first impression.

The American people rely on it to interpret some of society's most difficult policy concerns, and to correct the excesses of the popularly-elected branches.

The nature of the Court requires justices, not ideologues, and individuals who have integrity and empathy.

This is why this task requires seriousness and solemnity, and not spectacle.

Instead, this process resembled a circus: contenders were selected based on their ability to pass a litmus test of a narrow perspective of conservativism which limits justice; a group of judges, similar in background, training and experience, curated by the hyper-conservative Federalist Society; and, a heavily-promoted, prime time television announcement, replete with different frontrunner candidates on different days.

Given this reality, Americans are rightly concerned that the President's jurist selection to one of this country's three coequal branches of government is being outsourced to the whims of a narrow ideological and partisan organization when, in actuality, a seat on the Supreme Court should be reserved for only the most profound jurists in the nation.

By great numbers, the American people support reform in any number of areas.

In a time of mass incarceration and overcrowded prisons, a poll conducted earlier this year by a Republican-leaning organization indicates that over three-quarters of the American people support significant criminal justice reform.

Americans are also skeptical of comments made by this President, advocating for the deprivation of due process rights for a variety of individuals, from refugees seeking safety within our borders, to those already here, charged with crimes.

Indeed, a poll commissioned by the Bucknell Institute for Public Policy within the last year reveals broad and deep support for due process rights.

In a time when our political parties appear polarized, 67 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Independents support due process for individuals who face serious criminal charges.

Last, the Supreme Court is also the tribunal that resolves major questions about the form and contours of our federal government, including sensitive questions like ``can a sitting president pardon himself?'' or ``can a sitting president be indicted?''

In fact, for over the past year of this President's administration, the country has been forced to consider these questions as it learned that the Russians interfered with the 2016 presidentia election and associates of the president may have abetted that endeavor.

Recent polls indicate that, by clear margins, the American people do not believe the President is above the law or that a president can pardon himself.

It is vital that this extremely influential position is filled by someone who subscribes to these core principles.

Brett Kavanaugh, however, has demonstrated a long-standing record of troubling opinions, including the beliefs that: the president is above the law and should never be criminally indicted; the Affordable Care Act should be dismantled; religious expression trumps individuals' right to health coverage for birth control; access to abortion should be diminished; and Obama-era environmental regulations should be rolled back.

The Supreme Court is also required to examine contemporary policies through the prism of our nation's long history.

In that regard, the ongoing struggle for civil rights cannot be subjugated as a priority of a nation seeking to bind the wounds of the slavery, the Civil War and its vestiges.

The next jurist will replace a Supreme Court justice who recognized the importance of affirmative action as a necessary means to help heal the scars of segregation and Jim Crow.

The next jurist will likely be required to further calibrate the balance of power between labor unions and their employing entities.

Given the importance of these and other issues, like voting rights, reproductive rights, the rights of the LGBTQ community, and countless others, scholars of the Supreme Court and others who believe the Court is the arbiter of fair justice are looking to this nomination and are looking for a jurist who will dispense justice which is not one-sided or tilts to the right, but rather fair justice.

As I stated before the nomination, I call upon the United States Senate to reject any nominee that is a well-documented ideologue and to nonetheless probatively, seriously, and deeply question whether and how this jurist could damage rights of minorities, women, children, and society's most vulnerable.

When confronted with a replacement to the Supreme Court's swing vote, this President has chosen an ideologue and a foot soldier of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

Among other swing decisions, Justice Kennedy acted as the deciding vote in almost every reproductive health case since his confirmation, including casting the deciding vote to ensure abortion remained legal in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

The President has stated numerous times that he will appoint someone who will reverse Roe v. Wade, and many anti-choice groups have rallied behind Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.

In addition to women's rights and health care, other paramount issues are on the line, such as voting rights and affirmative action.

Bedrock civil rights principles such as Brown v. Board of Education could be at stake.

To be sure, Brett Kavanaugh has very good credentials but an undistinguished record as a jurist on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But it is not his credentials or his pedigree that is worrisome.

Rather, throughout his entire career--as a deputy in the right-wing crusade against President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, as a political operative fighting against the statewide recount in Florida in 2000, paving the way for the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, and as a conservative stalwart on the country's most important federal appellate court--Brett Kavanaugh has used his talents in the service of decidedly and uncompromisingly reactionary causes.

I urge the United States Senate to reject this nomination and send this President a message: select a nominee that will not politicize the Court and one who will protect the rights of minorities, women, children, and society's most vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, I come from the fourth largest city in the Nation, soon, I hope, to be the third. We take great pride in the number of consular offices that we have and the languages that we speak.

I particularly sought to engage in international affairs by participating with international organizations that engage the European Union as well as the OSCE.

There are individuals in Houston from France, from England, from Italy, from Bulgaria, and many places in and around Europe, Western and Eastern. So the behavior that I watched over the last couple of days with the assault on NATO by our Commander in Chief is, frankly, embarrassing.

America stands as a bastion of democracy and freedom, and the world looks to us. Insults are not becoming of the American people. Insults to heads of state are not becoming to the American people.

Frankly, I am against Brexit. I think it is the wrong thing to do. I think Europe should be a unified group of individuals supporting democracy and standing tall. But it is outrageous that our representative engaged in NATO, as well as interacting with our foreign leaders, would, one, have a dastardly and rude commentary in the Sun- Times insulting our news media, such as CNN. And then, frankly, going on to one of our worst adversaries, a person who has poisoned people on foreign land, who has jailed journalists, who has shot down airplanes, and now Vladimir Putin will be giving our President a performance review. That is not the American way. Shape up. Shape up, Mr. President.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak on House consideration of H.R. 6237, the ``Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019.''

I thank Chairman Nunes, Ranking Member Schiff for their work to bring this bill before the full House of consideration.

Our nation's national security professionals require our support in words as well as deeds in the form of legislation like the authorization measure we are debating and sufficient funding to carry out the work of protecting our great nation from our enemies.

I offered several Jackson Lee Amendments for consideration under this bill.

I thank the Rules Committee for making in order Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3, designated as No. 33 on the Rules Committee roster for consideration for this bill.

This Jackson Lee Amendment, amends the Sense of Congress already in the bill on the importance of re-review of security clearances held by individuals by adding consideration of whether the security clearance holder's association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate, threaten, or use force or violence, or any other illegal or unconstitutional means, in an effort to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state, on account of race, religion, national origin, disability, or other impermissible factors.

In addition to this amendment, I offered three other Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 6237:

The first Jackson Lee Amendment is designated as No. 32 on the Rules Committee roster, and would have amended the Sense of Congress already in the bill that addresses the importance of conducting background checks for retention of security clearances or the issuance of new clearances to also consider an applicant's membership in a hate group and their participation in activities espoused by hate groups that involve violence or incitement of violence which disrupts civic life.

The second Jackson Lee Amendment is designated as No. 34, on the Rules Committee rosters, and would have amended the Sense of Congress already in the bill on the

importance of review of a security clearance by adding that a security clearance should not be held by an individual who actively engages in violent acts in the United States or its territories that target persons based upon their race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity for the purpose of inflicting physical harm or emotional distress with the objective of normalizing anti-social behavior towards vulnerable groups.

The third Jackson Lee Amendment is designated as No. 38 on the Rules Committee rosters, and would have required that the Director of National Intelligence conduct an assessment and report to Congress on the reliance of intelligence activities on civilian contractors to support Government activities, including intelligence analysis.

Each of these Jackson Lee Amendments sought to strengthen and improve the process of security clearance awards and oversight of contractors engaged in national security work.

The rights and dignity of all Americans must be held dear and protected from assaults that challenge the very freedom we value most.

It is our diversity and our capacity for tolerance of others who are different that is the essence of American exceptionalism.

As a nation we have come through many struggles and challenges to reach a point where we accept the diversity of our nation as a strength and not a weakness.

A period in our history that challenges the very foundation of our nation was framed by a speech given by Abraham Lincoln on the occasion of his nomination to become the Senator from the State of Illinois.

He said: ``A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new--North as well as South.''

He was speaking of the pernicious national shame of slavery that led ultimately to the Civil War that cost more than 600,00 lives over the very question of human rights and human dignity for all persons.

Although the question of equality and justice for all has been asked and answered during pivotal moments in our nation's history today we are facing another challenge to our core beliefs.

I offered these Jackson Lee Amendments to establish that this Congress is not wavering in its commitment to protect the lives, liberties or freedom of Americans from those who seek to do them harm.

Specifically, four of the Jackson Lee Amendments were prompted by the actions of Mr. Miselis who has a security clearance and worked for Northrup Grumman, a major defense contractor, at the time he engaged in physical violence against persons protesting racism and white supremacy in Charlottesville, Virginia.

In May 2018, Northrup Grumman was informed of Mr. Miselis' membership in RAM and the violent assaults he initiated while he was in Charlottesville participating in activities in support of white supremacy, which were captured on video and in photos.

Mr. Miselis worked for a government contractor and held a security clearance authorizing him to work on projects that were of vital interest to our nation and its defense.

Northrup Grumman did not dismiss him until the story broke earlier this month with media reports on the violence Mr. Miselis engaged in at the white supremacists' rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The violence of RAM members has been a hallmark of the group and its members.

The Anti-Defamation League describes RAM as a white supremacist group whose members believe they are fighting against a ``modern world'' corrupted by the ``destructive cultural influences'' of liberals, Jews, Muslims and non-white immigrants.

They refer to themselves as the ``premier MMA (mixed martial arts) club of the Alt-Right.''

RAM is characterized as operating like a street-fighting club.

Members actively train to do physical battle with their ideological foes, and have been involved in violent clashes during political rallies and demonstrations.

RAM members consider themselves to be part of the ``Alt Right.''

RAM's membership has deep roots in California's racist skinhead movement, and includes individuals who have faced serious criminal charges, including assault, robbery and weapon offenses.

RAM consists of several dozen loosely affiliated neo-Nazis and racist skinheads who were formerly known as the DIY Division, but rebranded themselves as the Rise Above Movement in the spring of 2017.

The FBI has opened an informal investigation into this group because of the violence associated with its members.

The United States is a nation of laws, which gives us the freedom to agree and most importantly disagree with not only each other but with our government.

But the limitations to the right to disagree can be best described by the ancient wisdom: ``Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other person's nose begins.''

There is a limit to the expression of free speech and the freedom to assemble and that limit is violence.

I know that the work of our intelligence community is difficult and often goes without notice by the American public.

I firmly believe that the actions of those who hold security clearances as they go about their lives should reflect the higher goals and values of nation.

To engage in violent acts against persons engaged in constitutionally protected activity on account of race, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation, language of original, immigration status, or creed is an affront to the framers of the Constitution for this great nation.

The actions of Mr. Miselis put at risk not only his career, but also the reputation of people who hold national security clearances.

The awarding of security clearances to contractors must be better managed and the consequences for involvement in activities that would be cause for dismissal from the armed services or any federal agency should not go unnoticed.

I am committed to the task of building the capacity and resources of the intelligence community to ensure that our nation's national security and national defense are all that they need to be.

I ask that my colleagues support the Jackson Lee Amendment made in order for consideration of H.R. 6237, and support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member and the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor and working on some very important items, including diversity, outreach, HBCUs, issues of which I have worked on as well. So I thank them very much, because bringing the expertise of diversity to the national security and intelligence community can only make us stronger.

Mr. Chairman, I have just left the Judiciary Committee where we have been spending a period of time dealing with questions that wrap themselves around the intelligence community and the importance of preserving confidential sources and as well the importance of the intelligence community as it relates to the ongoing Russian investigation.

Equally important, of course, is to ensure that we have a community that is well-recognized to have security clearances that are not impacted by actions or views that would do harm to the American people.

My amendment adds to the sense of Congress in the bill that a re- review of a security clearance holder's credentials can be triggered by his or her association or empathy with persons or organizations that advocate, threaten, or use force or violence or any other illegal or unconstitutional means in an effort to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, on account of race, religion, national origin, disability, or other impermissible factors, which maybe include LGBTQ, and whether one is, in essence, considered different. That is the basis of I think a very positive addition to this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record an article published on July 6, 2018, by PBS FRONTLINE about Michael Miselis, an active member of the California-based Rise Above Movement, RAM, as a well-known violent white supremacist group.

He Is a Member of a Violent White Supremacist Group; So Why Is He

Working for a Defense Contractor With a Security Clearance?

This story is part of an ongoing collaboration between

ProPublica and FRONTLINE that includes documentaries

scheduled to begin on PBS in August 2018.

If you've witnessed or experienced hate crimes, harassment

or incidents of bias, you can use this form to send

information to FRONTLINE, ProPublica and other partners in

the Documenting Hate project.

Update, July 6, 2018: One day after being exposed as a

member of a violent white supremacist group, Michael Miselis

has lost his job as an aerospace engineer. In an email,

company spokesman Tim Paynter told ProPublica and FRONTLINE

that Miselis ``is no longer an employee of Northrop

Grumman.'' Paynter did not say whether Miselis was fired or

resigned from his position.

There likely isn't such a thing as a ``typical'' violent

white extremist in America in 2018. Still, Michael Miselis--a

University of California, Los Angeles doctoral student with a

U.S. government security clearance to work on sensitive

research for a prominent defense contractor--makes for a

pretty unusual case.

For months, ProPublica and FRONTLINE have been working to

identify the white supremacists at the center of violent

demonstrations across the country, including the infamous

Unite the Right rally last August in Charlottesville,

Virginia. The Rise Above Movement, a Southern California

group that expresses contempt for Muslims, Jews, and

immigrants, became a focus of that effort. ProPublica and

FRONTLINE were able to quickly identify a number of the

group's leaders, and find evidence that put them in the

middle of violence in Charlottesville and Berkeley,

California, among other places.

But one seeming member of RAM was harder to nail down. In

video shot in Charlottesville, a bearded, husky man is seen

in a red Make America Great Again hat with his hands wrapped

in tape that came in handy for the brawling that occurred

that day. During one encounter, the unidentified man in the

red hat pushed an African-American protester to the ground

and began pounding on him, video of the episode shows;

moments later, a known RAM member choked and bloodied a pair

of female counter-protesters. The possible RAM member also

had turned up in video shot during hours of combat at a Trump

rally in Berkeley, as well. Wearing protective goggles to

ward off pepper spray, the man fought alongside RAM members,

wrestling one protester to the ground and punching others.

Ultimately, ProPublica and FRONTLINE determined the man in

the violent footage was Miselis, a 29-year-old pursuing a

Ph.D. in UCLA's aerospace engineering program. Miselis was

identified using video footage and social media posts, and

reporters confirmed his identity in an encounter with him

outside his home. In interviews, a number of California law

enforcement officials said Miselis was a member of RAM.

In addition to his scholarly pursuits, Miselis works as a

systems engineer for Northrop Grumman, the giant defense

contractor with a plant in Redondo Beach, California.

When approached by ProPublica and FRONTLINE in front of his

home in Lawndale, a small city south of Los Angeles, Miselis

said he ``didn't know anything'' about what happened in

Charlottesville.

``I think you got the wrong guy,'' he said before driving

off in his car.

Miselis did not respond to questions about his involvement

with RAM. He did not answer additional questions sent by

email.

Several current and former employees at Northrop Grumman

told ProPublica and FRONTLINE that Miselis has received a

security clearance to work in a computer modeling and

simulation group within Northrop's aerospace division. Such

security clearances are typically issued in a two-step

process. The federal Office of Personnel Management conducts

an investigation into the individual. The agency's findings

are then forwarded to a special unit within the Department of

Defense, which makes the final determination on whether the

person should receive a clearance, a status that often allows

the person access to classified or otherwise sensitive

information concerning national security.

Public affairs officers at the Defense Department declined

to comment about Miselis and his security clearance. The

federal personnel management office referred questions

regarding Miselis to Northrop Grumman.

Northrop Grumman did not respond to several requests for

comment. However, interviews with current and former Northrop

employees, as well as an internal email, make clear the

company knows of Miselis' actions in Charlottesville and

involvement with RAM. Miselis informed his superiors about

his contact with reporters from ProPublica and FRONTLINE, as

is required by any individual who holds a higher-level

security clearance, the people said.

So far, it seems, the company has taken no action against

Miselis, who remains employed.

Keegan Hankes, an analyst with the Southern Poverty Law

Center who follows RAM closely, said he was surprised that

nothing has been done about Miselis' employment and security

clearance.

``It's ridiculous,'' Hankes said.

``They're openly motivated by racism,'' he added of RAM.

As ProPublica has previously reported, RAM first surfaced

publicly last spring and has quickly established itself as

one of the violent groups in the resurgent white supremacist

scene; members, who regularly train in boxing and martial

arts, have been documented engaging in a string of melees.

Founded in early 2017 by Robert Rundo, a Queens, New York,

native who served an 18-month prison sentence for stabbing a

rival gang member six times during a 2009 street fight, the

group's core membership is small--15 to 20 young men--but

capable of real menace, ProPublica's reporting has shown.

Rundo has recruited followers from the Orange County and

San Diego chapters of the Hammerskin Nation, the country's

largest Nazi skinhead gang, and one the authorities say has

been behind at least nine murders. One of the Hammerskins who

joined up with RAM, Matthew Branstetter, went to prison in

California in 2011 on hate crime charges for robbing and

assaulting a Jewish man in an Orange County park. The attack

left the victim with ``a concussion, broken jaw, eye socket

fracture, broken nose, cracked ribs, severe facial bruising,

and cuts and bruises to his body and face,'' according to a

news release issued by county prosecutors at the time. Other

RAM members have spent time in prison and Los Angeles County

jail on charges for robbery, firearms possession and other

offenses.

The FBI has taken notice. Several law enforcement officials

familiar with the bureau's work said agents have opened a

formal investigation into RAM. In a statement, the FBI said:

``While the FBI neither confirms nor denies the existence of

an investigation, our agents investigate activity which may

constitute a federal crime or pose a threat to national

security. Our focus is not on membership in particular groups

but on criminal activity. The FBI cannot initiate an

investigation based solely on an individual's race,

ethnicity, national origin, religion, or the exercise of

their First Amendment rights, and we remain committed to

protecting those rights for all Americans.''

Since last August, local prosecutors have brought charges

against a handful of participants in the Charlottesville

rally, successfully convicting several men so far, including

activists on both sides of the clashes. Now federal

authorities are targeting neo-Nazi James Alex Fields, the man

accused of killing counter-protester Heather Heyer and

injuring more than two dozen others. Federal prosecutors

recently filed 30 charges against Fields, including 28 hate

crime charges.

A native of Stockton, California, Miselis earned a

bachelor's of science degree in mechanical engineering from

UCLA in 2011. UCLA's website today lists Miselis as a Ph.D.

candidate in the engineering department's hypersonics and

computational aero-dynamics group. After FRONTLINE and

ProPublica began making inquiries about Miselis, the school

issued a brief statement saying only that he is technically

on leave from the doctoral program.

Miselis was clearly prepared for the unrest in Berkeley in

the spring of 2017. At the Trump rally he wore protective

goggles to ward off pepper spray or tear gas, taped his hands

up like a boxer, and wore a gray active-wear uniform, as did

several other RAM members that day. In video footage reviewed

by ProPublica and FRONTLINE, Miselis can be seen fighting

alongside other RAM members.

The event turned into a multi-hour street battle pitting

Trump supporters, including fascists and extreme-right

activists, against counter-protesters, some of them militant

anti-fascists. Police made 20 arrests, confiscating knives,

pepper spray, a stun gun, an axe-handle and many wooden dowel

rods, which were used as clubs by participants. At least

seven people were transported to the hospital for their

injuries. Rundo, RAM's founder, was arrested and detained for

assault on a police officer, but Alameda County District

Attorney Nancy O'Malley declined to file charges. ``We

determined we didn't have enough evidence to prove the

charges beyond a reasonable doubt,'' said Teresa Drenick, an

Alameda County deputy district attorney.

After the Berkeley rally, Miselis traveled across the

country to take part in the massive white supremacist

convergence in Charlottesville, where his activities were

photographed and recorded on video, both by professional

journalists and other people equipped with smart phones. At

the rally on Aug. 12, pictures taken by photojournalist Jason

Andrew show Miselis walking alongside two other RAM members

previously identified by ProPublica, Tom Gillen and Ben

Daley.

At roughly 10 a.m., Miselis and the other RAM members

confronted counter-protesters a few steps away from

Emancipation Park, where white supremacists had gathered

beneath a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Daley attacked two female counter-protesters, kicking and

punching them, a scene captured in video obtained by

ProPublica and FRONTLINE. He wrapped both hands around the

throat of one woman, throttling her until she fell to the

ground, blood seeping from a gash on her temple. The other

woman emerged from the incident with a laceration across her

forehead. On video, she screams as blood drips across her

face.

Miselis jumped into the fracas. In addition to FRONTLINE

and ProPublica, National Geographic produced video

documenting the brawl.

A sequence of pictures shot by photojournalist Edu Bayer,

who was on assignment for The New York Times, show Miselis

hurling what appears to be a can of soda at counter-

protesters. In one photo he flexes his biceps muscles in

celebration.

It's this sort of street combat that worries the SPLC's

Hankes. In his view, such brazen

criminal activity should be a red flag for both Northrop

Grumman and the Pentagon.

``I can't believe that participation in an organized white

supremacist group focused on street-level violence wouldn't

jeopardize your security clearance,'' Hankes said.

Mr. Chair, this gentleman was at Charlottesville speaking loudly, intimidating my fellow alumni and students, having gone to the University of Virginia School of Law. I spoke to the president and officers there, and the students were patently and conspicuously intimidated and frightened. But more importantly, this individual had a security clearance, and he worked for a defense contractor.

My amendment would ensure that the American people have strong national security, a strong intelligence community, but individuals who receive a clearance can receive it appropriately and that they themselves will not be a jeopardy to the citizens of the United States.

Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3, designated as No. 33 on the Rules Committee rosters, amends the Sense of Congress already in the bill on the importance of re-review of security clearances held by individuals by adding consideration of whether the security clearance holder's association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate, threaten, or use force or violence, or any other illegal or unconstitutional means, in an effort to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state, on account of race, religion, national origin, disability, or other impermissible factors.

Mr. Miselis has a security clearance and worked for Northrup Grumman, a major defense contractor, at the time he engaged in physical violence against persons protesting racism and white supremacy in Charlottesville, Virginia.

In May 2018, Northrup Grumman was informed of Mr. Miselis' membership in RAM and the violent assaults he initiated while he was in Charlottesville participating in activities in support of white supremancy, which were captured on video and in photos.

Mr. Miselis worked for a government contractor and held a security clearance authorizing him to work on projects that were of vital interest to our nation and its defense.

Northrup Grumman did not dismiss him until the story broke earlier this month with media reports on the violence Mr. Miselis engaged in at white supremacists' rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The violence of RAM members has been a hallmark of the group and its members.

The Anti-Defamation League describes RAM as a white supremacist group whose members believe they are fighting against a ``modern world'' corrupted by the ``destructive cultural influences'' of liberals, Jews, Muslims and non-white immigrants.

They refer to themselves as the ``premier MMA (mixed martial arts) club of the Alt-Right.''

RAM is characterized as operating like a street-fighting club.

Members actively train to do physical battle with their ideological foes, and have been involved in violent clashes during political rallies and demonstrations.

RAM members consider themselves to be part of the ``Alt-Right.''

RAM's membership has deep roots in California's racist skinhead movement, and includes individuals who have faced serious criminal charges, including assault, robbery and weapon offenses.

RAM consists of several dozen loosely affiliated neo-Nazis and racist skinheads who were formerly known as the DIY Division, but rebranded themselves as the Rise Above Movement in the spring of 2017.

The FBI has opened an informal investigation into this group because of the violence associated with its members.

The United States is a nation of laws, which gives us the freedom to agree and most importantly disagree with not only each other but with our government.

But the limitations to the right to disagree can be best described by the ancient wisdom: ``Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other person's nose begins.''

There is a limit to the expression of free speech and the freedom to assemble and that limit is violence.

The awarding of security clearances to contractors must be better managed and the consequences for involvement in activities that would be cause for dismissal from the armed services or any federal agency should not go unnoticed.

This Jackson Lee Amendment is an opportunity to make a clear statement to government contractors that the awarding of contracts that involve the security of our nation should not be taken lightly and that Congress will not tolerate the allocation of federal funds to contractors who employ persons who advocate or participate in acts against persons on account of their race, creed, religious beliefs, or gender who engage in constitutionally protected activities.

I ask that my colleagues support this Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 6237.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Chairman, RAM, the group that I have indicated in the letter I submitted for the Record, of which the gentleman in the article was a member of, is characterized as operating like a street fighting club. Members actively train to do physical battle with their ideological foes and have been involved in violent clashes during political rallies and demonstrations.

RAM members consider themselves a part of the alt-right. RAM's membership has deep roots in California, with the Skinheads and other individuals who face serious criminal charges. But more importantly, RAM consists of several dozen loosely affiliated neo-Nazi racist Skinheads.

It is not an emphasis on that group. This amendment is broadly structured to deal with protecting the security clearance process and the American people. I join with my colleagues in hoping and helping the intelligence community to be able to have the resources for the backlog of thousands and thousands of those seeking security clearance, so that they can be particular and astute to ensure that for the people who receive it, it is a benefit. It is, in essence, a gift. It is an honor to receive a security clearance.

The clearance that I and Members of Congress have, we hold with the highest respect and dignity. Therefore, if it is given to anyone, it should be given in that manner.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be returning to the House Judiciary Committee. We have been there for more than 8 hours, maybe 11 hours, with Peter Strzok, an FBI agent who has been vindicated by the inspector general regarding the Hillary Clinton emails, which were found to have no effect on any violation or any criminal violation, but yet Republicans have continued over and over again to hold these hearings without addressing the question of jailed children snatched from their families.

Today, we understand that Health and Human Services is holding back the reunification of some of these babies under 5 to their moms and their dads on the basis of unrelatable or unnecessary predicaments of these parents, where they have been incarcerated for misdemeanors regarding immigration.

This is the administration that really has no caring and no love for people.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization had the delegation from this Nation, not representing me, fight a country that was trying to support breastfeeding, and they wanted to condemn Ecuador for a resolution supporting breastfeeding for mothers around the world.

What are we coming to? Where is the heart in this administration?

Mr. Speaker, it is important for my colleagues and as well the American people to know that NATO is not just section 5, when one is attacked all are attacked. NATO is thought. It is purpose. It is a sense of collaborative viewpoints on the value of democracy.

It is important that any Commander in Chief, no matter what party affiliation, passes the standard of decorum to recognize our allies and to strengthen the relationships and to give criticism where necessary and to seek improvement, but not to be an embarrassment.

I think it is important, as meetings are proceeding, that we recognize that our allies are far more important than an individual who continues to provide nerve gas to kill people on foreign soil, to be behind attacks on airplanes taking over Crimea and other places. It is important to recognize that, yes, you engage with your enemy, but you recognize that they are your enemy.

I would also suggest that it is hardly the American way for the U.S. delegation to oppose a breastfeeding resolution at the World Health Organization and to punish a little country like Ecuador.

I want us to be better internationally, Mr. Speaker, and stand for the values of America.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Correa is a valued member of this body and one of the outstanding members of the Homeland Security Committee, where he is Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency.

We are here today to call upon the President, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Congress of the United States to act without delay to ensure separated immigrant children are reunited with their parents in an expeditious manner.

On June 26, 2018, a federal judge ruled that unless reunification is not in the best interest of the child, a child under 5 years old must be reunited within 14 days of its order.

Yesterday was the deadline that this administration failed to meet.

To President Trump, I say ``Time's Up!''

This act committed was not only mortifying, but an illegal act.

This individual has proven he lacks depth and experience, has violated the ethics that this country prides itself on, and he should be ashamed.

This is a senseless act that must not go unnoticed.

We must hold him accountable for these not clearly formulated decisions.

Yesterday, I met with faith and community leaders to bring attention to yesterdays' deadline, imposed by a federal judge, to reunite the youngest separated children with their parents due to the President's egregious ``zero-tolerance'' policy.

In our country, the rule of law and its implementation is an essential component of our democracy.

Twenty years ago, Flores v. Reno, also known as the Flores Agreement, established that migrants or immigrants could not be separated from their children for long periods of time.

Earlier this year, President Trump and his administration implemented a ``zero-tolerance policy'' of separating immigrant children from their parents upon arrival into the United States.

To be certain, the administration's plan was half-baked.

As the Founder and Chair of the Children's Caucus and as a parent and grandparent, I am outraged that the administration represented what they did not know and could not do.

They did not know the true number of the children separated, they could not reunite these children, and there is no plan for their reunification.

When Americans and the international community from all walks of life began to challenge this cruel and inhumane policy, the courts got involved.

It appears as if a fortnight was more than enough time for this administration to make a complete mess of this process, and in the process damage families--perhaps irreparably.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, fewer than half of the migrant children who are under five years-old will be reunited with their parents.

Studies have documented that when young children are forcibly removed from their parents, the traumatic experience engenders long-term negative effects on their physical and mental health and well-being suffers.

Stressful situations that would usually prompt physiological responses in other people--increased heart rate, sweaty palms--would provoke nothing in the children forcibly removed from their parents because their fight-or-flight response system appeared permanently broken.

This is outrageous and unacceptable in a nation which has a long and noble tradition of providing sanctuary to the persecuted and oppressed.

Last Friday afternoon, July 6, 2018, the administration asked for more time to reunite these young children with their parents, which again was nothing more than a tacit admission that its plan for separating children was implemented without a way to eventually reunite them with their parents.

After it was ordered to reunite these children, and in asking for more time to comply with the federal court, the President's lawyers asked ``can I keep these children away from their parents for a longer time?''

My response is ``these children have been away from their parents long enough.''

When I visited the border and the federal detention facilities that housed parents and children quarantined from one another, what I witnessed was horrific and was echoed in heartbreaking audio recordings released by the press revealing children crying, aching for their parents, as all face a fate uncertain, and inconsistent with the American ideal.

I will never forget the little children I met during my visit to the border.

One baby, 9-month-old Roger, had been taken from his 19-year-old sister after she was prosecuted for crossing the border illegally.

Their mother is dead, and they were coming here to find family.

Little Leah, was just one year-old and was taken from a grandmother and a sister.

The pain was no less visceral when speaking with mothers wondering where their children have gone.

In South Texas I met Gabby, from Honduras, who had a 45 day-old baby taken from her, and while housed at the facility had not yet been treated or given medical attention.

Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that the administration's argument in favor of child separation was ``tortured.''

Put another way, the Administration has no leg to stand on.

Trump knows that he is advancing a cruel and inhumane policy, but he refuses to accept responsibility for this matter blaming, alternatively: Congress, the courts and prior presidents.

This is no surprise, of course: all who have watched this president know his proclivity to shirk responsibility for any of his actions.

In a bizarre turn of events, the President actually tried to blame the courts for his own cruel child separation policy.

A federal judge appropriately chastised the President and cast as ``cynical'' any attempt to blame the courts for his mess, which is entirely of this Administration's own doing.

Tellingly, the judge went one profound step further and indicated that the President and his administration knew--at least for over a year--that there was no facility which would house parents and children together.

Thus, when it proceeded with this new immigration policy, the President knew that the segregation of children from their parents was inevitable and chose to implement this policy anyway.

The last time this nation had policies that promoted the forcible separation of children from newly arrived persons was slavery: a dark and shameful chapter in this nation's history that we cannot revisit.

Earlier this year, President, in proclaiming April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month, stated, ``we must always remember that all children are blessings from our Creator'' and endowed with value, purpose and human dignity.''

It is time for this President and the administration he leads, to act with reason, foresight and compassion and immediately and completely rectify this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition and celebration of the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On July 9, 1868, 150 years ago, two great defects in the original Constitution were corrected.

First, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment repealed the ``three- fifths'' provision in the original Constitution and declared that ``any and all persons born or naturalized in the United States would be guaranteed all the rights and privileges of citizenship.''

Second, the Fourteenth Amendment provided and guaranteed to all persons in the United States due process and the equal protection of the law.

I ask that we reflect upon the progress this nation has made in fulfilling its founding promise that ``we hold these truths to be self- evident that all men are created equal.''

This promise of liberty and equality has been withheld from far too many for far too long.

While life and liberty is enshrined in our documents, this was not true for all.

Contrary to the spirit of the American Revolution, the Southern slave population at the time increased to 1.1 million in 1810 and then to nearly 4 million in 1860; by 1860 in my state of Texas, over 30 percent of the population was comprised of slaves.

Our democratic institutions--instruments of modern, civil government founded to ensure that barbaric tyrannies against humanity would be consigned to history--repeatedly upheld such blatant oppression in the form of legislation and judicial decisions that justified the horrific practices.

Even after the Thirteenth Amendment and the defeat of the Confederacy, ``Black Codes,'' passed in numerous Southern States, continued to deny African Americans basic rights and privileges enjoyed by white citizens, such as the right to free travel, to own certain property, or to bring suit in court.

Therefore 150 years ago, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified as an endeavor to reshape the fundamental fabric of race relations in America.

Let us remember, however, that the amendment is but a single mile marker in the arduous march of courageous Americans who sought to hold our nation accountable to its founding principles.

We must also remember that the Fourteenth Amendment, and the struggle and sacrifice that came thereafter, ultimately allowed this government to become a more diverse, dynamic body to better uphold the promise of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this chamber on this occasion to reaffirm that I will not squander my hard-earned opportunity to fight for the rights of all Americans regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

And on the sesquicentennial of this very important moment for progress and equality, the current president plans to select a nominee to fill a seat on the highest court in the land.

I remind this body that the next jurist will replace a justice who recognized the importance of affirmative action as a necessary means to help heal the scars of segregation and Jim Crowe; the next jurist will further likely be required to calibrate the balance of power between labor unions and their employing entities.

Given the importance of these and other issues, like voting rights, reproductive rights, the rights of the LGBTQ community, and countless others, those who believe the Court is the arbiter of fair justice, are looking for a jurist who will dispense fair justice for all Americans as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

I call upon my colleagues in the Senate to put aside partisanship to ensure that the blood and sweat of patriots who gave their lives to safeguard our civil liberties shall not be in vain.

Mr. Speaker, the America that the Fourteenth Amendment saw is a nation with infinite potential for progress: that despite our history, we must continue to look toward finally achieving that shining city upon a hill.

I urge my colleagues in Congress, our faithful public servants in the myriad of federal institutions across the nation, as well as our friends in the Supreme Court to join me in celebrating that vision in this critical time of our republic by bravely choosing to step into the future by expanding civil liberties in our nation, not fumble in the past for a purportedly greater bygone era.