Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Houston for yielding, and I would like to address all of us on the floor tonight as my fellow Texans. That was a favorite of George W. Bush, the son of Barbara Bush, when he would greet us during his Presidency, which I had the privilege of being here in the United States Congress, and he would always greet me as his fellow Texan, and how proud we are to be able to call President George H.W. Bush and the extended family, and his wonderful First Lady, the matriarch, the first girlfriend, if you will, and as has been told over and over during the time of her memorial, the first man that she kissed. How proud we are to call both of them our fellow Texans.

Now we are standing here today to mourn Barbara Pierce Bush. And as I do that, let me, first of all, acknowledge President George H.W. Bush, and wish him a speedy recovery for him to regain his strength; for all of us watched as he sat in the viewing of her repose on that Friday, as he came and sat and remained for a period of time to greet the many people that came to honor her during that viewing. I was one of those who had the privilege to go and to pay my respects on that day.

But again, they are one of America's greatest families, although Barbara Pierce Bush would never acknowledge that by her attitude or the way she addressed people. She was just Mrs. Barbara Bush, a very humble but strong and firm and straightforward First Lady.

Barbara Bush was a descendant of the 14th President of the United States, Franklin Pierce; the wife of the 41st, George Herbert Walker Bush; and the mother of the 43rd, George W. Bush.

Of course, she finds her place in history for many, many reasons; but, of course, we take note of the fact there was only one other woman who was both the wife and the mother of a President of the United States, Abigail Adams. So that is a very high-ranking and honorable place to be.

Barbara Bush, the widely admired and fiercely loyal wife, mother, and grandmother, was born in Rye, New York, but she got to Texas as soon as she could. She met a dashing young George Herbert Walker Bush in Greenwich, Connecticut, at a school dance when she was 16 and he was a year older. What an amazing story. In fact, what an amazing love story.

Three years later, Barbara Bush married her sweetheart, and their love lasted for 73 years. I remember, as we mourned her last weekend, over and over again, the commentators would say, 73 years of marriage. That, alone, is a historic tribute to integrity and the beauty and the love of both of them. And, of course, they were married until she departed in death.

George and Barbara raised their family from west Texas to Houston. Of course, we know that he was a war hero and a remarkable set of action that he saw in World War II, and a miraculous recovery from when his plane fell, and, as well, miraculous in the fact that he survived; but, more importantly, the actions that took place as he pursued the enemy. He truly was a hero as well.

Barbara Bush was plainspoken, but she had that wonderful white hair, pearl necklace and earrings. And so many in Houston, on the day of both her funeral and as well the day that we viewed her remains at St. Martin's Episcopal, as she lied in repose, she was there, and we were wearing pearl necklaces and earrings, just to be able to say she is someone that we admired, not for those external things, but for the goodness of her heart.

She was an early supporter of the civil rights movement, the equal rights movement, and we repeated over and over again that very famous story of her going to an AIDS clinic and picking up a baby and hugging and touching those individuals who were HIV infected, to let the world know that they needed love and comfort, and that we needed to fight for the cure and to recognize the humanity of those who are suffering from

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding, and I make the very point that there are three Members on this floor today from the Judiciary Committee who have an enormous amount of seniority, who have seen the long journey that our talented genius-based musical icons in our Nation have traveled to come to this point, and so I say congratulations.

In the markup, I indicated that there was a harmonious sound coming from the Judiciary Committee and that it was evident that we could work together in a bipartisan manner.

I thank the chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, and the ranking member, Mr. Nadler, who have been intimately involved; and I am reminded of all of those who have come in and out of my office through the years as I served on the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Committee some years back and that they were still traveling even in this year, 2018.

So I applaud Mr. Collins and Mr. Jeffries for providing that musical tone. This is a very important bill. It is an important bill because it was an inconsistent patchwork that governed the industry that was in dire need of reframing, and the MMA 2018 addresses that patchwork. And specifically, under title II, it finally gives a just compensation to those artists who recorded works prior to 1972.

First and foremost, the MMA is a proposition that is supported by both the majority of songwriters and publishers and the digital service providers.

Secondly, it modernizes the process and brings music licensing into the 21st century--long overdue.

Third, it puts unclaimed royalties in the hands of the content community, rather than sitting with digital services. It streamlines the streamline.

Fourth, it finally creates a comprehensive database, and confidence grows in the market.

And for all of those individuals who provided us the joy that was earlier mentioned, it creates a formalized body run by publishers that administer the law, the mechanical licensing and compositions streamed on services like Spotify and Apple Music, and others; it changes the procedure by which millions of songs are made available; and it funds the creation of a comprehensive database, but, more importantly, it helps those who prerecord it.

My tribute to Aretha Franklin, Dionne Warwick, the late Jackie Wilson, Duke Fakir, The Shirelles, French Family in Houston, Bun B, Trae tha Truth, and the late Crickets, the Ebony singers in Houston, the Houston Grand Opera, Mrs. Barbara Tucker, End Jazz, Jason Moran, Kirk Whalum, Howard Harris, Imani children's band, Kashmere jazz band; and, of course, gospel, Kirk Clark, Kathy Taylor, Michael McCain, and Georgia Adams. Houston is a hub, Mr. Speaker, and we are celebrating because of this bill. I congratulate everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Music Modernization Act of 2018 (MMA) of which I am an original cosponsor.

This bill has arrived at its current state through the diligent work of various stakeholders involved, including the music industry, congressional staff, and Members of Congress.

Hours of debate, negotiation, and deliberation have yielded a product of cooperation and compromise.

I commend the industry and the parties involved in drafting this bipartisan solution--it is rare that this committee reaches such agreements when considering major legislation.

Houston, being a music hub with its Grammy Award winning orchestra and Grammy nominated rappers including my dear friend Bun B from Underground Kingz, will certainly benefit from this legislation becoming law.

The exemplary efforts exhibited by the music industry in this instance, with the goal of solving problems and addressing a wide variety of stakeholder concerns, are a model that this committee and this Congress should use as inspiration to best serve the American people.

The need for this legislation is clear; much of the current licensing system was established in an analog era, with non-digital physical recordings done song-by-song, using compulsory licenses first established in 1909.

In addition, artists who recorded works prior to 1972 do not receive any digital performance royalties under federal law, and current statute does not ensure that non-recording artists such as producers, sound engineers, and mixers receive revenue from webcasts of their work.

The inconsistent patchwork that governs the industry is in dire need of reframing and the MMA 2018 addresses that patchwork and specifically under Title II, finally gives just compensation to those artists who recorded works prior to 1972.

With the MMA, Congress is fulfilling its duty to provide order and guidance to the faulty program currently in place.

The United States has the most innovative and influential music culture in the world, but its legal framework for music licensing dates back to the age of the Victrola.

There is a widespread perception from across the industry that this complex framework is under strain and needs updating.

The last general revision of the Copyright Act took place in 1976 following a lengthy and comprehensive review process carried out by Congress, the Copyright Office, and interested parties.

Congress significantly amended the Act in 1995, with the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (``DPRSRA''), and 1998, with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (``DMCA''), to address emerging issues of the digital age.

While the current Copyright Act reflects many sound and enduring principles, and has enabled the internet to flourish, it could not have foreseen all of today's technologies and the myriad ways consumers and others engage with music in the digital environment.

First and foremost, the MMA is a proposition that is supported by both a majority of songwriters and publishers and the (Digital Service Providers)--two groups who rarely agree.

Secondly, it ``modernizes'' the process and brings music licensing into the 21st century.

Instead of bulk Notices of Intention--the environmentally unfriendly process of sending actual physical letters of intent to each publisher for each share of each song--the licensing will be done electronically.

Third, it puts unclaimed royalties in the hands of the content community, rather than sitting with the Digital Service Providers.

Fourth, it finally creates a comprehensive database.

While various companies and services have a version of a database, U.S. publishers have not agreed on one that is both comprehensive and accurate.

As part of the MMA, the digital service providers will pay for the creation and maintenance of a database that will finally put all mechanical licensing information in one place that is accessible to all.

Finally, it provides streaming services with confidence that, if they follow the process, they can accurately and comprehensively license all the musical works on their service without fear of billion dollar lawsuits against them.

And confidence grows markets and boosts economy.

A number of interested music industry groups have come together to create a consensus bill that makes several major changes including: Title I--Music Modernization Act.

The Music Modernization act creates a formalized body, run by publishers, that administers the ``mechanical licensing'' of compositions streamed on services like Spotify and Apple Music (these companies are referred as Digital Service Providers or DSPs).

The bill reflects how modern digital music services operate by creating a blanket licensing system to quickly license and pay for musical work copyrights.

It changes the procedure by which millions of songs are made available for streaming on these services and limits the liability a service can incur if it adheres to the new process.

Discusses music litigation that generates legal settlements in favor of simply ensuring that artists and copyright owners are paid in the first place without such litigation.

The MMA funds the creation of a comprehensive database with buy in from all the major publishers and digital service providers.

Ends the flawed U.S. Copyright Office bulk notice of intent system that allows royalties to go unpaid.

The bill also creates a new evidentiary standard by which the performance rights organizations American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) can argue better rates for the performance of musical works on DSPs.

It implements uniform rate setting standards to be used by the Copyright Royalty Board for all music services.

The bill shifts the costs of the new licensing collective created by the bill to those who benefit from the collective--the licensees.

The MMA updates how certain rate court cases are assigned in the Southern District of New York.

Title II--Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act provides a public performance right for pre-1972 recordings.

Title III--The Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act ensures that record producers, sound engineers, and other creative professionals receive compensation for their work

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the MMA.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our nation is to have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military.

We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. I was inspired to serve by President Kennedy who said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said:

Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You

only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.

By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated. That is why today I rise to pay tribute to five extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are:

Ayesha Muzaffar from the University of Houston;

Anthony Berry from the University of Alabama;

Jonathan King from Texas Tech University;

Troy Allen from the University of Houston; and

Brett Hyland from The Madeira School.

Mr. Speaker, the energy, intelligence, and idealism these wonderful young people brought to my office and those interning in the offices of my colleagues help keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world.

Because of persons like Ayesha, Anthony, Jonathan, Troy, and Brett the future of our country is bright and its best days lie ahead. I wish them well.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women

can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great, good, and forever young.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support for H.R. 4744, the Iran Human Rights and Hostage--Taking Accountability Act, introduced by my fellow Texas delegate Congressman Michael McCall and fellow House Judiciary colleague Congressman Ted Deutch.

H.R. 4744 states that Congress stands with the people of Iran, and it provides the Trump administration with the tools necessary to hold Iranian government officials responsible for human rights violations, corruption, and censorship.

Moreover, this legislation holds the Iranian regime accountable for taking hostage American citizens and permanent residents by ensuring that those responsible pay an extreme but just price for the violations committed.

I applaud the House Foreign Affairs Committee for their support in passing this critical piece of legislation.

And I sincerely hope that this bill passes the Senate and arrives at the President's desk to be promptly signed into law so we can begin to hold the Iranian regime accountable for their gross human rights violations.

The Iranian regime continues to perpetuate gross human rights abuses against its own people.

The regime continues to suppress the country's voices for reform through censorship of the media.

The regime continues to recklessly use the nation's resources to expand its regional influence through its support for terrorist groups.

The regime continues to engage in corrupt practices.

And the regime continues to illegally detain and imprison our citizens without just cause or reason.

These practices are unacceptable.

H.R. 4744 serves as a clear signal to the people of Iran that we support them in their quest for freedom, it shines a light on the regime's human rights violations and sanctions those who are complicit in such crimes.

The same goes for Iranian officials guilty of corruption, censorship, and the diversion of goods intended for the Iranian people.

Lastly, this bill sanctions individuals complicit in taking Americans and other nation's citizens hostage and requires the President to work with our international partners to develop a strategy to put an end to this practice.

We have five Americans currently detained in Iran--an intolerable circumstance that calls for action.

We must do all we can, and apply as much pressure on Iran as necessary to ensure the American detainees' safe release, and prevent future Americans from being held hostage by this brutal regime.

I thank Congressman McCaul and Deutch for their leadership on this legislation to hold Iran's corrupt officials accountable.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill's passage, and the passage of all the important measure before us today.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and a former member of the Science Committee I am in strong support of H.R. 2809, the ``American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson for their work to bring H.R. 2809 before the House for consideration.

There is historic congressional support for NASA in Congress, and I am proud to have played a leading role in this effort.

Now that space exploration has attracted strong private sector investments, space exploration has entered a new era.

I served on the House Science Committee for 12 years; and one of the goals was to see private sector investments in space exploration.

This legislation grants the Office of Space Commerce (OSC) of the Department of Commerce the authority to issue certifications to U.S. nationals and nongovernmental entities for the operation of:

1. specified human-made objects manufactured or assembled in outer space, including on the Moon and other celestial bodies, with or without human occupants, that were launched from Earth; and

2. all items carried on such objects that are intended for use in outer space. To be eligible for certification, each entity's application must include a space debris mitigation plan for the space objects.

H.R. 2809 also directs that the Office of Space Commerce (OSC) establish a Private Space Activity Advisory Committee to:

1. analyze the status and recent developments of nongovernmental space activities, and

2. advise on matters relating to U.S. private sector activities in outer space.

The bill authorizes the OSC to issue permits to persons for the operation of space-based remote sensing systems.

The OSC will also establish an Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing to provide advice on matters relating to the U.S. commercial space-based remote sensing industry.

The bill also abolishes the Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It is our job as members of Congress to make sure that NASA continues to push the boundaries of what is possible, keeping our Nation on the forefront of innovation and exploration.

However, when the impossible becomes routine, and private sector interest in the area of space exploration attracts investment and further innovation in the area of commercialization it is fitting to support private sector efforts.

We should not forget the role that private and public sector efforts have made in developing and promoting advancements in aviation from its earliest beginnings.

The Wright Brothers were private citizens who devoted themselves to solving the problems associated with human flight.

Their success led others inside and outside of government to pursue innovations that led to the development of technology that ultimately led us into space.

NASA continues to be the world's premier space organization but as innovation and private interest in space continues we must make room for private sector interests.

We must provide for safe and responsible space innovations, while assuring that the United States remains a leader in this area.

H.R. 2809 maintains sustainability of purpose for the government's support of commercial space activities.

The bill lays the ground work for an expansion in commercial space activity and emphasizes the importance of maintaining a steady cadence of science missions that lead the way into deeper exploration of our planet, solar system and beyond.

This authorization addresses an issue of great importance to a sustained and healthy space program.

The bill provides a place in the Department of Commerce for remote sensing commercial space activity.

It is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future of NASA is one of continued progress and that space exploration remains a part of our national destiny.

NASA inspires our children to look to the stars and dream of what they too may achieve one day.

Space exploration allows us to push the bounds of our scientific knowledge, as we carry out research projects not possible within the constraints of planet Earth.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of H.R. 2809.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of Barbara Pierce Bush, the matriarch of one of America's great families, and former First Lady of the United States.

Barbara Bush was a descendant of the 14th president, the wife of the 41st and the mother of the 43rd.

Barbara Bush, the widely admired wife of one president and the fiercely loyal mother of another, was born June 8, 1925 in Rye, New York.

Barbara Bush attended a prestigious boarding school in South Carolina, where she met George Herbert Walker Bush at a school dance when she was 16 and he was a year older.

Three years later, Barbara Pierce married her sweetheart and their love lasted for 73 years, until she was departed from her beloved by death.

George and Barbara raised their family mainly in West Texas, where they settled after the end of World War II and where the future President went into the oil business.

Barbara Bush was a plainspoken woman who was instantly recognizable with her signature white hair, pearl necklaces, and earrings.

Mrs. Bush was an early supporter of the Civil Rights Movement, Planned Parenthood, and was a tireless champion of many charitable causes, especially literacy.

Barbara Bush raised more than $1 billion for literacy and cancer charities.

Barbara Bush recognized that education was the key that unlocked the door of human potential.

Literacy was Barbara Bush's special cause, which led her to establish the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy.

Shortly after the end of her husband's presidential administration, the Bush Family returned to Texas, and all Houstonians were lucky to call her and her husband, George H. W. Bush, the 41st president, our neighbors and dear friends.

Barbara Bush's books include an autobiography and one about post- White House life.

Her children's book about their dog, Millie, and her puppies written during her White House years was a best seller, as were her other books.

In 2001, when George W. Bush took office, Barbara Bush became the only woman in American history to live to see her husband and son elected president.

Barbara Bush lived a full life and will be remembered in American history, alongside only Abigail Adams, for the impact her life had on this country.

Barbara Bush is survived by her husband and their children George, Jeb, Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Barbara Pierce Bush, the Former First Lady of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to Executive Order 13828, entitled ``Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility,'' issued by the President last Tuesday, April 10, 2018.

The President would have the American people believe he is bringing the country together and growing the economy for all Americans.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Executive Order 13828 is a thinly-veiled attempt to restrict access to health care, housing, food, and many other basic living programs by adding onerous ``work requirements.''

These social safety net programs provide necessary government assistance to help Americans families maintain a basic standard of living, and are a safety net for the poorest of the poor.

Millions of Americans, despite working two jobs, depend on these programs just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads for their families.

In addition, the vast majority of full-time workers live paycheck to paycheck.

In fact, 70 percent of Americans rely on at least one means tested federal program throughout their lives.

America, one of the richest countries in the world, should be able to help families caught in, to use the celebrated LBJ biographer Robert Caro's famous phrase, the ``tentacles of circumstance.''

However, we have a president who is insensitive to the plights of every day Americans.

Trump and the conservative acolytes who seek to implement his agenda paint an inaccurate portrayal of poor people as lazy ``Welfare Queens'' who would rather depend on the government than pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but nothing could be further from the true reality that millions of Americans face.

Mr. Speaker, the President should know that it is unreasonable to expect the poorest people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they do not have boots.

Our nation's social safety net programs already fail to help all of the families in need:

Only 1 in 4 poor families with children receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF);

SNAP only provide $1.40/per meal; and

Housing assistance reaches just 1 in 5 eligible families.

That is because the federal government has failed to raise the minimum wage in almost a decade, so even if you work a full-time minimum wage job, you are still living in poverty.

Members of the CBC are here to tell the American people, do not be fooled.

Donald Trump says this is about a ``poverty trap,'' but the real trap is not raising the minimum wage.

The President opposes increasing the minimum wage and eliminating labor protections for middle and lower income workers in the African American community.

Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage to just $12 per hour would save $53 billion in SNAP benefits alone.

Wage gaps between are larger today than they were in 1979.

For example, African American men's average hourly wages were 22.2 percent lower than those of white men in 1979 and declined to 31.0 percent lower by 2015.

Young African American women have been hardest hit since 2000.

The racial wealth gap is much larger than the wage or income gap by race.

Average wealth for white families is seven times higher than average wealth for African American families.

Worse still, median white wealth (wealth for the family in the exact middle of the overall distribution--wealthier than half of all families and less-wealthy than half) is twelve times higher than median African American wealth.

Wage gaps are growing primarily because of discrimination and racial differences in skills and worker characteristics.

Declining unionization has also had a role in the growing black-white wage gap, particularly for men newly joining the workforce.

African Americans have been disproportionately affected by the growing gap between pay and productivity.

Not only are the President's policies divisive along racial and cultural lines, they also serve to further increase economic inequality due to their clear design in favor of the wealthiest among us at the expense of everyone else.

Trump's billionaire tax heist robs the U.S. Treasury of $1.5 trillion in resources that could be invested in economic growth in underserved communities.

The President has proposed doubling down on mass incarceration and the war on drugs, which drains the African American labor pool.

The President has taken every opportunity to harm health care for African-Americans from sabotaging the ACA to ending Medicaid as we know it.

This president is no friend to African Americans, or their pocket books.

Trump also wants you to believe that he wants a bipartisan infrastructure plan.

Do not be fooled.

Trump's review of ``welfare programs'' is an immoral attempt to gut the programs that provide a basic standard of living for Americans struggling to make ends meet, all to pay for massive tax cuts to himself and the richest 1 percent.

Instead, he should raise wages and invest in job training programs to prepare Americans for the work of the future.

Mr. Speaker, our nation still has a long way to go before we achieve economic equality for all its citizens.

The President and Congressional Republicans should work with Democrats to put more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans.

At the end of the day, our constituents should be able to support their children with one full-time job.

Ultimately, we need to give families the tools they need to rise out of poverty, not undercut programs that keep them afloat.

Mr. Speaker, it is my task this morning to encourage my colleagues to adhere to the rule of law.

In keeping with that, my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee--Mr. Nadler, the ranking member, myself, and Mr. Cohen--introduced H.R. 5476, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, to protect the work of Special Counsel Mueller and to allow his work to proceed.

In the recent days, Mr. Mueller's prosecutors found information that generated questions about criminal activity. No prosecutor can ignore that kind of evidence. He referred it first to the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein, to approve his potential referral of that information, and he did approve it. It was referred to the Southern District of New York.

We now come to find out that the President's attorney has been investigated for a long period of time. We found out a surprise: one of his clients was Sean Hannity, who was already being investigated.

This is an insurance that the President will not fire the special counsel and allow his work to continue. That is an Article I responsibility, a constitutional responsibility, and I encourage my colleagues to join us to provide that insurance.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the manager of this bill, Mr. Poe, again, for his continued leadership on issues of protecting the victim.

I know that everyone has either gone to their bank, been at a store, or gotten that call that says that: ``Are you Mrs. Jones? You live in Texas. There is someone now in a department store in New York using your identity, your card, your credit card,'' and nothing but fear comes your way. It may not be even on the basis of you having lost your credit cards, but it may be on the basis of the dastardly act of stealing your identity.

Probably there is nothing more, besides family and faith and country and God, that disturbs you most than to lose who you are. And so the legislation of H.R. 2905, the Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018, is a valuable legislative initiative because, every year, billions of dollars are stolen from hardworking Americans as a result of identity theft.

Tax season, as it begins today, or ends today, is a particularly dangerous time as scammers pretending to be IRS representatives trick victims into giving them money. Some of the most vulnerable victims are senior citizens or individuals who are not familiar with the likes of government responsibilities or actions.

The bipartisan bill, H.R. 2905, the Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018, helps ensure that Congress has the information it needs to make sure that law enforcement agencies are employing tactics to hold these criminals accountable and deter future crimes.

I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young) and the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) for their astute leadership on this bill and for recognizing that victims are left helpless and hopeless sometimes.

As tax season comes to a close, millions of Americans are at risk of being exploited by emerging schemes where scam artists pretend to be IRS agents and harass victims into providing personal information and money. The IRS estimates that more than $65 million has been lost to phone tax scammers in the past 5 years. These attacks are most common during the tax season, in March and April. Those are dollars that many valuable and important programs or responsibilities of our Federal Government could utilize, dollars that certainly don't belong to criminals.

Often, scammers present themselves as the IRS and trick people into sending their money and personal information. As technology advances, so do the scammers. The IRS warned of a sophisticated phone scam targeting taxpayers, including recent immigrants, which has been making the rounds throughout the country.

Scammers claim to be IRS employees using fake names and bogus IRS identification badges. They may know a lot about their targets, and they usually alter the caller I.D. to make it look like the IRS.

By debating this bill on the floor of the House today, Mr. Speaker, we hope that we are sending a far-reaching warning for those who may be watching or those who are watching to tell others: Please understand that the IRS has made it clear they do not do business that way.

Victims are told they owe money to the IRS and they must be paid promptly through a gift card or a wire transfer. That is not the way IRS does business. Victims may be threatened with arrest or deportation or suspension of a business or driver's license.

Seek immediate help through counsel, through calling, directly, the IRS or your public servant that is nearby.

In many cases, the caller becomes hostile and insulting. If the phone isn't answered, the scammers often leave an urgent callback request. That is not the way the Federal Government does its business, or the

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, again, let me thank Mr. Young from Iowa for his presence here. And let me thank Ms. Sinema, who has always been astutely concerned about the fairness to those who may be victimized by these dastardly acts. I reiterate again that they are conmen and - women, and Ms. Sinema knows well the importance of protecting her constituents, so I want to congratulate her and Mr. Young for this legislation.

Again, I want to emphasize how important it is that we take important measures to protect all forms of identity theft. But I want to use the terminology ``victims'' because, as I have said, senior citizens, people who are there alone; and, of course, families, individuals who are not experienced; first-time filers, for example, of their IRS filing; and people who don't have, or know, anyone to call, they are particularly in the eye of the storm.

I, again, reiterate--if you are listening to us--do not respond to those kinds of intimidating calls. Please call the IRS. Yes, you can call the IRS or your public servant that is nearby, or seek some relief in some other manner.

Identity theft can occur in many settings. It can occur in public places where criminals watch you from a nearby location as you punch in your credit card number, or listen in on your conversation if you have to give your credit card number over the telephone. It can also occur if you receive applications for pre-approved credit cards in the mail, but discard them without tearing up the enclosed materials. A first notice to everyone: those items should be shredded.

Many people's information is stolen when they are inquiring to spam emails that promise them some benefit, but request identifying data. In some cases, criminals reportedly abuse computer technology to steal large amounts of personal data.

With enough identifying information about an individual, a criminal can take over that individual's identity to conduct a wide range of crimes. You don't want to get that phone call. Maybe it is not a store in New York, but it might be a store in Istanbul, or somewhere beyond, that your credit card is being used.

False applications for loans and credit cards, fraudulent withdrawals from bank accounts, fraudulent use of telephone calling cards, or online accounts, it is important to be reminded the world is getting smaller and these credit card accounts can be used all over the world. The consequences of identity theft can be severe and can leave a person with no funds to pay for everyday living costs. Identity fraud can have a significant effect on your credit history.

If an identity theft uses your existing credit or applies for new credit, this could leave a footprint of debt or missed payments in your credit report, even to the extent that this individual generates a bankruptcy. Even if the criminal applies for credit and is rejected, this can still have a negative impact on your credit history, as each application for credit is recorded.

It is with these concerns that I applaud this legislation and ask my colleagues to support the present legislation that is H.R. 2905, the Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018. The victims are our most important cause.

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

Mr. Speaker, every year, billions of dollars are stolen from hardworking Americans as a result of identity theft. Tax season is a particularly dangerous time as scammers pretending to be IRS representatives, trick victims into giving them money. The bipartisan bill, H.R. 2905 ``Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018,'' helps ensure that Congress has the information it needs to make sure that law enforcement agencies are employing tactics to hold these criminals accountable and deter future crimes.

As tax season comes to a close, millions of Americans are at risk of being exploited by an emerging scheme where scam artists pretend to be IRS agents and harass victims into providing personal information and money. The IRS estimates that more than $65 million has been lost to phone tax scammers in the past five years. These attacks are most common during the high high tax season in March and April.

Often scammers present themselves as the IRS and trick people into sending them money and personal information. As technology advances so do the scammers. The IRS warned of a sophisticated phone scam targeting taxpayers, including recent immigrants, which has been making the rounds throughout the country. Scammers claim to be IRS employees, using fake names and bogus IRS identification badge numbers. They may know a lot about their targets, and they usually alter the caller ID to make it look like the IRS is calling.

Victims are told they owe money to the IRS and it must be paid promptly through a gift card or wire transfer. Victims may be threatened with arrest, deportation or suspension of a business or driver's license. In many cases, the caller becomes hostile and insulting. If the phone isn't answered, the scammers often leave an ``urgent'' callback request. Scared and confused, many victims comply with the scammers request out of fear of the repercussions.

The ``Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018,'' requires the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury to report to Congress the efforts to combat the serious identity theft problem. The bill requires the DOJ to report on the status of prosecutions of identity theft crimes. It asked for recommendations regarding how this crime is committed, how to improve collaboration with other federal agencies, and how to improve law enforcement deterrence and prevention of such offenses. It also requires the Department of Treasury to provide a report detailing its current efforts to assist in the prosecution of identity theft where the criminal impersonates IRS personnel and the resources they need to facilitate the prosecution of these offenses. This information will provide a helpful insight into how our law enforcement agencies are addressing the problem and what Congress can do to help improve the results.

We need to ensure that Americans are being protected from these con artists who target and terrify Americans and that these thieves are held accountable for their criminal activity. That is why I support H.R. 2905, ``Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018.''

Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to emphasize how important it is that we take important measures to protect against all forms of identity theft.

Identity theft can occur in many settings. It can occur in public places where criminals watch you from a nearby location as you punch in your credit card number or listen in on your conversation if you give your credit-card number over the telephone. It can also occur if you receive applications for ``pre-approved'' credit cards in the mail but discard them without tearing up the enclosed materials. Many people's information is stolen when they respond to spam emails that promise them some benefit but requests identifying data. In some cases, criminals reportedly have used computer technology to steal large amounts of personal data.

With enough identifying information about an individual, a criminal can take over that individual's identity to conduct a wide range of crimes. False applications for loans and credit cards, fraudulent withdrawals from bank accounts, fraudulent use of telephone calling cards, or online accounts. The consequences of identity theft can be severe and can leave a person with no funds to pay for everyday living costs. Identity fraud can have a significant effect on your credit history. If an identity thief uses your existing credit or applies for new credit, this could leave a footprint of debt or missed payments on your credit report. Even if the criminal applies for credit and is rejected this can still have a negative effect on your credit history as each application for credit is recorded.

It is with these concerns in mind that we act on this legislation today. I support this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Tonko so very much for yielding. He was a dear, dear friend of Louise.

I rise today to really highlight the sunshine that Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter really was to all of us. I am reminded of that day when those two planes landed in Rochester, New York, her beloved community. It was a bright, sunny day, but it was almost amazing as the buses drew up to the place of her funeral and the lines and lines of Rochester citizens, her constituents, who were lining up two by two, waiting to come to honor her.

That was a true testimony to what Louise Slaughter and Bob, her husband, were to that community. They loved that community, and that community loved her. Eighty-eight years of youth, because she was young, vibrant, and ready.

I am delighted to acknowledge so much that she did in the areas of women's rights and empowerment, the arts, healthcare, the battlefield preparedness, economic revitalization, the environment, and social justice, and, of course, her work dealing with the issue of genetics that, really, a lot of people in Congress didn't even understand, but Louise with her expertise in microbiology, there she was educating all of us.

As far as her leadership on the Affordable Care Act, she was one of the soldiers and generals who made sure that it passed, and as well her great work in dealing with the Violence Against Women Act and the STOCK Act to make sure that we, as Members of Congress, did the right thing financially.

But I want to emphasize the tutoring that Louise Slaughter gave to me. I want to thank her staff who is sitting back in this Chamber, and her staff in her home district. But if they came to the Rules Committee, either when Louise was a member or senior member or the ranking member or chair, her astuteness and genius, her sharp wit, her reminding members that she was the chair, that we could learn from her if we decided to do so.

I know personally, as a frequent visitor to the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter was in charge and the first woman chair of this powerful committee. I learned fast from her. I cannot thank her enough for teaching a new Member at that time of the works and the goings-on and the protocols of the Rules Committee and how to do it right.

She never lost her humor and her wonderful Southern twang. Of course, who would be better leading Seneca Falls than Louise McIntosh Slaughter?

I thank her for her fight for women's rights and as well for taking me to Niagara Falls as a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

So, finally, as I close, I am reminded that Congresswoman Slaughter had an iron fist in a velvet glove, and I loved it. I loved her wit, and I loved the fact that she was a true American.

So my prayer is that the Lord bring comfort to the many people, those who Louise knew and those who felt they knew Louise Slaughter, who know that a mighty oak has fallen and are heartbroken at her loss. I ask that God bless her, may God rest her, and as well may God bless her constituents as God blesses the United States of America.

Farewell, Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter, you will never be forgotten, and you will always be remembered.

I want to thank my colleague Paul Tonko, for organizing this session honoring our shared friend.

I rise today in remembrance of my dear friend and our beloved colleague, Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter of New York, a trailblazer for women, whose powerful voice was quieted this past March 16, 2018.

Louise Slaughter lived a long, full, and consequential life and got the most out of the 88 years she graced this world.

She will be remembered in this House for her service to her constituents and her colleagues, her formidable intellect, her mastery of the legislative process, and her graciousness and kindness to all who came in contact with her.

After serving four years in the New York State Assembly, Louise Slaughter was elected to the 100th Congress in 1986 to represent the 30th Congressional District of New York, which at the time included downtown and eastern Rochester, most of eastern Monroe County, all of Genesee County and northern Livingston and Ontario counties.

Reelected to the 15 succeeding Congresses Louise Slaughter carved out a legacy of leadership and accomplishments in the areas of women's rights and empowerment, the arts, health care, battlefield preparedness, economic revitalization, the environment, and social justice.

Born in the coal mining town of Lynch, Kentucky and educated at the University of Kentucky where she earned degrees in microbiology and public health, Louise Slaughter understood the connection between public health and a vibrant democracy, and fought to ensure passage of the landmark Affordable Care Act.

In the 112th Congress, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter introduced and shepherded to passage Pub. L. 112-105, the ``Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act'' or ``STOCK Act,'' which prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees, and requires many financial transactions by members of Congress to be reported within 45 days.

Mr. Speaker, since her first years on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter was an advocate for women all over the world.

Among her many accomplishments, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter co- authored the landmark Violence Against Women Act, ensured the first federal funding to the National Institutes of Health to research breast cancer, and was a co-founder of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus.

It is particularly fitting and altogether appropriate that this tireless champion of women, children, and families represented an area near Seneca Falls, the location of the first women's rights convention in 1848.

The dean of New York's Congressional Delegation, Louise Slaughter was the first woman to chair the powerful House Rules Committee, and the first woman to serve as Ranking Member of that Committee, and in both roles she carried the banner and led the fight for progressive values and to make our good country better.

I will always remember and be grateful to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter for her help in my duties representing the people of the 18th Congressional District of Texas.

I worked closely with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and drew upon her counsel and assistance to shepherd scores of bills and amendments to passage that have been beneficial to my constituents.

Louise Slaughter was incredibly generous with her knowledge and experience and served as a mentor to new members of Congress, including me.

I will never forget that Louise Slaughter's advocacy continued until her last days with us, including National Women's March in Washington, D.C. on January 21, 2017.

Mr. Speaker, Louise Slaughter was an iron fist in a velvet glove.

A native of Kentucky, Louise Slaughter never lost her Southern twang and charm.

Louise Slaughter effortlessly mixed humor with logic to win over skeptics.

And then after disarming you, Louise Slaughter made her move.

Through her words and deeds, Louise Slaughter worked to make the lives of all Americans better.

Louise Slaughter was a dear friend and her loss leaves a void in my heart.

It is my prayer that the Lord brings comfort to the many people-- those whom Louise knew and those who felt they knew Louise Slaughter-- who know that a mighty oak has fallen and are heartbroken at the loss.

I thank her family for sharing her with us and the country.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has already mentioned, this is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, a very important statement for preventing violence against women, men, boys, and girls. I rise today to say that it is still of great concern to all of us, and particularly young women.

One in five women in this country have been raped, and four out of five rape victims are under the age of 25. Girls and young women between the ages of 16 and 24 experience the highest rate of intimate partner violence, almost triple the national average.

This is the time for us to join together. In a few weeks, I will be introducing the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It is legislation that has drawn bipartisan support.

I look forward to the support of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, because it will emphasize critical services such as transitional housing, legal assistance, and supervised visitation services, but, more importantly, working with the police and law enforcement community's preventative measures and working with outreach for boys and men.

Prevention is part of this legislation as well as protecting our survivors, as well as educating people against this dastardly act. I look forward to the introduction of this legislation and those who will join me--men and women--to support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act for 2018.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, and an original co-sponsor, I rise today to urge all Members to support and cosponsor H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act.''

When we were here in March, before the Easter Recess, I indicated that firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller would not be crossing a Red Line.

It would not be crossing a Blue Line.

It would be crossing a Red, White, and Blue line.

I have been concerned about this issue for a very long time--to me it was clear in August, and every day that passes is another where my first instincts about the President's desire to fire Special Counsel Mueller, are confirmed.

The importance of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into the 2016 election, and the nature and extent of Russia's interference, cannot be overstated.

The allegation that a foreign government--hostile or otherwise-- played any part in the internal democratic processes of our country should shock every single American citizen.

It strikes at the heart of our democratic system of government.

We must come to terms with the fact that our very last national election is a crime scene.

The 2018 election could be one, too.

It was critical then, it is critical now, and it will be critical tomorrow that the Special Counsel be permitted to do his work unimpeded.

That is why last August I introduced H.R. 3654, ``Special Counsel Independence Protection Act,'' which precludes the firing of the Special Counsel absent of substantial evidence, that there exists good cause to do so, and that determination accepted by a three-judge federal court.

H.R. 3654 has the support of 152 cosponsors and is also the subject of a discharge petition, and 144 members of the House of Representatives have signed the discharge petition.

I thank my colleagues who have supported H.R. 3654, to protect the Special Counsel's investigation recognizing that nothing less than our sovereignty, our democratic ideals, and our national dignity are at stake.

Today, I announce my support for new legislation protecting the Special Counsel, H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act,'' introduced by Ranking Member Nadler, myself, and Mr. Cohen.

I am pleased that this legislation incorporates the core of my legislation to protect the Special Counsel.

The Nadler-Jackson Lee-Cohen bill constrains the Attorney General from damaging the Special Counsel's investigation, absent judicial ratification of any action to terminate the Special Counsel.

Under H.R. 5476, the judicial branch--yet another check on an unwieldy executive--would determine if the termination was appropriate.

The necessity of enacting this legislation is clear.

Seven times this year, the President has decried the investigation as a ``witch hunt,'' including yesterday.

The New York Times has reported that the President has tried at least twice in 2017 to fire Special Counsel Mueller--once in June 2017, and once again in December 2017.

Now, this morning he is claiming, again over Twitter, that reports that he wanted to fire Special Counsel Mueller were more ``fake news.''

On Monday, after news that his lawyer's residence and offices were raided, the President openly mused, at a gathering of his war cabinet, about firing Special Counsel Mueller.

On Tuesday, the President asserted that he had the power to fire Special Counsel Mueller.

Yesterday on Twitter, the President called Special Counsel Mueller ``the most conflicted of all.''

He is wrong.

Last night, he advertised a program on his favorite cable network, and when that show aired, it consisted of a derogatory piece against the president's chief investigators: former FBI Director Comey and Special Counsel Mueller.

Last month, the President twice said he opposed the investigation, told an untruth about the political composition of the prosecutors in the Special Counsel's office, and has reiterated that it should never have been started.

Given the actions of the current President, it is appropriate to ask whether stronger legislation is needed.

But H.R. 5476 is an important compromise with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

We must step back and take off our partisan hats and approach this as Americans.

We, as Members of Congress, are Constitutional Officers.

This is an `Article I' moment.

The People's House must exercise its constitutional prerogative and conduct oversight.

The framers of the Constitution prioritized the legislature branch over the executive branch.

Recent public opinion polls reflect that 70 percent of the American people want the Special Counsel to continue his investigation.

The Framers of our Constitution wisely divided power through a system of checks and balances.

They anticipated a moment like this and vested power in the Congress to address, deter, and remedy a crisis caused by a Chief Executive who held himself to be above the law.

When future generations look back on this moment, and they consider that our democratic ideals and institutions were under enormous pressure from unsuspecting places, they will ask what we did when it mattered.

We must act.

Now, while we as Americans have our differing views, they are ours to solve, amongst ourselves.

Unfortunately, for all of us, the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation also includes the question of the extent to which the Trump campaign was helped in any way by the Russians.

Congress must not abdicate its Article I responsibility.

We must get to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 election.

We must permit Special Counsel Robert Mueller to continue his investigation.

We must seize the moment and pass H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it is important for those of us who have served here that we are down this frivolous route again: this unconstitutional effort to remedy the disaster that has been perpetrated by the Republican tax scam.

Let me tell you what the CBO Director said, who is known to be the bipartisan, nonpartisan arbiter of the work that the Congress does.

First of all, they say the tax cut will create deficits of historic proportions. Not Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security. An $800 billion deficit in 2018, $1 trillion in 2019, and $1 trillion in 2020. That is what the Republicans have created.

Now, in this false and ridiculous, possibly unconstitutional effort, here we go again with a balanced budget amendment that will, in fact, deny and implode the needs of those who need Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.

This balanced budget amendment is antidemocratic in that it requires a supermajority in Congress to increase the debt limit, deficit spending, or raise revenue. All would have been unnecessary if we had not passed the tax scam. Remember, we gave the corporate tax relief a 21 percent number, instead of 25 percent, coming from 33 percent, when they didn't ask for it.

It is antidemocratic because it enshrines one particular economic theory into the Constitution: depriving future voters and future Congresses of the ability to adopt other economic approaches. That is our responsibility as leaders giving oversight to the needs of the American people, to the needs of the Pentagon, and to the needs of domestic spending.

By the way, this deficit will be more than domestic spending and defense spending. It raises separation of powers concerns because it would open the door to allowing Federal courts to make budget policy decisions. It is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability of Congress to respond to economic downturns and other emergencies.

Were anyone here in 2007 and 2008, particularly when the Secretary of the Treasury under the Bush administration came and told this Democratic Congress, of which I was a Member of, that America, as we knew it, was getting ready to end, that we saw the demise of Lehman Brothers and the collapse of the market, it wasn't Democrats who did that, it was Republicans. It is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability again for us to deal with those kinds of downturns.

It jeopardizes funding of Social Security and the military and civil service retirement system, and it undermines the Nation's financial system, including deposit insurance. It is unnecessary because Congress was able to achieve a balanced budget in the 1990s, of which I was here through the existing political process, and created the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Therefore, this balanced budget amendment is an amendment that creates havoc. What we should do is to undo the tax scam, repeal it, start again, and not implode Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. To the seniors who are living there: don't buy into a balanced budget amendment which is unconstitutional, buy into repealing the tax scam and standing for the American people.

I conclude by saying many national groups oppose this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the so- called Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which properly should be called the ``Cut, Cap, and End Medicare and Destroy Social Security Act'' because this is exactly what will happen if this amendment is passed by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the several states.

A balanced budget amendment is a perennial gimmick periodically dusted off by House Republicans to divert attention from their manifest inability to govern competently or to manage the nation's finances.

H.J. Res. 2 is no exception coming as it does on the heels of the report by the Congressional Budget Office documenting that the Trump/ GOP budget deficit continues to climb and is projected to exceed $800 billion this year and to top $1 trillion next year and to remain at that level for foreseeable future.

Moreover, the CBO report confirms that the GOP TaxScam passed last year by this Republican Congress on a party-line vote will not pay for itself and is in fact the major cause of the rising the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than by tampering with the U.S. Constitution.

The easier and better way is for the American people to put a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected surpluses exceeded $5 trillion.

Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, and 15 million jobs were created.

In contrast, under every Republican administration since President Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was substantially larger than the one he inherited, a major economic recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than the.

Turning to the joint resolution before us, I strongly oppose this latest gimmick for the following reasons:

1. it is anti-democratic in that it requires a supermajority in Congress to increase the debt limit, deficit spending, or raise revenue;

2. it is anti-democratic because it enshrines one particular economic theory into the Constitution, depriving future voters and future Congresses of the ability to adopt other economic approaches;

3. it raises separation of powers concerns because it would open the door to allowing federal courts to make budget policy decisions;

4. it is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability of Congress to respond to economic downturns and other emergencies;

5. it jeopardizes funding for Social Security and military and civil service retirement systems;

6. it undermines the nation's financial system, including deposit insurance; and

7. it is unnecessary because Congress was able to achieve balanced budgets in the 1990's through the existing political process.

It is for these reasons that numerous outside groups committed to the economic well-being of the United States as well as organizations concerned with the needs of the elderly, the middle class, children, and other basic needs of national importance strongly opposed a measure in the 112th Congress virtually identical to Chairman Goodlatte's current H.J. Res. 2, and that measure failed to garner a supermajority as required by the Constitution.

These groups included a coalition of 123 religious, labor, education, civil rights, child advocacy, and other organizations; a coalition of six national environmental organizations representing over one million members and activists; OMB Watch (now the Center for Effective Government); the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); the National Education Association (NEA); the National Women's Law Center, Committee for Education Funding, and the Coalition on Human Needs.

Although there is a clear need to lower the long-term federal budget deficit, requiring a balanced budget through a constitutional amendment would be disastrous for the U.S. economy.

This Amendment is portrayed as the alternative to our country's deficit issue, but in reality, a Balanced Budget Amendment truly undermines the goal of a balanced budget by

threatening the survival of such critical programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that serve as fundamental safety nets for millions of Americans.

These important social programs face greater demand when federal receipts are in rapid declines.

Requiring a balanced budget would force cuts to these and other important programs or force tax increases.

Either prescription would risk tipping a faltering economy into recession or making recession worse.

Any constitutional balanced budget amendment would limit the ability of the federal government to make important investments in worthy causes, including crucial public safety and homeland security programs.

Even at times of fiscal austerity, we must continue to provide for the country's public safety and homeland security needs.

Any constitutional balanced budget amendment would grossly undermine the ability to protect the lives and well-being of Americans nationwide.

Further, this Amendment will gridlock Congress during an economic downturn.

There has never been such a blatant effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort from the American public.

While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families, while constraining the ability of the Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation challenges.

We need to change the tone here in the Congress.

There has been a theme in previous Congresses and in this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit those who need it most, while ignoring the need to focus on real and contemporary job creation and economic recovery.

And by real and contemporary job creation, I do not mean Trump's unsubstantiated and impossible promise of coal jobs.

The creation of coal jobs is one of the many myths and false hopes peddled by the current White House.

The promise that jobs in coal are just around the corner is fake news.

Our time could be better spent focusing on ways to increase American jobs, growing our economy, and investing in our people, paying our bills, and resolving our differences.

That is the way you make and keep America great.

A balanced budget is not something that should be mandated in our Constitution, nor is it something that should be required every year, proposing an idea that offers little guarantee of success.

In particular, during economic downturns, the government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and increasing spending.

And in fact, the cost of many government benefit programs is designed to automatically increase when the economy is down--for example, costs for food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid increase when more people need to rely upon them.

These countercyclical measures lessen the impact of job losses and economic hardship associated with economic downturns.

The resulting temporary increases in spending could cause deficits that would trigger the balanced budget requirements at the worst possible moment.

A constitutional amendment requiring the Congress to cut spending to match revenue every year would both limit the Congress's ability to respond to changing fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal responses to high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food and medical assistance.

As with the outlay cap that a Balanced Budget Amendment would bring, tying outlays to a percentage of GDP would impose arbitrary limits on government actions to respond to an economic slowdown or recession, when GDP declines.

Cutting spending during a recession could make a recession worse by increasing the number of unemployed, decreasing business investment, and withholding services needed to jump-start the economy.

The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment would render Social Security unconstitutional in its current form due to the Amendment's prohibitive stance on that system of spending.

Capping future spending below Reagan-era levels would force devastating cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, child care, Pell grants, and many other critical programs.

Because this proposal would make it impossible for the Congress to increase revenues rather than to cut spending, it is virtually a political ploy that reflects the Republican priorities of ending the Medicare guarantee while cutting taxes for millionaires.

The need to raise the debt ceiling has no correlation to whether future budgets are balanced; increases in the debt ceiling reflect past decisions on fiscal policy.

And as demonstrated by current disagreement about whether and when to raise the debt ceiling, Congress does not need to impose further barriers to its consideration.

Treasury has warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling and the resulting government default, which would be unprecedented, would have catastrophic impacts on the economy.

Interest rates would rise, increasing costs for the government and for American businesses and families.

Any cuts made to accommodate a mandated balanced budget would fall most heavily on domestic discretionary programs; the immediate result of a balanced budget amendment would be devastating cuts in education, homeland security, public safety, health care and research, transportation and other vital services.

Under H.J. Res. 2 total funding would be cut for non-defense discretionary programs, including veterans' medical care, most homeland security activities, border protection, and the FBI.

Therefore, these cuts will impact funds to protect our nation's food and water supply, environmental protections, medical research, education, and services for disadvantaged or abused children, frail elderly people, and people with severe disabilities.

The Founders purposely made the Constitutional amendment process a long and arduous one.

It is foolish, reckless, and decidedly not conservative to rush to pass an amendment altering our nation's founding document on such short notice and without reasonable time for debate.

Republicans who support this proposed amendment to the Constitution have demonstrated, at this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it.

Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances.

Most people with Medicare live on modest incomes.

While many many beneficiaries enjoy good health, 25 percent or more have serious health problems and live with multiple chronic conditions, including cognitive and functional impairments.

Today, 43 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 years old and 12 percent are 85 or older.

Those who are 85 or older are the fastest-growing age group among elderly Medicare beneficiaries.

With the aging and growth of the population, the number of Medicare beneficiaries more than doubled between 1966 and 2000 and is projected to grow from 45 million today to 79 million in 2030.

For these reasons, I am strongly opposed to despoiling the Constitution by even considering the Republicans' latest Balanced Budget Amendment gimmick.

Madam Speaker, outrage is certainly not a tough enough word to watch the children of Syria, and innocent civilians, be attacked by poisonous gas. Assad is a vicious dictator, and Russia has propped him up.

It is important for the American people and for Syrian Americans to know that we will not tolerate the kind of vile violence, particularly against children. But Congress must stand for its constitutional responsibility of debating an authorization to use military force. We must not, at any time, recklessly ignore actions by the administration that really should be a collaborative thought-provoking discussion and debate on the strategy for dealing with the crisis in Syria, but, more importantly, the propping up of Assad by Russia and its supporters.

The children need us in Syria to be able to stop both the bloodshed and the terrible tragedy of gas attacks that immediately cause life and injury. It is time for us--the Members of Congress--

to come to this floor and debate our strategy in Syria.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the President to be more responsive and aware of the heavy consequences that weigh behind his comments regarding Syria.

Last week, the President's reckless comments of suggesting that it was time to withdraw from Syria emboldened Bashar al-Assad and his regime to launch yet another round of chemical attacks on innocent men, women, and children in the city of Douma.

This attack claimed the lives of at least 85 people, majority of them women and children and affected hundreds.

I extend my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims killed or injured by the horrific and unjustifiable use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against an unarmed civilian population.

The world learned through the painful experience of World War I the horror and inhumanity of chemical weapons, which caused unspeakable suffering and killed indiscriminately as we saw in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein's regime used them in Iraq's war with Iran and later against its own people.

The international community cannot again let such an attack go unanswered for to do so will embolden other rogue regimes and terrorists.

The President, as Commander in Chief, is charged with the responsibility of deciding when to use military force to protect the nation and its interests.

But he does not bear this weighty burden alone.

The Constitution wisely provides that it is shared with the Congress, the representatives of the American people.

The decisions we make as a country must be measured and wise as countless lives hang in the balance of our actions.