Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member and the chairman of the Rules Committee for listening to both my concerns and the amendments that we have offered. We are very pleased to have at least 10 amendments to deal with this important legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise to thank the chair and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for the en bloc amendments.

I would like to draw particular attention to a few Jackson Lee amendments as the Congress prepares to adjourn for Memorial Day. I want to thank the men and women who serve in the United States military.

The Jackson Lee amendment offered in this year's NDAA will provide oversight with information or guidance on efforts at K-12 schools on Federal military facilities to maintain safety and security from active shooters. Just coming from my district and in the neighboring area, the Santa Fe tragedy, of which I attended vigils over the weekend and listening to children talk about being fearful of guns and going to school, has been a very difficult set of circumstances.

So the Jackson Lee amendment would, in fact, seek an assessment from the Secretary of Defense of the strategies that may be used to reduce the security threats posed by active shooter incidences at public schools and secondary schools.

Today, the DOD operates 60 schools in seven States, 26,000 military connected students, and that is a process where I think the Pentagon and the Defense Department can be very, very helpful.

Jackson Lee amendment No. 91 seeks to have a report 180 days following enactment from the Secretary of Defense, which will include the Coast Guard, on maternity mortality rates among members of the Armed Forces and the Department.

For every 100,000 births in the United States in 2013, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that 17.3 percent of mothers died, the highest mortality rate of all industrialized countries by several times over.

I believe we can be very effective in having solutions.

My amendment No. 68 considers the vital role in the National Guard and reservist field when called to service. I work with the National Guard. Mr. Chair, I thank the Texas Guard and the National Guard. I have seen them in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe it is an important assessment to continue to remind us of the work that they do, civilian soldiers, of course.

Jackson Lee amendment No. 89 provides a report 220 days after enactment on the DOD's capacity to provide survivors of natural disasters--we are still

experiencing the suffering of Hurricane Harvey, and I believe this is a major important time.

It is important as well to deal with cybersecurity, and so I have an amendment that seeks an assessment that would consider what occurred in 1992 following Hurricane Andrew when the DOD stood up emergency housing, and to look at those options.

The same thing with dealing with cybersecurity: I believe that it is important for the DOD to deal with the feasibility of creating an apprentice program to address the agency's shortages of qualified cybersecurity persons.

Let me just simply say that this legislation will be helpful in defining how we answer a lot of hard questions.

I do want to take note of the fact that I would like to see in the State Department and the DOD that we work on better relationships with Pakistan and try to discern how we can weave through some of the difficult issues that we are addressing and develop that alliance again.

My other amendments deal with raising awareness among students traveling abroad; expanding the report required by the bill to include information on the opportunities dealing with artificial intelligence, dealing with cybersecurity, sharing of Navy desalinization technology for civilian applications.

Something that I have been working on for a number of years: I just was in a meeting dealing with the impact of Boko Haram and as well its far-reaching impact throughout Africa, north Africa, and the death that it has been engaged in. My amendment will be providing for DOD assistance to the Nigerian Government in developing a missing persons database to report on missing, exploited, and trafficked persons. The DOD has provided the kind of assistance that has been allowed by our laws, but it is a horrific circumstance.

Then finally, I have an amendment addressing dangers associated with man-made space debris in low Earth orbit to manned and unmanned missions.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support our amendments. I thank those who have managed this legislation.

I think the important point I want to make sure is the active shooter; the mortality rates dealing with mothers, maternal mortality rates and the loss of mothers and the loss of children in the instance of child birth. I would ask that my amendments be accepted.

Mr. Chair, I rise to thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee for the inclusion of Jackson Lee Amendments in the Rules for H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2019.

I also thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, and their staffs for working with me and my staff to include Jackson Lee Amendments in the Amendment En Blocs for H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2019.

As a Member of the House Budget Committee, I am keenly aware of the budget pressures caused by Sequestration and repeated government shutdowns that have plagued defense and non-defense agencies.

It is past time for the Congress to engage in an authentic bipartisan budget process that puts the national interest over party interest so that we can complete the annual appropriations process by September 30, 2018, and prevent any further government shutdowns.

I have several amendments to H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2019, which will be addressed in my submitted statement.

I would like to draw particular attention to a few Jackson Lee Amendments because of their importance to the people whom I serve in the 18th Congressional District of Texas, or they are of significance to the people who rely upon the resources provided by the National Defense Authorization Act to defend our nation.

As the Congress prepares to adjourn for Memorial Day weekend, I want to thank the men and women of the Armed Services, and the dedicated civilian professionals of the Department of Defense and its branches for their sacrifice and service to our nation.

I hope that in some small measure that the passage of this bill will convey to them the heartfelt respect and appreciation this body has for what they do each day to keep our nation and its people safe from harm.

The Jackson Lee Amendments offered to this year's NDAA will provide oversight with information or guidance on:

1. Efforts at K-12 schools on federal military facilities to maintain safety and security from active shooter situations;

2. Reporting on maternity mortality rates among service women, and female dependents of all service members, including the Coast Guard;

3. Raising awareness among students traveling abroad about recruitment tactics used by foreign intelligence agencies seeking to snare them into spying against the United States;

4. Readiness of the National Guard and Reserve for disaster response;

5. Defense Department's capacity to provide emergency short-term housing to disaster survivors;

6. Development of a cybersecurity apprentice program to provide on the job training for certain cybersecurity positions and to support the acquisition of cybersecurity certifications;

7. Expanding a report required by the bill to include information on the opportunities and risks associated with advancements Artificial Intelligence and its sub-discipline of machine learning;

8. Reports on cybersecurity threats posed by the achievement of stable quantum computing;

9. Sharing of Navy desalinization technology for civilian applications;

10. Condemning Boko Haram; and providing for DoD assistance to the Nigerian government in developing a missing persons database to report on missing, exploited and trafficked persons; and

11. Addressing dangers associated with man-made space debris in low earth orbit to manned and unmanned missions.

The Jackson Lee Amendments that I would like to emphasize include:

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 159, which seeks an assessment, from the Secretary of Defense, of the strategies that may be used to reduce the security threats posed by active shooter incidents at public elementary schools and secondary schools located on the grounds of Federal military installations.

Our nation's military provides for the needs of military families including the education of their children.

Since 1816, a Military Service, the Department of War or the Department of Defense has operated schools on military installations.

Today, the DoD operates 60 schools in 7 states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, New York, South Carolina and Virginia.

There are 26,000 military connected students attending Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools, which are operated by Department of Defense Education Activity, which is located in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Local Education Agencies operate about 150 public schools on military installations throughout the United States, educating about 80,000 students.

As you already know, on Friday, May 18, 2018, the community of Santa Fe, Texas became the most recent school to experience an active shooter gun violence, which took the lives of eight students and two teachers.

No parent should have to endure the loss of a child.

Over the last year we have seen deadly active shooter attacks carried out by a lone gunman at K-12 schools, where the shooter was often a student.

The safety and wellbeing of children of our active duty personnel are our responsibility.

This Jackson Lee amendment seeks information on what is being done and what can be done to increase school security against activity shooters situations in K-12 schools on military installations.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 91, which seeks a report 180 days following enactment from the Secretary of DoD, which will include the Coast Guard, on maternity mortality rates among members of the Armed Forces and the dependents of such members.

For every 100,000 births in the US in 2013 the Centers for Disease Control estimated that 17.3 mothers died, the highest maternal mortality rate of all industrialized countries--by several times over.

Between 1990 and 2015 it is reported that maternal mortality rates around the world fell by 30 percent while at the same time in the US, the ratio went up nearly 60 percent.

A 2012, Pentagon report states that mothers delivering at military hospitals are more likely to hemorrhage after childbirth than mothers at civilian hospitals.

More than 50,000 babies are born at military hospitals each year, and they are twice as likely to be injured during delivery as newborns nationwide.

This Jackson Lee Amendment would provide a clearer understanding of the mortality rates of mothers: who were pregnant, undergoing delivery, or had delivered a child less than 1 year before their deaths.

Jackson Lee amendments No. 68 and No. 89 provide additional attention to DoD disaster response.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 68, considers the vital role the National Guard and Reservist's fill when called to service in disaster response.

I thank the Texas Guard, National Guard, and Reservists as well as the active duty military personnel, including the Coast Guard who

came to the aid of victims of Hurricane Harvey.

You saved thousands of lives and Texans will be forever grateful that you answered the call to serve our nation as members of the armed forces.

Hurricane Harvey's impact in Texas is still being felt nine months later.

The storm's footprint covered over 9,000 square miles, including the city of Houston, Texas.

Hurricane Harvey dropped over 52 inches of rain in the Houston area an over 60 inches were recorded elsewhere in the state.

At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston, our nation's fourth largest city, was underwater leaving 34,575 evacuees in shelters across Texas.

Before the flood waters had receded in Houston two other monster hurricanes were bearing down on citizens living in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

The scope and magnitude of these dueling disasters tested the National Guard and Reservists in ways that were new.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 68 requires a readiness report on the National Guard and Reservists to make sure they have what they need to assist communities in need of disaster assistance during the 2018 Hurricane Season which begins June 1st.

Many Texans are still recovering from Hurricane Harvey, and the same is true of Puerto Rico residents who are attempting to recover from Hurricane Maria.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 68 improves the bill's ability to support the important mission of the National Guard and Reservists to engage in disaster response.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 89 provides a report 220 days after enactment on the DoD's capacity to provide survivors of natural disasters with emergency short term housing.

Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. in our nation's history.

During Hurricane Harvey over 300,000 structures flooded in southeastern Texas, where extreme rainfall hit many areas that are densely-populated.

At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston, our nation's fourth largest city, was underwater with 34,575 evacuees in shelters across Texas.

The storm and resulting flooding damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were destroyed.

Port Arthur residents were living in tents, after 80 percent of the city's housing was flooded by Hurricane Harvey rains, which led to acute housing needs.

The city of Beaumont lost its fresh water supply leading to the closure of hospitals and evacuation of patients to hospitals in other cities.

There were significant delays in the provision of enough hotels for all of those impacted by the storm.

However, within weeks hotel rooms were sufficient to address most housing needs for those displaced by the storm.

Unfortunately, the number of hotel rooms in Jefferson County Texas was insufficient for the demand for housing, which left residents living in tents until housing options could be found.

This Jackson Lee amendment seeks an assessment that would consider, what occurred in 1992 following Hurricane Andrew, when the DoD stood up emergency housing in the State of Florida for thousands of Floridians who lost their homes to that storm.

Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerabilities Disclosure Act, which I introduced to address the need for effective and aggressive action to deal with the threat of Zero Day Events.

A Zero Day Event describes the situation that network security professionals may find themselves when a previously unknown error or flow in computing code is exploited by a cybercriminal or terrorist.

The term ``Zero Day Event'' simply means that there is zero time to prepare a defense against a cyberattack.

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

I have previously introduced legislation to address the cybersecurity workforce shortage in the Federal government.

On that bill, H.R. 1981, Cyber Security Education and Federal Workforce Enhancement Act, establishes the process for looking outside of DHS and within its ranks to solve the shortage of cybersecurity professionals.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 97 seeks an assessment from the DoD on the feasibility of creating an apprentice program to address the agency's shortages of qualified cybersecurity professionals for certain cybersecurity positions.

There is a growing shortage of cybersecurity professionals with over a quarter-million positions remaining unfilled in the U.S. alone and a predicted shortfall of 1.5 million cybersecurity professionals by 2019.

There are additional Jackson Lee Amendments included in this bill that provide reports to the authorizing committees on a range of security and safety issues related to technology and innovation, with an eye toward the future.

The world is on the verge of significant breakthroughs in computing, space exploration, medical advancements, and innovations in medicine, engineering, and know how.

At the same time we are seeing extreme weather events that are causing significant shifts in rainfall patterns in this country and around the world that require that we invest in water management and desalinization technology to assure reliable access to abundant fresh water.

Artificial intelligence (AI), and quantum computing are rapidly changing areas of computing science that will have direct and significant implications for our economy, national defense, and our nation's security.

I have two Jackson Lee Amendments that have been adopted in En Bloc Amendments that will provide additional scope to an existing report on AI, and another report on the implications for the security of computing networks should quantum computing innovation establish more stable systems.

The current stage of computing innovation is akin to the Age of Flight at the time of the Wright Brothers.

We are in the infancy of the Computing Age, the best is yet to come, but we should be mindful of the rewards as well as the risks.

We will have aggressive programs to meet the challenge of achieving stable quantum computing because if we are not on the bleeding edge of this innovation curve, there could be dire consequences for the security of defense, civilian, private sector, and academic computing networks, challenges to our leadership in computing advancements, and we run the risk of negative economic impacts.

At best we are the first to achieve these advancements in computing, and at worse we are in second place.

I thank the Committees for including Jackson Lee Amendments Nos. 126 and 193 in the Amendment En Blocs for H.R. 5515.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 90 directs that the Secretary of DoD will provide a report 240 days from enactment of this bill on the risks posed by man-made space debris in low-earth orbit, including recommendations on remediation of such risks, and outlines of plans to reduce the incident of space debris.

Space debris encompasses both natural and artificial particles.

This Jackson Lee Amendment would address the risk of man-made space debris.

Man-made objects in Earth's orbit that may no longer serve a useful function can include nonfunctional spacecraft, abandoned launch vehicle stages, mission-related debris and fragmentation debris.

Space debris travels at speeds up to 17,500 miles per hour is fast enough a small piece of man-made debris to damage to a satellite or a spacecraft.

There are more than 20,000 pieces of debris larger than a softball or orbiting the Earth.

There are 500,000 pieces of debris the size of a marble or larger.

There are many millions of pieces of debris that are so small they can't be tracked.

NASA tracks more than 500,000 pieces of man-made space debris in Earth's orbit.

Jackson Lee Amendment seeks a report from the Secretary of Defense on the risks posed by man-made space debris, solutions for reducing risks and strategies for reducing the incidence of more man-made space debris being introduced into space.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 61 on the Rule for H.R. 5515, directs the following Secretary of Navy to submit reports to Congress on the feasibility of applying desalinization technologies to provide drought relief in areas impacted by sharp declines in water availability for both military as well as civilian purposes. (listed as No. 482 on the Rules Committee Roster)

In 2010, the United States consumed about 355,000 million gallons of water per day.

Worldwide, some 700 million people do not have access to enough clean water.

In 10 years the number is expected to more than double to 1.8 billion.

Two-thirds of the Earth's surface is water, but in fact less than 1 percent it is available for human use.

The rest of the water on our planet is either salt water found in oceans, fresh water frozen in the polar ice caps, or too inaccessible for practical usage.

While population and demand on freshwater resources are increasing, supply will always remain constant.

And although the water cycle continuously returns water to Earth, it is not always returned to the same place, or in the same quantity and quality.

This is why I offered this Jackson Lee Amendment No. 61.

It is time to plan for the future water needs of our country.

There are serious water shortages in some regions of the country and the prospects that sustained water shortages due to regional growth and climate factors may make it necessary to develop alternative sources for water intended for human and agricultural uses.

If we can harness the technology to convert ocean water into fresh water the future of cities and rural communities that depend on water can be much brighter.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 88 on the Rule for H.R. 5515, Requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress programs and procedures employed to ensure students studying abroad through Department of Defense National Security Education Programs are trained to recognize, resist, and report against recruitment efforts by agents of foreign governments.

The number of U.S. students studying abroad for credit during the 2015-2016 academic year totaled 325,339 students.

This represents just over 1.6 percent of all U.S. students enrolled at institutions of higher education in the United States and about 10 percent of U.S. graduates.

Study abroad provides opportunities to students and helps nation's economies.

A recent survey found that almost 40 percent of companies surveyed missed international business opportunities because of a lack of internationally-co competent personnel.

However, the opportunities to study in another country come with some risks.

In 2014, the FBI released a 28-minute spy film called ``Game of Pawns, '' which was based in part on the real life story of Glenn Shriver, who in 2004 was a 22-year-old studying in Shanghai.

The Michigan native found a seemingly innocent job online--writing papers on U.S.-China relations.

Over time, the job description changed.

Glenn Shriver accepted $70,000 from Chinese operatives and agreed to apply for U.S. government jobs in order to gain access to classified information. By then, the FBI was on to him.

He was arrested in 2010 and pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to spy.

He was sentenced to serve a four-year prison sentence.

At the time FBI did not say how many students had been turned into spies but said they are increasingly being targeted.

Destinations for U.S. students studying abroad include: Africa; Asia; Europe; Latin America; Middle East; and Oceania.

When 95 percent of consumers live outside of the United States, we cannot afford to ignore this essential aspect of higher education.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 88 will provide the tools and education needed to U.S. students studying abroad to help them protect themselves from attempts the recruitment tactics of foreign agents.

Thank you to the Committee for the inclusion of these Jackson Lee Amendments in the final bill.

Mr. Speaker, as we come upon this weekend, I want to certainly offer my respect for the men and women in the United States military and those who have fallen in battle.

In this last authorization bill for the defense, I want to emphasize important amendments that I had approved dealing with active shooter, dealing with the violence against our children and having that explained or researched; and, as well, the maternal mortality rate will be included, along with 10 other of my amendments.

At the same time, I wish to speak about something that saddens me on the breach of the rule of law and the breach of the Constitution that our President is engaged in: the maligning of the special counsel and, of course, the attempt to expose a confidential source.

So let me hold up this picture of Rudy Giuliani who, in 1998, said in another investigation of a President: ``He's got to do it. He's got to do it.''

So I would offer to say that the President of the United States needs to sit down with the special counsel and tell the truth. That is what our men and women fight for overseas and around the world: democracy and the rule of law. That is what the President should do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my Congressional Black Caucus Colleagues to speak forcefully for this Congress to listen to the children of this nation who are crying out to us for help asking that we save them from gun violence.

On Friday, May 18, 2018, the community of Santa Fe, Texas joined Parkland, Florida--as the place where gun violence took the lives of children and teachers who were at school.

Our hearts still ache with sadness and disbelief for the families and loved ones of the 8 students and 2 teachers who were sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, wives and mother, who lost their lives in this senseless, horrific act of domestic terrorism.

Enough is enough.

It is safe to say that America is sick and tired of being sick and tired of gun violence.

Congress has studied the issue of gun violence and we know the answers to reducing deaths and injuries, but what we lack is the will in this body to act.

Here are the top 6 actions the President and the Congress can and must take now to protect our communities:

Require universal background checks to keep guns out of dangerous hands;

Extend the waiting period to purchase or transfer dangerous weapons like the AR-15 pending completion of background checks to 7 days;

Raise the minimum age to purchase or transfer dangerous weapons like the AR-15, high-capacity magazines, ammunitions, and silencers from 18 to 21 years of age;

Ban military-style assault weapons;

Limit high-capacity magazines; and

Increase access to mental health services.

Provide the tools that gun owners need to maintain control over legally obtained.

We can take action without infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans.

We need to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns by strengthening the background check system.

We need to ensure that mental health professionals know their options for reporting threats of violence--even as we acknowledge that someone with a mental illness is far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than the perpetrator.

We must also make safe gun storage a priority.

As the founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I have listened far too often to the testimony of individuals who have survived tragedies or lost loved ones as a result of gun violence.

In the words of President Obama after the 2013 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, ``We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.''

While it is certainly true that violent crime and homicide rates in this country have been declining in recent years, they are still far above those in other industrialized nations.

There exists a culture of violence in America; a subculture that with today's technologically advanced weaponry is far more dangerous to public safety than ever before.

At no point in our nation's history has a single human been more capable of inflicting massive death and misery, and our society is producing more individuals who seek to employ such means to carry out their ill intentions.

Far too often, the tool of choice for would-be killers are military- style assault weapons with high-capacity magazines.

Every day, on average, 92 Americans are victims of gun violence, resulting in more than 33,000 deaths annually.

In raising this issue, we recognize and respect other cultures that exist in America; law-abiding citizens who are responsible in their ownership of firearms.

Many of these citizens are responsible with respect to the lethal capacity of their firearms, opting not to obtain assault weapons or to equip assault weapons with 30, so, 75, or 100-round magazines.

Here is what I think the Congress can and must do to reduce gun violence without abridging the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

Extend the waiting period to purchase or transfer dangerous weapons like the AR-15 pending completion of background checks to 7 days.

That is why I have introduced H.R. 4268, the ``Gun Safety, Not Sorry Act.''

Raise the minimum age to purchase or transfer dangerous weapons like the AR-15, high-capacity magazines, ammunitions, and silencers from 18 to 21 years of age.

That is why I have introduced H.R. 5088, the ``No Mass Atrocities with Guns Act'' (`No MAGA Act').

Reinstate and strengthen the federal ban on assault weapons.

I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 3947, legislation that will reinstates the assault weapons ban that has been introduced by my colleague, Congressman David Cicilline of Rhode Island.

Reinstate a federal ban on bump stocks and high-capacity magazines holding more than ten rounds and allowing a shooter to inflict mass damage in a short period of time without reloading will save lives.

I will soon be introducing the ``Stop Abuse, Violence, and Ending Lives Act of 2018,'' legislation to ban the sale and possession of bump stocks.

Require a background check for every gun sale, while respecting reasonable exceptions for cases such as gifts between family members and temporary loans for sporting purposes.

I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 4240, the ``Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2017,'' legislation that requires universal background checks and closes the gun show loophole that has been introduced by my colleague, Congressman Mike Thompson of California.

It is estimated that four out of ten gun buyers do not go through a background check when purchasing a firearm because federal law only requires these checks when someone buys a gun from a federally licensed dealer.

That would be like allowing four out of ten people to choose if they would like to go through airport security.

This loophole allows felons, domestic abusers, and those prohibited because of mental illness to easily bypass the criminal background check system and buy firearms at gun shows, through private sellers, over the internet or out of the trunks of cars.

Strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database to ensure it is up to date by requiring federal and state agencies to transfer important records to the database expeditiously since without the information, the reliability of a background check is questionable.

Pass legislation aimed specifically at cracking down on illegal gun trafficking and straw-purchasing which often puts guns in the hands of people who are prohibited from having them.

Straw-purchasing is when a prohibited buyer has someone with no criminal history walk into a gun store, pass a background check and purchase a gun with the purpose of giving it to the prohibited buyer.

Restore funding for public safety and law enforcement initiatives aimed at reducing gun violence.

Congress should fund law enforcement's efforts to reduce gun violence, while supporting federal research into causes of gun violence.

There is no reason the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) or the National Institute of Health (NIH) should be prohibited from researching the causes of gun violence.

That is why I have co-sponsored H.R. 1832, legislation that authorizes the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention.

I have also co-sponsored H.R. 1478, the Gun Violence Research Act, which repeals the provision that in practice prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from sponsoring research on gun violence.

And there is no reason for the restrictions federal law places on our law enforcement officers' ability to track and combat the spread of illegal guns.

Close the holes in our mental-health system and make sure that care is available for those who need it.

Congress must improve prevention, early intervention, and treatment of mental illness while working to eliminate the stigma associated with mental illness.

Access to mental health services should be improved, the shortage of mental health professionals should be addressed, and funding should be made available for those programs that have proven to be effective.

That is why I have co-sponsored H.R. 1982, the ``Mental Health Access and Gun Violence Prevention Act,'' legislation that authorizes the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Social Security Administration to: (1) increase access to mental health care treatment and services, and (2) promote reporting of mental health information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Help local communities get unwanted and illegal guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.

Congress should help support and develop local programs that get unwanted guns off our streets, such as gun buy-back programs that proved so effective in Australia.

Finally, we must address our culture's glorification of violence seen and heard through

our movie screens, television shows, music and video games.

Congress should fund scientific research on the relationship between popular culture and gun violence, while ensuring that parents have access to the information they need to make informed decisions about what their families watch, listen to, and play.

Here is what I think neither the President, the Congress, nor state and local governments should not do to reduce gun violence.

We Should Not Arm Teachers because they are not trained to handle weapons; this is not what they signed up for.

We Must Not Surrender to NRA even though the gun lobby has long enjoyed tremendous influence over congressional Republicans and some Democrats.

Persons who live in fear of gun violence and mass shootings at schools, theaters, places of worship and work, and public spaces are not afraid of the NRA.

What they are afraid of is an AR-15 in the hands of a mentally unstable person.

Americans are a can-do people; we do not bemoan our problems and accept terrible outcomes.

We act to solve them.

We have made our cars and trucks and roads safer and reduced traffic fatalities.

We have virtually eradicated polio, small pox, and other debilitating and life-threatening diseases.

We respond immediately to natural disasters caused by hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, floods, and man-made disasters caused by acts of terrorism.

When it comes to reducing or preventing gun violence, we must summon that same spirit of American resolve and know-how and get the job done.

We can do it; after all, we are Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to offer my appreciation for all of my colleagues--in particular, those who have offered this legislation.

I recall, in the Congress preceding this, we offered a bipartisan combination of comprehensive criminal justice reform, took bills that included prison reform and sentencing reform, and were really on the way to passing that combination of very important partnership. Unfortunately, the politics of that time got in the way.

But my appreciation to Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Collins. It really is the coming together of Members. Mr. Nadler worked very hard to inject very important provisions, as well as many other Members. And they even did so on the day of the markup. And all but one that Mr. Richmond, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Jayapal, and Mrs. Demings put in on retroactivity failed in the committee.

So let me give an open letter to the mothers and fathers of incarcerated persons who are in our constituency and, as well, to those inmates who may, by chance, be looking at this debate. Having recently visited one of the Federal centers, I know that inmates are astute and concerned about their future.

So I think it is important to establish to those parents why Democrats have consistently tried to sew together, tried to stitch together the idea of sentencing reduction and prison reform.

Elements of this bill are striking and good. But to a mom, is it more exciting for you to know that your son, who had an excessive sentencing because of mandatory minimums, and you, who are incarcerated, have your sentence reduced than maybe on the back end?

Now, it is important to note that all of those, if this bill is passed, will participate in the rehabilitation programs, but it is also important to note that the Bureau of Prisons has closed halfway houses. That is a component of this bill. And they have reduced and cut the numbers of individuals who are corrections officers to the extent that corrections officers feel endangered and that augmentation has been used.

Augmentation means that nurses and teachers and others who are inside the prison are being used to augment the staff of correction officers which have been fired--or terminated, rather--under this administration.

In a letter from the BOP union president, they indicated that they are severely understaffed and it would be difficult to implement this bill without those aspects being remedied--meaning more staff, more halfway houses, more money to implement this program.

So many of my friends have asked me: What is the harm? Let me give you what is the harm.

First, it would divert limited resources for programming by requiring a complex risk assessment process that would primarily benefit people deemed at a low or minimum risk of recidivism.

That means, if you came in with a harsh drug sentence but through the years, Mom or Dad, you saw your son or daughter fix their lives, you would note that they, in fact, would not be eligible for this program.

Mr. Speaker, without provisions in the bill to reduce the excessive sentencing produced by mandatory minimums for drug offenses, overcrowding will still persist and thereby divert resources from programs to reduce recidivism.

Let me be very clear: The corrections officers indicate they don't have the staff. Halfway houses have been closed.

In addition, it is documented that, if your son or daughter has an offense that was considered excluded and they have repaired their life, through the prison they have made changes, they will not be eligible-- not for the programs, but they will not be eligible for relief.

So it is a first step. But I would simply say: If it is the first step, why not protection of immigrants? And, also, why not have a sentencing reform hearing, which the Republicans have canceled because of my position on this bill?

Let us work together for what is good, Mr. Speaker. Let us make a difference in the lives of all of the inmates.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 5682, the ``FIRST STEP Act of 2018'' and thank my colleagues, Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Collins for bringing this forward. This legislation purports to help reduce recidivism for the millions of formerly incarcerated people that will return to our communities. I respectfully reserve the right to voice my concerns with this bill.

First, as the NY Times editorial noted, ``the biggest problem with the FIRST STEP Act is . . . . what's left out, specifically, sentencing reform.'' Eric Holder said in the Washington Post, ``by choosing a tepid approach, the prison reform bill abandons years of work and risks making it harder for Congress to advance more serious legislation in the future. Meaningful sentencing reform will be less likely to occur if the narrow prison bill is enacted.''

Even President Trump specifically stated during his remarks at the White House Prison Reform Summit last Friday, ``we want the finest prison reform bill that you could have anywhere.'' I agree with the President on this, as I also want the finest prison reform bill. Hence, I will continue to fight for the very best legislation that will adequately address the nearly 650,900 formerly incarcerated people that will return to our communities a year. That's not partisan or personal politics, but rather, common sense, just and equitable politics.

Imagine you are a mother, child or loved one of an incarcerated person that was robbed by a system that played Russian roulette with his or her life because that system

decided they were criminals rather than victims of a public health crisis during the crack epidemic. Now imagine that same system, rather than remediating the tragedy it caused in broken homes and communities through inept policies that had a racial and economic disparate impact, now seeks to pat them on the back and further insult an entire race by feeding them crumbs.

As a mother or loved one, you would demand that the system cure the defect in those sentencing laws that would drastically reduce his or her time in custody, and apply justice equitably. Let's not forget what happened in the 1964 Crime bill. Congress has the power to do that. We should hold ourselves accountable to deliver on the promise we made when we acknowledged the draconian policies implemented during the ``War on Drugs'' crisis, in passing the Fair Sentencing Act. Let's finish what we started then, by appealing to our better angels and not crucify each other because we disagree.

As Families Against Mandatory Minimum indicated in their letter, ``sentencing reform should be included in any final justice reform package.''

Second, even if the majority chose to ignore sentencing reform due to pressure, we cannot sit idly by and allow a slim-fast version of prison reform when dealing with the lives of millions of people.

I will not apologize for demanding more from my colleagues. I will not apologize for fighting with every breath I have to secure justice for those left behind. And I will not apologize for doing my job and shedding light where we may fall short, even when we have in good faith, tried our best. We will all go home tonight. What about those that have longed for that same freedom after they've paid their debts to society. We owe it to ourselves, to the thousands of broken families, and to our society, to give each inmate that will return to our community, their best chance at success, by providing them incentives that will get them home to their families sooner also.

Even the bill's supporter at markup said in their letter, ``the bill unwisely reserves its incentivized programming for those who already pose little threat of re-offending'', for example, those that would commit the sort of crimes alleged against Kushner and others within Trump's orbit. The supporters go on to say, ``We fear that the bill's failure to direct incentivized programming to the group that needs it most will result in little or no reduction in recidivism, and, worse, that that failure will be blamed on prisoners rather than the bill's mistaken design.'' Most alarming here, is that great skepticism looms even in those who want to support this endeavor, because the reality is that the risk assessment tool is flawed.

This Kushner/Trump bill amounts to nothing more than a false sense of hope for those who will never be released, due to either lack of shelter given the significant reduction in housing, or lack of eligibility per the warden.

The wide latitude and discretion given to Sessions, a person who whole-heartedly opposes any form of effective criminal justice reform, and proponent of over-criminalization, will inevitably prove problematic for many who otherwise would benefit greatly from this measure with some modicum of oversight. We should take our time to include an independent committee that would serve as a bulwark in the development, implementation and recommendation process of such a program that will use novice and untested tools at the federal level.

Why must we rush this process? Why not take our time to produce the finest prison reform bill anywhere as the President suggested? I visited and spoke directly to guards and wardens in the BOP. They told me they are severely understaffed and safety is paramount given the shortage in staff. The Director of BOP quit, in the middle of Trump's Prison Reform Summit. All of these facts tell us to wait so that we could get it right. In NOBLE's opposition letter to this bill they write: ``a key concern is the ability of the Federal BOP and U.S. Attorney Offices to implement key elements of this legislation. In particular, it will require that U.S. Attorney Offices and BOP address their needs in staffing and funding. It is our opinion that the proposed $50 million of funding per year for five years will not support the bill's expanded programming.'' For these reasons I oppose this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

The Act does not include a single provision that will reduce the prison time of persons who are serving unfair sentences for low-level offenses. Even supporters of the bill like FAMM states, ``sentencing reform should be included in any final justice reform package.''

The Act uses an untested and potentially racially and socially discriminatory risk assessment to identify individuals who are eligible to earn credits, which primarily depends on static factors that correlate with socioeconomic class and race, such as criminal history, to assess the risk. Therefore, it will likely fail to reduce crime or mass incarceration.

The Act's exclusions would likely have a disparate impact on racial minorities because the bill excludes individuals convicted of certain categories of offenses from redeeming credits towards early release, even if they successfully complete the program.

The Act leaves it to the discretion of prison wardens to determine who can use their credits and when.

Early release would be into a halfway house system which is so underfunded that there is no bed space. Therefore, it will be unlikely that prisoners can truly be released given the reality of the current halfway house system.

The Act gives a false sense of hope because it wraps the empty promise of prison reform around exclusions and wide breadth of discretion to a full-throated opponent to prison reform, policing reform and sentencing reform, in Jeff Sessions.

BOP already has broad authority to implement the positive provisions of the bill, but has opted not to and Sessions cannot be trusted to implement these provisions.

The FIRST STEP Act includes a list of prisoners who are ineligible for time credits if they participate in recidivism reduction programs by virtue of their convictions for certain offenses. Prisoners who are excluded from time credits are those convicted under Title 18, in the following sections:

``(i) Section 113(a)(1), relating to assault with intent to commit murder.

``(ii) Section 115, relating to influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by injuring a family member, except for a threat made in violation of that section.

``(iii) Any section of chapter 10, relating to biological weapons.

``(iv) Any section of chapter 11B, relating to chemical weapons.

``(v) Section 351, relating to Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault.

``(vi) Section 793, relating to gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.

``(vii) Section 794, relating to gathering or delivering defense information to aid a foreign government.

``(viii) Any section of chapter 39, relating to explosives and other dangerous articles, except for section 836 (relating to the transportation of fireworks into a State prohibiting sale or use).

``(ix) Section 842(p), relating to distribution of information relating to explosive, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction, but only if the conviction involved a weapon of mass destruction (as defined in section 2332a(c)(2) of such title).

``(x) Subsection (f)(3), (h), or (i) of section 844, relating to the use of fire or an explosive.

``(xi) Section 924(e), relating to unlawful possession of a firearm by a person with 3 or more convictions for a violent felony.

``(xii) Section 1030(a)(1), relating to fraud and related activity in connection with computers.

``(xiii) Any section of chapter 51, relating to homicide, except for section 1112 (relating to manslaughter), 1113 (relating to attempt to commit murder or manslaughter, but only if the conviction was for an attempt to commit manslaughter), 1115 (relating to misconduct or neglect of ship officers), or 1122 (relating to protection against the human immunodeficiency virus).

``(xiv) Any section of chapter 55, relating to kidnapping.

``(xv) Any offense under chapter 77, relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons, except for sections 1592 through 1596.

``(xvi) Section 1751, relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault.

``(xvii) Section 1841(a)(2)(C), relating to intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child.

``(xviii) Section 1992, relating to terrorist attacks and other violence against railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on water, or through the air.

``(xix) Section 2113(e), relating to bank robbery resulting in death.

``(xx) Section 2118(c)(2), relating to robberies and burglaries involving controlled substances resulting in death.

``(xxi) Section 2119(3), relating to taking a motor vehicle (commonly referred to as `carjacking') that results in death.

``(xxii) Any section of chapter 105, relating to sabotage, except for section 2152.

``(xxiii) Any section of chapter 109A, relating to sexual abuse, except that with regard to section 2244, only a conviction under subsection (c) of that section (relating to abusive sexual contact involving young children) shall make a prisoner ineligible under this subparagraph.

``(xxiv) Section 2251, relating to the sexual exploitation of children.

``(xxv) Section 2251A, relating to the selling or buying of children.

``(xxvi) Any of paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 2252(a), relating to certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors.

``(xxvii) A second or subsequent conviction under any of paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 2252A(a), relating to certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography.

``(xxviii) Section 2260, relating to the production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor for importation into the United States.

``(xxix) Section 2283, relating to the transportation of explosive, biological, chemical, or radioactive or nuclear materials.

``(xxx) Section 2284, relating to the transportation of terrorists.

``(xxxi) Section 2291, relating to the destruction of a vessel or maritime facility, but only if the conduct which led to the conviction involved a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

``(xxxii) Any section of chapter 113B, relating to terrorism.

``(xxxiii) Section 2340A, relating to torture.

``(xxxiv) Section 2381, relating to treason.

``(xxxv) Section 2442, relating to the recruitment or use of child soldiers.

The exclusions also apply to convictions under the following sections of Title 42, Title 49, Title 21, Title 8 and Title 50:

``(xxxvi) Section 57(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2077(b)), relating to the engagement or participation in the development or production of special nuclear material.

``(xxxvii) Section 92 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2122), relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons.

``(xxxviii) Section 101 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2131), relating to the atomic, energy license requirement.

``(xxxix) Section 224 or 225 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2274, 2275), relating to the communication or receipt of restricted data.

``(xl) Section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), relating to the sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel.

``(xli) Section 60123(b) of title 49, United States Code, relating to damaging or destroying a pipeline facility, but only if the conduct which led to the conviction involved a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

``(xlii) Section 401(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841), relating to manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, but only in the case of a conviction for an offense described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b)(1) of that section for which death or serious bodily injury resulted from the use of such substance.

``(xliii) Section 276(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1326), relating to the reentry of a removed alien, but only if the alien is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) of that section.

``(xliv) Any section of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.)

``(xlv) Section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705).

``(xlvi) Section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3121), relating to the protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources.

The exclusions also apply those prisoners convicted of a prior Federal or State ``serious violent felony,'' described as follows (in Title 18):

``(xlvii) An offense described in section 3559(c)(2)(F), for which the offender was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than one year, if the offender has a previous conviction, for which the offender served a term of imprisonment of more than one year, for a Federal or State offense, by whatever designation and wherever committed, consisting of murder (as described in section 1111), voluntary manslaughter (as described in section 1112), assault with intent to commit murder (as described in section 113(a)), aggravated sexual abuse and sexual abuse (as described in sections 2241 and 2242), abusive sexual contact (as described in sections 2244(a)(1) and (a)(2)), kidnapping (as described in chapter 55), carjacking (as described in section 2119), arson (as described in section 844(f)(3), (h), or (i)), or terrorism (as described in chapter 113B.

Finally, prisoners may not obtain credit for participation in recidivism reduction programs if they: (1) completed recidivism reduction programming before enactment of the Act; (2) completed recidivism reduction programming during official detention before moving to Bureau of Prisons; or (3) are inadmissible or deportable under immigration law.

The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, May 21, 2018.

Vote ``No'' on The FIRST STEP Act

Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights, and the 109 undersigned

organizations, we write to urge you to vote NO on The FIRST

STEP Act (H.R. 5682). While well intentioned, this bill takes

a misguided approach to reforming our federal justice system.

Without question, we appreciate the inclusion of some

promising provisions to address some of the problems in the

federal prison system, however, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)

already has broad authority to make the majority of these

changes through administrative action. In sum, this bill

falls short on its promise to ``meaningfully'' tackle the

problems in the federal justice system--racial disparities,

draconian mandatory minimum sentences, persistent

overcrowding, lack of rehabilitation, and the exorbitant

costs of incarceration. Decisions we make now through this

bill could have deep implications for our ability to impact

the abiding and deepening harms that lead to mass

incarceration.

As such, we continue to have several, grave concerns with

The FIRST STEP Act, including:

The Dangerous ``Risk Assessment System'': The Act purports

to offer people in prison the chance to ``earn time credits''

towards early release to pre-release custody--but by building

and placing a ``risk and needs assessment'' algorithm in the

hands of the Attorney General--one not required to be

designed or tailored for the individuals it is meant to

judge--we risk embedding deep racial and class bias into

decisions that heavily impact the lives and futures of

federal prisoners and their families.

Researchers have shown that risk assessment tools applied

in sentencing decisions in Florida--meant to predict

recidivism--were twice as likely to be wrong when evaluating

Black people as White people. One of the first independent

studies analyzing the use of risk assessment in pretrial

showed that decisionmakers using risk assessment tools--in

this case, Kentucky judges--ignored their results over time,

while also overseeing an increase in failures-to-appear at

court and an increase in pretrial arrests. A further recent

analysis showed that risk assessment tools are as accurate as

a prediction made by a random human selected over the

Internet.

We cannot introduce algorithmic risk assessment into the

assignment of housing and release decisions or rehabilitative

opportunities without sufficient transparency, independent

testing for decarceral and anti-racist results prior to

implementation, and regular effective oversight for not just

what the tool purports to predict, but how decisionmakers in

our prison system use it. The Act uses ``risk assessments''

in an untested manner. It fails to ensure transparency,

independent testing, or analysis of the proposed risk

assessment system or its results prior to its adoption or

implementation. And again, it doesn't require the tool to be

designed or tailored for the individuals it is meant to

judge.

Without these things, and in the hands of the nation's most

prominent proponent of a punishing, rather than a

rehabilitative criminal justice system, ``risk assessments''

will further embed racism into the meting out of resources

that could change prisoners' lives--like access to treatment,

work, and most importantly, the ability to earn time off of a

sentence.

The Overbroad List of Exclusions: The majority of people in

prison will eventually be released. Categorically excluding

entire groups of people from receiving early-release credits

will undermine efforts to reduce prison overcrowding and

improve public safety since such exclusions weaken the

incentive to participate in recidivism-reduction programming.

Furthermore, many of these exclusions, such as those based on

immigration-related offenses, could have a disproportionate

impact on people of color.

The Overbroad Discretion Provided to Attorney General

Sessions: The bill gives broad authority to the Attorney

General and would rely upon implementation by this

administration. Despite assurances to the contrary, this

administration has failed to take any active steps to improve

the justice system, has dismantled existing protections, and

has shown outright hostility to people of color and other

historically marginalized communities. Furthermore, Attorney

General Jeff Sessions is a well-known, longtime opponent of

sentencing and prison reform. It would be unwise and harmful

to vest so much discretion in an Attorney General so hostile

to meaningful justice reform.

The Misplaced Incentive System: Effectively reducing

recidivism requires targeting those most likely to reoffend

with rehabilitative programming. Yet, under this bill, only

``minimum'' and ``low-risk'' prisoners would be able to

redeem their earned time credits, and they would earn more

credits than prisoners categorized as ``medium'' or ``high-

risk.'' Given that time credits would also be subject to

denial by the BOP warden and they are not real time off of a

sentence but rather a flawed mechanism to transition into a

decreasing number of halfway houses or to home confinement

that is rarely used by BOP, the bill is unlikely to provide

the incentives that would meaningfully reduce recidivism.

Allows for the privatization of certain public functions

and allows private entities to profit from incarceration. The

bill retains a provision that in order to expand programming

and productive activities, the Attorney General shall develop

policies for wardens of each BOP facility to enter into

partnerships with private entities and industry-sponsored

organizations.

The Absence of Appropriations for Implementation: The

resources needed to expand programming authorized under the

bill have not been--and may never be--appropriated. In fact,

Congress could decide today, absent this legislation, that

prison programming should be funded and increase the BOP's

budget by $50 million a year for the next five

years. Instead, the FY19 BOP budget calls for a reduction.

Furthermore, the recidivism reduction programming that

currently exists in the federal prison system is grossly

underfunded and not enough to serve those currently

incarcerated. Therefore, without any guarantees that the

necessary funding will be appropriated, this bill is an empty

promise.

The Undetermined Human and Fiscal Impact: It is unclear

what the fiscal impact of this bill will be, given that the

Congressional Budget Office has not released a score for the

bill. Moreover, it is unclear what the human impact of this

bill will be, given that neither the BOP nor the U.S.

Sentencing Commission has produced updated estimates on the

number of people projected to be impacted by the legislation.

Proponents argue that at least 4,000 people will be impacted

by the good time fix alone; however, relying on that number

is misleading because it is based upon data that is over a

decade old. No hearings have been held and there is no CBO

score available in order to explore these questions further.

The Omission of Sentencing Reform: Sentencing reform and

prison reform are both important, but one will not work

without the other. Meaningful reform requires both.

Furthermore, advancing prison reform as a stand-alone will

undermine longstanding, bipartisan efforts in the Senate to

advance a comprehensive justice reform package that includes

sentencing reform.

Last week, we were joined by over 70 civil rights

organizations in opposing this well-intentioned, but

misguided legislation at the House Judiciary Committee

markup. Many of our concerns were also shared by the American

Federation of Government Employees representing 33,000

federal correctional workers in the Bureau of Prisons, as

well as Representatives Lewis, Jackson Lee, and Senators

Durbin, Booker, and Harris in a recent Dear Colleague letter.

While we appreciate the inclination to support legislation

that endeavors to reform our prison system, we believe that

this particular bill would do more harm than good and would

have unintended consequences that ripple into the future.

Finally, if presented with one choice, ``to take what we

can get now,'' then we must ensure that ``what we get'' will

not perpetuate the existing harms of mass incarceration or

give false hope to the men and women languishing in prison

and the communities we represent. Our communities are being

demonized and criminalized so we must stand firm to resist

the lure of a compromise that is ultimately a false promise

that may never be realized and isn't in their best interests.

For the foregoing reasons, we urge you to vote ``No'' on

the FIRST STEP Act and The Leadership Conference will include

your position on the bill in our voting scorecard for the

115th Congress.

Sincerely,

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; 334

East 92nd Street Tenant Association; A. Philip Randolph

Institute; African American Ministers In Action; American

Civil Liberties Union; American Federation of Labor-Congress

of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); American Humanist

Association; Arkansas United Community Coalition; Asian

Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC; Asian Pacific American

Labor Alliance; Association of University Centers on

Disabilities (AUCD); Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Autistic

Women & Nonbinary Network; Bazelon Center for Mental Health

Law; Bend the Arc Jewish Action; Black Alliance for Just

Immigration; Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law;

Buried Alive Project; Campaign for Youth Justice; Casa de

Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and

Communities.

Center for Community Change Action; Center for Community

Self-Help; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center

for Popular Democracy; Center for Responsible Lending;

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Coalition of

Black Trade Unionists; Coalition on Human Needs; CURE

(Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants); Defending

Rights & Dissent; Demos; Disability Rights Education &

Defense Fund; Drug Policy Alliance (DPA); Equal Justice

Society; Equal Rights Advocates; Equality California; Equity

Matters; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Faith Action

Network--Washington State; Faith in Public Life.

Government Information Watch; Harm Reduction Coalition; Hip

Hop Caucus; Hispanic Federation; Human Rights Watch;

Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Indivisible; Japanese

American Citizens League; Jewish Council for Public Affairs

(JCPA); Justice Strategies; Juvenile Law Center;

LatinoJustice PRLDEF; Law Enforcement Action Partnership;

Let's Start, Inc.; Mommieactivist and Sons; MomsRising;

NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.;

National Action Network's Washington Bureau; National

Alliance to End Sexual Violence.

National Association of Human Rights Workers; National

Association of Social Worker; National Bar Association (NBA);

National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for Lesbian

Rights; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence;

National Coalition on Black Civic Participation; National

Council of Churches; National Disability Rights Network;

National Education Association; National Employment Law

Project; National Hispanic Media Coalition; National

Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center;

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild;

National Juvenile Justice Network; National LGBTQ Task Force

Action Fund; National Organization for Women; National

Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE);

National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; Pennsylvania

Immigration and Citizenship Coalition; People For the

American Way (PFAW); PFLAG National; Prison Policy

Initiative; Safer Foundation; Sargent Shriver National Center

on Poverty Law; Service Employees International Union (SEIU);

Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF);

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Southern

Poverty Law Center (SPLC); Students for Sensible Drug Policy;

The Center for Media Justice; The Daniel Initiative; The

Decarceration Collective.

The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly

Incarcerated Women and Girls; The United Church of Christ;

The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and

Society; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights;

UndocuBlack Network; UnidosUS; Union for Reform Judaism;

United Church of Christ, Local Church Ministries; United

Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; United We

Dream; V-Day and One Billion Rising; Washington Lawyers'

Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs; We Belong

Together; Woodhull Freedom Foundation; World Without

Genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 64th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned the doctrine of ``separate but equal'' that had been the law of the land since 1896 when the Supreme Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson.

In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared that separate public schools for black and white Americans were unconstitutional.

This unanimous decision sparked the movement toward desegregation of American institutions and paved the way for the civil rights movement.

On the anniversary of this landmark decision, it is appropriate that we pay tribute to our ancestors who endured and lived through those days of crisis and challenge so that we could enjoy the right to vote, the right to equal protection of the law, and to enjoy the blessings of liberties.

These efforts should not go unrecognized.

This historic case originated in Topeka, Kansas, and involved a black third-grader named Linda Brown, who had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks away.

Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused.

Mr. Brown went to McKinley Burnett, the head of Topeka's branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and asked for help.

The NAACP got other black parents to join in to a complaint and in 1951 the NAACP requested an injunction that would forbid the segregation of Topeka's public schools.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas heard Oliver Brown's case but refused to overrule the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson which allowed separate but equal school systems for blacks and whites.

The case was taken to the Supreme Court on October 1, 1951 and set up one of the landmark cases in the history of the American justice system.

It was the arguments presented by the NAACP on Mr. Brown's that won the day.

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court:

``We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ``tangible'' factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. . . . We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.''

With those few words more than a century of racial discrimination and separation were dealt a great blow.

It is up to us to preserve the hard won gains of those who led the fight and won the case of Brown v. Board of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3832, the Veterans Opioid Abuse Prevention Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is undeniable that our military veterans deserve our deepest gratitude for the courage and valor they demonstrate while defending the United States of America.

H.R. 3832 directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the executive director of a national network of State-based prescription monitoring programs under which Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers shall query the network in order to prevent opioid abuse.

Veterans are truly heroes walking among us and they deserve our utmost respect as well as assistance in any recovery or treatment they require.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans bravely put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms and to keep our nation safe.

There are over 20 million veterans in the United States, with a large number residing in my home state of Texas.

Texas has more than 1.4 million veterans, making it the state with the second largest veteran population.

Harris County, the county which contains my district, is home to over 187,000 veterans, the most of any county in the state.

There is no doubt that these fearless men and women suffering from burdensome health problems deserve not only our gratitude, but also our support throughout recovery and treatment.

By passing H.R. 3832, health care providers will receive additional information so they may provide veterans with assistance which will enhance their rehabilitation.

This bill would enable the VA to monitor drug prescriptions in order to ensure that veterans' risk of addiction is minimized.

The Veterans Opioid Abuse Prevention Act would allow VA providers to better track and prevent excess opioid prescribing.

The provisions of this bill will serve as a vital resource to our veterans and their health care providers as they overcome burdensome health problems.

These provisions would help prevent opioid abuse by allowing for greater information sharing between VA and state-based prescription drug monitoring programs.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3832 to show their support and gratitude for the sacrifices made by our service men and women, and to ensure that veterans battling health problems receive the care and rehabilitation they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4245, the Veterans' Electronic Health Record Modernization Oversight Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, one way the nation can express its deepest appreciation for our service men and women is to ensure that their health records are handled appropriately.

H.R. 4245 directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit certain documents to Congress relating to the Electronic Health

Record Modernization Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

More than 20 million brave Americans are veterans of our nation's armed services including more than 1.5 million women, 2.4 million African American men and women, 1.4 million Hispanic men and women, 320,000 Asian Americans, and 145,000 American Indians.

Of these veterans, more than 1.4 million reside in my home state of Texas.

Harris County, the county which contains my home district, has over 187,000 veterans which is the largest veteran population of any county in Texas.

More than 9 million veterans and their families are enrolled in the VA health care system, making it the largest health care system in the nation.

This system employs more than 306,000 full time health care professionals and support staff at 1,240 health care facilities, including 170 VA Medical Centers and 1,061 outpatient sites.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans bravely put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms and to keep our nation safe.

By passing H.R. 4245, the modernization of veterans' health records will receive the attention it deserves in order to enhance their rehabilitation and quality of life.

The Veterans' Electronic Health Record Modernization Oversight Act of 2017 requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit documentation to Congress regarding the agency's efforts to modernize its health record system.

This will serve as a vital resource to enable us to assist our veterans as they overcome burdensome health problems.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4245 to show their support and gratitude for the sacrifices made by our service men and women, and to ensure that veterans receive the care and rehabilitation they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4958, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2018.

H.R. 4958 directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to increase, as of December 1, 2018, the rates of veterans' disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, the clothing allowance for certain disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children.

The bill increases the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans.

For the brave military men and women serving our country, this will help offset the cost of living in higher cost areas of the country.

Our nation owes a great debt to these fearless men and women defending our nation.

Providing cost of living adjustments to keep up with inflation is an effective way to honor their sacrifice.

Many of our veterans rely on the disability benefits they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs to merely make ends meet.

While Social Security benefits are automatically adjusted annually to keep pace with inflation, Congress must pass legislation every year to increase the rates of veteran disability compensation.

Unfortunately, it requires an act of Congress to make this same adjustment for our nation's veterans.

Passing H.R. 4958 ensures that our nation's veterans are able to receive the same annual cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.

The community-integrated rehabilitation treatment provided by the pilot program will serve as a vital resource to our veterans as they overcome burdensome health problems.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4958 to show their support and gratitude for the many sacrifices made by our service men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5044, the Service-Disabled Veterans Small Business Continuation Act.

H.R. 5044 amends title 38, of the United States Code to clarify the treatment of certain surviving spouses under the contracting goals and preferences of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Nearly 1 in 10 small businesses are owned by veterans and among these veteran-owned businesses, they collectively have generated over $1 trillion in sales.

When the owner of a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business passes away, his or her spouse is permitted to inherit the business and retain priority status to obtain VA contracts in the federal procurement marketplace.

In obtaining goods and services, the VA provides a special preference to firms owned and controlled by veterans with service-connected disabilities.

Surviving spouses of veterans with service-connected disabilities rated at 100 percent are eligible to retain this preferential contracting status for up to 10 years after the veteran's death.

Passing H.R. 5044 would authorize similar treatment for surviving spouses of veterans whose service-connected disabilities are rated less than 100 percent and it would enable these spouses to retain priority status for obtaining contracts for up to three years.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5044 protects widows and widowers from any major disruptions to their businesses during one of the most difficult times in their lives, the passing of a loved one who bravely served our country.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans bravely put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms and to keep our nation safe. For those who end up making the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, it is crucial that we honor their sacrifice any way we can by honoring the widows and widowers.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5540 to show their gratitude for the sacrifices made by our service men and women, and to maintain the livelihood of their spouses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4451, Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Programs Reauthorization Act of 2017.

H.R. 4451 proposes an amendment to Title 38 of the United States Code to provide for a five-year extension to homeless veterans reintegration programs and to provide clarification regarding eligibility for services under such programs.

This bill includes the reauthorization of reintegration programs among those for whom job training, counseling, and placement services are to be provided to expedite their reintegration into the labor force.

These services provided to homeless veterans include the VA supported housing program, assistance under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996, transitioning from being incarcerated, and participating in the VA's rapid re-housing and homelessness prevention program.

Mr. Speaker, our United States veterans bravely put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms and to keep our nation safe.

Without the brave efforts of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and Coast Guardsmen and women and their families, our country would not live so freely.

Homelessness among the American veteran population is on the rise in the United States and we must be proactive in giving back to those who have given so much to us.

We as a nation have a responsibility to our veterans to provide programs that aid in their reintegration back into the labor force.

Nearly 230,000 veterans and their families have been able to come back from homeless and find permanent homes since 2010.

By passing H.R. 4451, homeless veterans will receive assistance to enhance their quality of life and community integration.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 4451.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4334, the Improving Oversight of Women Veterans' Care Act of 2017.

H.R. 4334 provides for certain reporting requirements relating to medical care for women veterans provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and through contracts entered into by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with non-Department medical providers.

By passing this bill ensuring these requirements, we are ensuring equitable attention to health care for veteran men and women.

Such requirements include an annual report to Congress on veteran access to covered sex-specific services such as mammography, maternity care, and gynecological care under community care contracts.

Our United States veterans bravely put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms and to keep our nation safe.

I want to thank all of our armed serviceman and women for their selfless dedication to our nation.

The debt that we owe to them is immeasurable because their sacrifices, and those of their families, are our freedom's foundation.

Mr. Speaker, of the nation's 21.6 million brave veterans, more than 2 million are women.

Further, 20 percent of veterans who have served on active duty since September 2001 are women.

Male and female veterans alike deserve access to health care, and this bill will ensure that discrepancies in care among male and female veterans can be identified and addressed.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 4334.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing debate, and the underlying bill, regarding H.R.2, the so- called ``Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018,'' the House Republicans' failed attempt to produce a Farm Bill that is good for America.

A more fitting name for this terrible and bitter legislative pill would be the ``Let Poor Families and Children Starve so Billionaires Can Get Fatter Act.''

Going back to 1962, beginning with Senators Hubert Humphrey, Bob Dole, and George McGovern, Farm Bills have always attracted bipartisan support and engendered an enduring alliance between urban and rural legislators in the common cause of ensuring livable incomes for farm families and an affordable and nutritious food supply.

With this purely partisan bill, House Republicans have turned their back on this 56 year heritage.

Mr. Speaker, St. Augustine, the great Catholic theologian, said: ``Without justice, what else is the state but a gang of robbers?''

There is no justice in this Farm Bill, but there is harm--lots of it--inflicted on the most vulnerable, so much so that many people are saying that the House Republican majority has produced a bill that is worthy of a gang of robbers.

I oppose this rule and underlying legislation for several reasons but most of all because of its abject cruelty to American's most vulnerable families and children.

H.R. 2 slashes $23 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (``SNAP''), a lifeline depended upon by millions of families and children to provide for their daily nutrition needs.

But who among us can say they are truly surprised?

Since taking office sixteen months ago, the President has made abundantly clear his indifference to the most vulnerable citizens in society.

And he has been aided in his endeavors by a feckless House Republican majority.

The President began his presidency with a concerted and determined push to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a law which has helped over 17 million individuals gain health insurance; reduced the uninsured rate by 40 percent and, provided 89 percent of Americans with the security and peace of mind that comes with access to affordable quality healthcare.

When that effort failed, the President next turned his efforts to passing the massive Trump-GOP Tax Scam, which slashed taxes for the top one percent and multi-national corporations, but the negative consequences of which the Trump-GOP Tax Scam have been devastating for the average American.

The GOP Tax Scam has now been revealed not to generate broad-based economic growth but instead to create annual trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to be honest about creating an environment where individuals have an opportunity to emerge from poverty conditions, there must be access to nutritious food.

SNAP is a critical component to providing food security to lower- income Americans.

SNAP sets children up for success.

Children on SNAP achieve higher test scores and are more likely to graduate from high school, helping to break the cycle of poverty and build a stronger economy in the long term.

SNAP is temporary.

The average family spends just ten months on SNAP, receiving assistance only during difficult times.

(SNAP is critical for poor and working families.

Most participate in SNAP when they are between jobs.

Among households with at least one working-age non-disabled adult roughly 8o percent of SNAP households work in the year before or the year after receiving SNAP.

Close to two-thirds of SNAP recipients are children, elderly, or disabled.

The vast majority of those who are required to work, do work.

The average per person benefit is $132 per month, or about$1.60 per meal.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill were to become law, it would cut $23 billion from SNAP and would kick one million households off the program.

That means 83,000 Texas families would see their benefits cut, impacting more than 96,000 individuals.

In Texas, over half of all SNAP beneficiaries live below the poverty line so cutting access to SNAP would be devastating.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we not increase food security for the least vulnerable among us.

If our children are not adequately and safely housed, they are not protected from life's crueler elements.

If they are not fed, they lack nourishment and preparation for school and all its challenges.

Mothers know this and their children know this.

Everyone knows this, with the apparent exception of the President and House Republicans.

The House Republicans' eagerness to sacrifice poor and working families and children by cutting SNAP and other food assistance programs for up to 23 million people by $23 billion is an accurate reflection of their priorities and values, which favor tax cuts for multinational corporation and the top 1 percent at the expense of the poor and working class and those striving to enter the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, there are other major insults, injuries, and cruelties inflicted on working families by this callous legislation.

This so-called Farm Bill changes SNAP from a food program to a work program by imposing new draconian work requirements on adult SNAP participants between 18 and 59 years old, requiring documentation showing 20 hours per week of work or participation in a job training program.

The changes include severe, harsh penalties if the paperwork is not filed on time, ignoring the reality of low-wage work, which is plagued by unstable, uncertain work schedules, unpredictable hours, and few benefits like paid sick or family leave.

This mean-spirited legislation threatens free school meals for 265,000 children and SNAP eligibility for 400,000 households by eliminating Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which allows states flexibility to link their social service programs to SNAP.

The bill also severs the connection between SNAP and Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps families pay their energy utilities, adversely impacting working families and people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, this wretched legislation is an equal-opportunity catastrophe because it also inflicts serious damage on farm families and rural America at a time of great challenge and economic uncertainty.

Farm prices are plummeting amid the self-inflicted damage of President Trump's tariffs yet this bill instead of providing relief exacerbates the economic and social pain in rural America by killing good-paying rural jobs, cutting a gaping hole in the critical farmer safety net and shifting opportunity away from America's small towns with cuts to vital rural development, sustainable conservation, and energy initiatives.

Inexplicably, H.R. 2 fails to address the 52 percent decline in farm income and eliminates the Conservation Stewardship Program, the nation's largest working lands conservation program, by merging it with the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, resulting in $800 million less for investments in preserving working lands and sustainable farm practices.

The legislation hurts rural families in several additional ways by:

Failing to increase funding for USDA's trade assistance programs that help farmers stay globally competitive through initiatives that help to develop and expand their business in overseas markets;

Abolishing the entire Energy Title, resulting in lost investments in jobs of the future in renewable energy and biofuels;

Adding onerous fees to rural development guaranteed loans;

Curtailing broadband assistance in remote areas by adding administrative burdens and fails to boost USDA's telemedicine initiatives that help combat opioid abuse in rural America;

Underfunding the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, which provides funding to organizations that educate, mentor and provide technical assistance for new and veteran farmers; and

Betraying the next generation of farm and food leaders by failing to provide mandatory funding for scholarships at 1890 land grant institutions.

This so-called Farm Bill is so bad in so many ways to so many people that it is little wonder that it is strongly opposed by leading organizations and associations from all sides of the political spectrum, including: National Farmers Union, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Environmental Working Group, National Young Farmers Coalition, Union of Concerned Scientists, Agriculture Energy Coalition, American Biogas Association, Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy, AARP, American Academy of Pediatrics, AFSCME, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Psychological Association, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Child Care Aware of America, Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Coalition on Human Needs, Every Child Matters, Families USA, Feeding America, First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Research & Action Center, Hispanic Federation, Lutheran Services in America, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Meals on Wheels America, MomsRising, NAACP, National Consumers League, National Council on Aging, National Employment Law Project, National PTA, National Urban League, National Women's Law Center, NOW, Partnership for America's Children, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, SEIU, Share Our Strength, UnidosUS, YWCA USA, Heritage Foundation, R Street Institute, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

I urge all Members to join me in voting to reject the rule and this cruel, heartless legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows

An amendment to H. Res. 900 offered by Mr. McGovern

On p. 2, line 2, insert ``The amendment specified in

section 2 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted

in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.'' after

``purposes.''

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

``Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of

this resolution is as follows:

`Add at the end the following:

Subtitle H Protections From Retaliatory Tariffs

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.

Let me very quickly say that my first statement is my opposition to this bill. I can't imagine the cut of $23 billion out of our food nutrition program, nor can I understand the breaching of the relationship between our support for farmers and our support for poor people.

I appreciate my good friend, Mr. Faso, but I have to stand in strong opposition to his amendment which would authorize States to privatize and contract out program eligibility and other administrative functions.

Mr. Chair, I come from Texas. We tried it. It was an enormous drain on the budget. It didn't work. It was costly. People lost their benefits. It is a terrible idea because removing SNAP's merit staffing requirement would prioritize profit, disrupt access to food assistance, and export good jobs.

The SNAP merit system ensures that an employee's core mission objective is to effectively implement program rules unhindered by private interests or profit motives. Many SNAP clients, including the elderly and disabled, have complex cases that require trained professional civil service workers to dedicate significant time.

When these functions are turned over to for-profit companies, there is a different priority, Mr. Chairman. They focus on the bottom line rather than providing comprehensive support. Your constituents of this program are the elderly and children and disabled. In the early 2000s, Texas transferred most of the operational aspects of its eligibility determination system to a private contractor with disastrous results. Services deteriorated as backlogs and other inefficiencies increased. There were 127,000 children who were dropped from health insurance. I am opposed to this legislation. Let's do what is right, Mr. Chairman, for the children.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to Amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman from New York, Congressman Faso, which would authorize states to privatize and contract out program eligibility and other administrative functions.

This is a terrible idea because removing SNAP's merit staffing requirement would prioritize profit, disrupt access to food assistance, and export good jobs.

SNAP's merit system ensures that an employee's core mission objective is to effectively implement program rules unhindered by private interests or profit motives.

Many SNAP clients, including the elderly and disabled, have complex cases that require trained, professional civil service workers to dedicate significant time to appropriately screen and verify their information and ensure they receive the correct benefit levels.

When these functions are turned over to for-profit companies, they focus on the bottom line rather than providing comprehensive support to the needy.

This is what we saw in Texas when the state experimented with privatization.

In the early 2000's Texas transferred most of the operational aspects of its eligibility determination system to a private contractor with disastrous results.

Services deteriorated as backlogs and other inefficiencies increased.

The contractor's monthly abandoned call rate was four times higher than what was called for in the contract; more than 127,000 children were dropped from health insurance between December 2005 and April 2006; and thousands of experienced state employees were laid off or quit and replaced by poorly trained, low-paid vendor employees.

Former Texas Comptroller, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, after conducting an audit of the system, stated that the ``project has failed the state and the citizens it was designed to serve'' and called the privatization effort a ``perfect story of wasted tax dollars, reduced access to services and profiteering at taxpayers' expense.''

Additionally, the Faso Amendment puts at risk good local jobs that likely could be exported out of the area or overseas.

In many areas, including rural regions, civil service jobs offer some of the best-paying, most stable employment for local workers.

Privatizing core SNAP functions would mean many of these jobs would be moved to other locations, including overseas.

Diminishing the pool of good jobs with steady hours and benefits could leave many out of work or with less stable options, hurting local economies.

An added danger of privatization is that it could compromise the security of participants' data.

SNAP collects detailed information about applicants and participants, including social security numbers, household composition, and income and employment information.

Handing private data of millions of individuals over to private companies raises serious concerns about their ability to keep it secure and their interests in using it for other purposes.

Shifting core SNAP functions to private workers could disrupt timely and accurate provision of benefits.

During the early 2000's, Texas experimented with privatizing key pieces of the eligibility process, including accepting applications, advising clients on program requirements and eligibility, and verifying eligibility.

The results were disastrous.

Thousands were unable to apply or were given misinformation and many received incorrect benefit allotments.

Individuals' private information was released, compromising their security.

And taxpayer dollars were wasted--none of the promises of improved performance or cost-savings were realized.

I urge all Members to join me in voting no to Amendment No. 13.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to begin discussion on the floor for issues that, I think, against the backdrop of Mother's Day, the desire to be family friendly in this Nation, and really to answer the question of Americans: Can our government do well by them?

So I raise to the body how we can be more constructive, and I do it on the basis, as we all do, when we go home and interact with our constituents, and so I did as I went home this past weekend a couple of days in the midst of the exciting graduations that we all had a chance to go to and to make remarks, and I want to congratulate those students that I had the privilege of being and speaking at their graduations, the

Historically Black College Texas Southern University, the Lone Star Community College, what an amazing group of graduates. There were large numbers of people who are adults and veterans, and students who were what we call early college graduating. And then, of course, to the system, the Houston Community College, I spoke there.

It looks like I was going to graduations and celebrating with their families. That was good.

Mr. Speaker, they were diverse, all backgrounds, religions. That is what Houston is all about.

At the same time, I visited with and had a press conference with a collective body of humanitarians, Sister Rogers, a Catholic Sister, and many others, about the unfortunate circumstances of where we are with the Dreamers and why we haven't addressed that question and why would Dreamers, who need to be statused, who are lawyers and doctors, and some are serving in public service--we had a paramedic standing with us--why we can't get them statused. Why can't the Nation do what is right? Why can't the President stand up and work with us and sign the bill?

And then I indicated that I am going to introduce the restatusing of TPS statused persons, some who have been here for 20 years with mortgages and people in college, young people in college, and to status them for 2 years to allow the Congress to fix it and that their status be tied to the laws and requirements that they be in sync with those who would get citizenship so they would not be, if you will, awry of the law, that they would be in step with the law, as most of these families are from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti, and beyond.

And then I went to stand with mothers at public housing and indicated to them that it is long overdue in all of our communities that we introduce an infrastructure bill of $150 billion to fix our public housing. Because as I was standing with these mothers at Cuney Homes, their air conditioning was out.

But we stood there the day before Mother's Day to salute them and say they deserve to live in quality housing. They are raising their children. Some of their children go off to the United States military.

Finally, I think it is important to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, maybe this is a confused statement by the administration, but I have to speak against, and these are my friends, we want to work internationally--I was here for the permanent trade agreement that was done with China-- but it is important to know that our economy is based on innovation. Why would the administration support the Chinese firm of ZTE that our intelligence community has taken note that they have interfered with our innovation and our technology and suggest that he wants the Chinese workers to have their jobs again?

I certainly want the best for any country, but I do know it is important to restore the jobs of the American people, and there are many call center American companies that would make a great infusion of energy and dollars in various communities across the Nation.

It is important to note that the House Intelligence Committee report of 2012 indicated and concluded that ZTE cannot be trusted to be free of foreign state influence and thus poses a security threat to the United States and our systems.

Well, it is odd that this President, who has put extensive sanctions on Iran and North Korea, is now willing to overlook a House Intelligence report indicating, of course, that ZTE cannot be trusted.

So I started, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating my graduates, but I indicated throughout that I am baffled by these policies of the administration, but I do say that I have a faith in this institution, and I ask my colleagues: Stand with me on the restoration of a 2-year status for TPS so we can get it right. Let us not separate mothers from their children in the immigration structure, and let's pass a Dreamers bill, and let's work to introduce funding for our public housing that exists and that mothers are living in across America.

Mr. Speaker, your kindness is appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I was honored just a few minutes ago to be on the floor of the House with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Goodlatte; the ranking member, Mr. Nadler; the proponent of this bill, Mr. Rutherford; and our Democratic proponent, Mrs. Demings, to honor those fallen officers with a moment of silence in the most powerful lawmaking body in the world, to acknowledge to the Nation and to the world that we stand united in honoring those who have fallen in the call of duty.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude during National Police Week to all the brave men and women who continue to give of themselves selflessly. I also acknowledge my own hometown leadership: Sheriff Gonzalez, and, of course, our distinguished chief of police; all of the assistant chiefs, deputy sheriffs, and leadership; constables and their deputy constables; Texas rangers; and, of course, our Federal officers, over which this committee has jurisdiction. We thank not only them for their service, but also the families whose loved ones have fallen in battle.

This is not a discussion of the respect and admiration we have for officers, and there is no argument regarding the difficulty, danger, and stress associated with being a police officer. We all have seen the reports that show, in 2017, 129 police officers died in the line of duty; 46 of those brave men and women were shot, while 140, tragically, committed suicide. That says a lot about the toll this type of profession takes on a person physically, psychologically, mentally, and on their families.

The risks inherent in policing resulted in numerous statutes that deal with protecting our law enforcement officers via Federal and State law. Our law enforcement officers are most protected under our laws, and, in some instances, the statutes give life and the death penalty for such crimes. Even crimes against the broadly defined category of first responders are well addressed under Federal and State law.

My State of Texas has several criminal statutes addressing attacks on law enforcement officers; therefore, this legislation may be deemed to be a duplicate legal framework. But I want to propose to my colleagues, as I did when we sat together at the Rules Committee, that we can work together in moving forward.

I do want to say on this legislation that it does frame itself on the focus of the targeting of law enforcement. As well, it recognizes that the first prosecution level will be State and local laws to protect or bring to justice those who have shot police officers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that I respect the bill that is moving forward but recognize that we really need to do more.

One of the points that I want to make is this new law does not have mandatory minimums. It does allow the discretion of the judge, but I believe that there are issues that our civil rights groups have raised that are legitimate.

This bill is being contemplated during a time when our country is in need of a new look at the Nation's 18,000 law enforcement agencies. I hope my colleague, Mr. Rutherford, as we have honored those together who have fallen, will join us in the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act that will provide for the opportunity for credentialing, professional development training and counseling, deescalation training that is necessary for our officers, and join in the enhancements of police-community relations. This will be a true tribute to our officers and, as well, provide a framework of protecting their lives as we engage the community in more coming together between police and community.

I hope, again, that we move together as a committee and that the police working group will produce this kind of legislation. I support the Protect and Serve Act of 2018.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deepest gratitude during this National Police Week, to all the brave men and women that continue to give of themselves selflessly.

There is no argument regarding the difficulty, danger and stress associated with being a police officer.

We have all seen the reports that show in 2017, 129 police officers died in the line of duty. 46 of those brave men and women were shot, while 140 committed suicides. That says a lot about the toll this type of profession takes on a person both physical, psychologically and mentally.

The risk inherent in policing resulted in numerous statutes with vast protection via federal and state law. Our law enforcement officers are most protected under our laws and in some instances life and the death penalty are imposed for such crimes.

Even crimes against the broadly defined category of first responders are well addressed under federal and state law.

For example, my state of Texas has several criminal statutes addressing attacks on law enforcement officers.

Therefore, this legislation is duplicative in nature and does not improve current legal framework for crimes against law enforcement officers.

I want to be clear about the respect that we have for the difficult work undertaken by our law enforcement professionals. However, as Mr. Chairman said at Rules yesterday in agreement with my concerns, we cannot ignore the danger in taking such a one-sided approach to the issue of police practices.

Many of the civil rights groups have raised legitimate concerns. For example, this bill is being contemplated during a time when our country is in the throes of a national policing crisis, with a never-ending stream of police shootings of unarmed African americans captured on video.

While I support protection for our officers, I am also troubled by the message this may send to all those impacted daily by the violence perpetrated by the bad apples within law enforcement.

We should focus on real reform measures like the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act that will protect law enforcement, first responders, and their communities.

Over the years, well-documented, unconstitutional policing practices in communities of color across the United States have eroded trust between these communities and the law enforcement officials sworn to protect them.

Almost 1,000 people were killed by police in 2017 according to the Washington Post. Another outlet estimates over 1,100 police-related fatalities last year, with people of color representing more than 50 percent of those unarmed during fatal encounters with police.

In the two years since the creation of the Judiciary bipartisan Policing Strategies Working Group, the Committee has advanced no police reform legislation.

The country's interests would be better served by working to foster law enforcement reforms aimed at helping local jurisdictions meet their constitutional obligation of fair and unbiased policing. Repeatedly pursuing legislation, such as H.R. 5698, will sow seeds of division by ignoring the realities of police accountability issues, thus ultimately undermining public safety.

We should care equally about harms by and against police officers and their impact on local communities.

Out of respect for all who have lost their lives over the last year-- both law enforcement and civilian--we must dedicate ourselves to engaging the difficult issues in reforming police practices to make lasting change in our communities.