Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and commemorate the sad fifth anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which took the lives of 20 innocent children and six brave educators.

Last night, I stood on the floor of the House and indicated how breathless I felt when the news came in: One child, 2 children, 3 children, 4 children, 5 children, 6 children, 7 children, 8 children, 9 children, 10 children, 11 children, 12 children, 13 children, 14 children, 15 children, 16 children, 17 children, 18 children, 19 children, 20 children, and the brave adults who tried to save their lives, including the mother of the perpetrator.

I rise today to join in the call for acts of kindness. Tomorrow, I will be giving out books at the Blackshear Elementary School. I will be giving out shoes in my district to the Forest Brook Middle School.

I hope that we understand what it is not about: guns don't kill; people do. Guns kill.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we have real gun safety legislation. At the same time, I hope that, as we look toward the needs of our Nation, the Children's Health Insurance Program and those who are suffering from hurricanes will be part of our kindness.

I take a moment for these children. I honor the Sandy Hook children and the brave adults who tried to save their lives. May God bless them all.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my colleagues in honoring and remembering all of the victims of the tragic shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT five years ago.

Nearly five years after a mass shooter murdered 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook elementary school, Republican politicians are still blocking any attempt to pass tougher federal gun control laws.

The lack of congressional action has prompted outrage, despair, and a sense that the gun debate is intractable.

As the Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have listened to the tragic testimony of individuals who have survived or lost loved ones as a result of gun violence.

It is still painful for those who recall the news from Newtown, Connecticut on that day five years ago.

The story of Sandy Hook was particularly frightening for those of us who are parents or grandparents.

The community and the families directly impacted continue to reel from the inconceivable tragedy that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012.

Our hearts still ache with sadness and disbelief for the families and loved ones of the children and women who lost their lives in this senseless act of violence.

I also recognize and applaud the heroic efforts made by the teachers, administrators, and law enforcement officials who acted quickly to secure and protect the lives of the children who survived this deadly encounter.

I, along with other parents in America, know that the healing process continues for the parents, siblings, and friends of the 20 children who died on December 14, 2012.

Our prayers go to the families and colleagues of the teachers, councilor, and principle of the school who were also killed in defense of the children in their charge.

This tragedy unlike any other in recent memory touched so many hearts and minds both in the United States and around the world that this weekend is particularly poignant.

The parents and grandparents who dropped off their children and grandchildren in the early morning hours of December 14, 2012, could never have imagined that by 10 a.m. on that morning they would have to face this tragedy.

The deaths at Sandy Hook as well as those at Aurora and Columbine will be etched in our collective memories.

These are moments when lives were needlessly lost due to gun violence.

The nation united in grief one year ago, and many of us who strong support sensible gun safety laws thought the moment had finally arrived when the policy makers, parents, teachers, and law enforcement could join efforts to make our schools, parks, sidewalks, and homes safer from gun violence.

We could all agree that the tragedy should not have occurred, but we could not find the common ground that would take any meaningful step to reduce gun violence in the United States.

We must join together in recognizing that this tragedy can happen in any community and we must immediately begin to address the underlying problems that would lead a young man to take up arms against defenseless women and children.

The tragedy of Sandy Hook took us all by surprise, but there are hundreds of other tragedies around the nation that involve children falling victim to gun violence.

Annually in the United States there are over 30,000 gun related deaths.

The total number of deaths associated with 13 years of war in both Afghanistan and Iraq is 6,778 service men and women.

No other nation had the level of gun violence per-capita as the United States unless they were actively engaged in a civil war or conflict with another nation.

There are some things that cannot be rationalized by any means--one of the things that we as policy makers have to face is the threat of gun violence to our nation, communities, and families.

I read with heartache the September 28, 2013, New York Times article, ``Children and Guns: The Hidden Toll,'' published in September of this year.

Some of the stories were tragic as they are familiar to those of us who work to reduce gun violence.

Lucas Heagren, 3 years old, killed by a gun he found where his father temporarily hid it under a couch.

Days later, Cassie Culpepper, age 11, who was shot and killed by her brother who thought a gun his father gave him to scare coyotes was unloaded.

A few weeks later, Alex Whitfield, age 11 was killed by a Glock pistol found in a closet by a 15 year old.

These children are the hidden victims of a nation obsessed with guns at almost any cost.

The children of gun violence may be any child or grandchild-- including your own.

They may be from any home found in any neighborhood or rural community in this nation.

The tragedies of gun deaths of children are not just what your child knows about gun safety, but more often what another child with access to a firearm does not know.

More important--is the lack of adults' knowledge regarding gun safety that can lead to preventable gun related child deaths.

Some parents are the source of their own children becoming victims of gun violence because they mistakenly attempted to clean a loaded gun or handled a loaded gun improperly.

Many of these deaths are not part of official records.

The New York Times conducted research in Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Ohio going back to 1999.

They collected data from medical examiners in Florida, Illinois and Texas.

They found over 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under the age of 15.

These numbers are about twice as many as were reported in federal statistics.

Homicide is the second leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24.

Homicide is the leading cause of death for many minorities in this country.

82.8 percent of young people who are killed, are victims of a killing through a firearm.

Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun.

Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or a teenager loses their life to a firearm.

And in 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns.

Less than 20 states have laws that hold adults criminally responsible if they act negligently in the storage of firearms that may lead to children having access to them.

National data is needed on all forms of firearm related deaths for policy makers, the public and media to fully comprehend the scope of the problem of gun violence in the United States.

The challenge to gaining access to this information is state laws that do not consider death certificate information as public information and who may not voluntarily report numbers to the Department of Justice.

At around the same time that the children in Newtown, CT faced a deranged gun man, thousands of miles away in China, another man also attacked a group of school children.

Again, a tragedy that no one in the community could have anticipated; however, because the man in China was armed only with a knife, he wounded instead of killed 20 children.

The lives of 20 children in China were spared because their attacker did not have in his possession a gun.

I believe the solution to these acts of violence can be found by taking a multifaceted approach.

There are those who will say that ``guns don't kill people, people kill people.''

The statistics for the harm that people are capable of doing with guns to themselves and others is alarming.

People are indeed killing people, with guns.

We need to reform how we view guns in this country and also how we address mental health challenges in our communities.

We must act now.

This is the right moment to demonstrate that the safety of our children is one of our most sacred priorities.

It is imperative that this Congress brings to the House for immediate consideration the following gun safety laws.

First, there must be an immediate ban on all assault weapons.

Second, we must close gun show loopholes which allow for the sale of weapons without a background check.

Third, we must reform our current mental health system to provide support for families to enable them to get immediate assistance for mental health issues.

In addition, there should be pathways for families who are facing these challenges to gain emergency access to publicly funded or private counseling services.

Fourth, we must look at the design of primary and secondary schools in which these schools may need to have reinforced bullet proof window and reinforced secure entrances.

Lastly, we must expand current state laws to hold adults accountable and responsible for the security of their weapons.

We can help to prevent tragedies like this one from happening again.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gun violence claims the lives of over 30,000 people.

For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded.

Every year, approximately 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence.

In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones.

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.

This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

There were 73,505 Americans treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers--less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns here in the U.S. over the course of 7 weeks rather than 7 years.

U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates.

The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher. Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.

Over a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated.

On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.

Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.

Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.

For years, I have introduced and reintroduced gun safety legislation and supported the efforts of my colleagues who have also worked diligently to protect the lives of our nation's children through adequate gun safety.

I reintroduced H.R. 277, the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2011.

This legislation would prevent anyone under the age of 21 from being eligible to own a handgun and would prohibit youth from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons.

Under this legislation parents and supervising adults will be held accountable if a juvenile is able to gain possession of dangerous firearms that are located in their household.

The statistics are clear, firearms in a household must be properly and adequately stored.

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11), criminal assault or homicide (7), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4) than to be used in a self- defense shooting.

Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17.

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3.

A 2009 study found that people in possession of a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault.

My legislation also requires a parent to accompany a minor when attending a gun show.

Our focus should also be on the owners of guns. Parents need to keep guns and ammunition out of the reach of teenagers.

Parents should be responsible for securing from their minor children access to dangerous firearms.

Further, my bill is a preventative measure, my legislation encourages school districts to prove or participate in firearm safety programs.

It also addresses the underlying concerns related to violence and suicide.

It amends the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support programs to promote mental health services among all children and their families and to provide early intervention services to ameliorate identified mental health problems in children and adolescents.

This is a multifaceted approach to address this multifaceted issue.

In the 113th Congress I introduced H.R. 65, the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013, which amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by raising the age of handgun eligibility to 21 and prohibits persons under age 21 from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with some exceptions.

The bill places limitations and obligations on the transfer of firearms regarding juvenile violations of Brady Act provisions and the transfer of a handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device to a person who is under age 21.

Prohibits any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer from transferring a firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer) unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device.

Authorizes the Attorney General to suspend or revoke any firearms license, or to subject the licensee to a civil penalty of up to $10,000, if the licensee has knowingly violated this prohibition.

The bill also places prohibitions on keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: is capable of gaining access to it, and may use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Finally, the bill authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to enable local law enforcement agencies to develop and sponsor gun safety classes for parents and children.

I also introduced H.R. 2665, a bill to ensure secure gun storage and gun safety devices.

The bill amends the federal criminal code to repeal provisions that create exceptions to the prohibition against a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer transfer of a firearm to any person other than a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer unless the person receiving the firearm is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device; and grants immunity from a qualified civil liability action to a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun and who uses such a device.

This Congress, I introduced H.R. 4268, the Gun Safety: Not Sorry Act which imposes a seven-day waiting period on the purchase of certain weaponry including bump stocks in response to more recent mass shootings.

Recent U.S. mass shootings include:

1. Las Vegas, 2017: 50+ killed

2. Orlando, 2016: 50 killed

3. Virginia Tech, 2007: 32 killed

4. Sandy Hook, 2012: 27 killed

5. San Ysidro, 1984: 21 killed

6. San Bernardino, 2015: 14 killed

7. Edmond, 1986: 14 killed

8. Fort Hood, 2009: 13 killed

9. Columbine, 1999: 13 killed

I also join in support of the families and survivors of the Community of Newtown, Connecticut who lost loved ones to give them space so that they can heal.

Events such as the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School touch all of us as compassionate, caring people which was demonstrated through the wave of support expressed by this nation.

To keep the memory of the 20 children and six adults killed on that tragic day vibrant--a website has been created by the families-- mysandyhookfamily.org.

I encourage you to visit this memorial website and learn more about Charlotte, Josephine, Daniel, Avielle, Rachel, Jessica, Victoria, Benjamin, Anne Marie, Dawn, Carline, Ana, Madeleine, Catherine, Noah, James, Mary, Emilie, Lauren, Allison, Chase, Dylan, Jesse, Olivia, Jack and Grace.

Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to do all that we can do to reverse this level of gun violence. We must pass commonsense gun safety.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for her leadership. I am sure she is leading on this devastating day and devastating loss in her district that she would much prefer not to do.

As I listened to my colleagues, each of us giving our own separate story of where we were the day of Sandy Hook, all I can say, and what I remember, is that I became breathless; I became unbelieving. It was a very painful day. It was a sickening day, horrifying, and I was questioning: Is this really happening, or did this really happen?

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, and as I have listened over the years of some of the more descriptive accounts of Sandy Hook, some of the stories of such bravery of the principal and teachers who lost their lives, or those who tried to intervene on this deranged gunman-- who, by the way, killed his mother before he came to that school--there is nothing more that you can say. Breathless. Similar to the actions of former President Barack Obama.

I can distinctly remember him being before the national audience, the people of the United States, as I recall, in the White House, and wiping a tear, or tears, away from his eyes. I think the whole Nation, at that time, crumbled. A Commander in Chief, known for his strong, stoic leadership, could not comprehend what had happened to these children at Sandy Hook.

I think all of us believe this would be a galvanizing call to action. All of us took notice. We never expected Las Vegas with 50-plus killed in 2017, never expected Orlando in 2016 with 50 killed, or Virginia Tech that happened a few years before.

It amazes me that we are here in commemoration and not here in celebration of what we accomplished for those who yet live: the little ones who go every day to school, the college students, the people who go to clubs, the church-going people. What did we accomplish? Why are we being rebuffed?

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Sandy Hook families, of whom I met as well, what brave men and women. Here they are spending their time trying to be the soldiers of reason around gun safety. It is horrifying to admit that gun violence now seems to be a staple of American life.

The United States ranks number one in the world in terms of firearms per capita, with 88.8 guns per 100, and has the highest homicide by firearm rate in the developed world. The problem is so endemic that gun violence is now the third leading cause of death for children in the United States.

How many parents crumble themselves or fall over a casket of a dead child? We know in Chicago that children die by drive-by shootings through no fault of their own. Chicago has tough gun laws, and there is a mockery being made by those who oppose gun safety laws, but you recognize that the surrounding areas that Chicago is in the midst of-- the States--they have no constraints of much, so the guns are transported into States like Illinois and cities like Chicago.

An average of 1,297 children die annually from gun-related injuries. And our colleague and friend, Robin Kelly, reminds us all the time of the gun violence that continues in cities like Chicago.

Guns are linked to roughly 33,000 deaths in the United States per year. About two-thirds of them are suicides.

According to the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans across partisan lines support gun policy proposals, such as barring people with mental illness from buying guns, prohibiting gun purchases by people on Federal no-fly or watch lists, something we have been trying to pass forever--a reasonable response to the safety of Americans.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I cannot imagine why that would not be a unifying legislative initiative--and background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows and universal background checks.

There is always the rebuttal: ``Guns don't kill, people do.'' But people with varying conditions take up guns because they are allowed to do so with unfettered gun purchases. It is well known--the percentage of membership of the NRA. That is why I was glad to listen to Chairman Thompson, who is a gun owner, a gun user, but how fortunate we are to have him lead the committee, because he can unabashedly, as a war veteran, combat war veteran, say that it doesn't make sense in America to be able to have unfettered gun use.

The majority must cut its close ties to the powerful gun lobby to facilitate useful gun control legislation necessary immediately. America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada and nearly 16 times as many as Germany.

The United Nations data shows that America far and away leads other developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides. America has 4.4 percent of the world's population, but almost half of the civilian- owned guns around the world.

In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, 6 adults, and himself--someone who had killed his mother before he came. Since then, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, with at least 1,715 people killed, and 6,000 wounded.

Who would have ever imagined that a man would be at the top of a hotel and massively kill so many. Who would ever imagine that there is a law on the books that prevent the Centers for Disease Control and the NIH to study the impact of gun violence as a health crisis. This Congress has. Republicans have.

So, in spite of mass shootings, we have unfortunate opposition and downright obstructionism on getting good gun safety legislation on the floor of the House.

I am not a stranger to this. I come from Texas. There are a lot of guns in

Texas. And I would like to think that a majority of my fellow Texans handle their guns safely and understand the value of gun safety legislation.

But when I introduced the first city ordinance to hold parents responsible for children that got guns and shot each other, it was an uprising, a revolution. It was a packed chamber. People were wearing their colonial clothing, playing flutes, singing patriotic songs, and saying that we were stepping on the Second Amendment.

But medical doctors and parents who had lost children because those children had gotten guns and shot their sibling, they understood that it was a small measure to stop children from getting their parents' guns on a summer day, or after school, and injuring or killing their little brother or sister.

Is there any common sense?

So today, I join in honoring the Sandy Hook families, an honor that I know they did not wish to have. They would rather have their precious little ones.

As I close, I want to make two points:

There is no doubt that people are dying because of gun violence, that we exceed the rational civilized perspective of how many guns are in this country, and that our children are dying. Seven children and adolescents lose their lives to gun violence each day, 75 percent of which are under the age of 12 years old. A lot of these are through accidental shootings where children get guns.

I leave you with this perspective: a great nation. Yes, we send young people into war. That is one of the arguments: 18-year-olds have guns, yes, as they stand up for their country, in an organized, regularized manner to defend this Nation, and we thank them for their young patriotism.

But I venture to say, as I visit faraway places--war zones--young soldiers understand the difference of an AR-15 or an AK rifle in war, as opposed to being on the streets. And our officers, who are doing their duty, good officers, who are in the course of good police work, who have to do a stop, and they run into someone who now has been given latitude to the concealed carry reciprocity bill, to just carry a gun any way you want, and if you come to a State that has strict and positive gun safety laws, that officer has to be able to be judge and jury to determine whether your random license from somewhere else is credible.

As my colleague said: That is the Christmas gift that they are giving to the children of America, rather than the universal background check or the forbidding of individuals on a terrorist list carrying guns. That is not the gift that they are willing to give.

They are giving our children, under the twinkling of the lights, rather than the loving arms of safety and security--they are giving them bullets and automatic weapons and the right for people to go on the streets and kill in churches, like that in Texas and that in South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I finish by saying that even the smallest of amendments, when we did the concealed weapons carry, the one that would disallow those with convictions of domestic violence and stalking, my Republican friends voted it down. Or an amendment that said that if you committed a hate crime, and convicted of such, my Republican friends voted it down.

So I am not giving up, and I thank the gentlewoman for having us come today. My celebration tonight is of the courage of families who suffered so much to continue their journey to stand up and be counted for what is right in America, and that is real gun safety legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on October 1, 2017 the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada when, in a heinous act of terror and hatred, 58 persons were killed and 515 others were injured in a shooting at an outdoor concert near the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas.

Until then, June 13, 2016 marked the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States in Orlando, Florida, when, in another heinous act of terror and hatred, 49 persons were killed at Pulse, a popular nightclub, meeting place, and sanctuary for Central Florida's vibrant and dynamic LGBTQ community; sadly, the Las Vegas mass shooting surpassed that dreadful shooting in numbers of dead and injured.

The horrifying events in Las Vegas mark the 273rd mass shooting in the U.S. in the 275 days that have passed so far in 2017, according to Gun Violence Archive.

Mass shootings are a near daily occurrence in America, but what happened in Las Vegas stands out: It was the deadliest such incident in U.S. history, with more than 58 killed and 515 injured.

Including that massacre, the four deadliest U.S. mass shootings have occurred over the past 10 years.

A mass shooting is defined by Gun Violence Archive as any incident in which four or more are shot and/or killed in a single event, at the same general time and location not including the shooter.

Recent U.S. mass shootings include:

1. Las Vegas, 2017: 50+ killed

2. Orlando, 2016: 50 killed

3. Virginia Tech, 2007: 32 killed

4. Sandy Hook, 2012: 27 killed

5. San Ysirdo, 1984: 21 killed

6. San Bernadino, 2015: 14 killed

7. Edmond, 1986: 14 killed

8. Fort Hood, 2009: 13 killed

9. Columbine, 1999: 13 killed

There have been more than 11,600 deaths linked to gun violence so far in 2017, which is roughly equivalent to nearly four 9/11 attacks in terms of the total number killed on September 11, 2001.

Comparatively, more than 15 thousand were killed by gun violence in 2016, and there were 383 mass shootings.

It is horrifying to admit that gun violence now seems to be a staple of American life.

The United States ranks No. 1 in the world in terms of firearms per capita--with 88.8 guns per 100 people--and it has the highest homicide- by-firearm rate in the developed world.

The problem is so endemic that gun violence is now the third leading cause of death for children in the U.S.

An average of 1,297 children die annually from gun-related injuries.

Guns are linked to roughly 33 thousand deaths in the U.S. per year; about two-thirds of them are suicides.

According to Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans (across partisan lines) support gun policy proposals such as barring people with mental illnesses from buying guns; prohibiting gun purchases by people on federal no-fly or watch lists; and background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.

The majority must cut its close ties to the powerful gun lobby to facilitate useful gun control legislation necessary immediately.

America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany.

United Nations data shows that America far and away leads other developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides.

America has 4.4 percent of the world's population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world.

In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself.

Since then, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.

The fairly broad definition of ``mass shooting'' includes not only shootings in which four or more people were murdered, but shootings in which four or more people were shot at all (excluding the shooter).

Even under this broad definition, mass shootings make up a tiny portion of America's firearm deaths, which totaled more than 33,000 in 2014.

On average, there is more than one mass shooting for each day in America.

Whenever a mass shooting occurs, supporters of gun rights often argue that it is inappropriate to bring up political debates about gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy.

For example, former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a strong supporter of gun rights, criticized former President Barack Obama for ``trying to score cheap political points'' when Obama mentioned gun control after a mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.

But if this argument is followed to its logical end, then it will never be the right time to discuss mass shootings.

Under the broader definition of mass shootings, America has nearly one mass shooting a day.

So if Congress is forced to wait for a time when there is not a mass shooting to talk gun control, Congress could find itself waiting for a very long time.

States with more guns have more gun deaths.

Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide.

Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness does not correlate with more gun deaths.

States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths.

A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence--a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives.

The good news is that all firearm homicides, like all homicides and crime, have declined over the past two decades--although that may have changed in 2015 and 2016, with a recent rise in murders nationwide.

There is still active debate among criminal justice experts about why this crime drop is occurring--but one theory that researchers have widely debunked is the idea that more guns have deterred crime--in fact, the opposite may be true, based on research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Center.

Although America's political debate about guns tends to focus on grisly mass shootings and murders, a majority of gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.

Research that shows greater access to guns dramatically increases the risk of suicide.

The states with the most guns report the most suicides.

Perhaps the reason access to guns so strongly contributes to suicides is that guns are much deadlier than alternatives like cutting and poison.

Reducing access to guns can be so important to preventing suicides: stalling an attempt or making it less likely to result in death makes a huge difference--it opens the opportunity for someone to help or for the suicidal person to reach out to someone to help.

That is why limiting access to lethal means is so powerful.

Since police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9, 2014, police have killed at least 2,902 people as of May 2017.

Given that states with more guns tend to have more homicides, it is not too surprising that, as a study in the American Journal of Public Health found, states with more guns also have more cops die in the line of duty.

Researchers looked at federal data for firearm ownership and homicides of police officers across the U.S. over 15 years.

They found that states with more gun ownership had more cops killed in homicides: Every 10 percent increase in firearm ownership correlated with 10 additional officers killed in homicides over the 15-year study period.

The findings could help explain why U.S. police officers appear to kill more people than cops in other developed countries.

For police officers, the higher rates of guns and gun violence in America means they not only will encounter more guns and violence, but they can expect to encounter more guns and deadly violence, making them more likely to anticipate and perceive a threat and use deadly force as a result.

Over the past 20 years, Americans have clearly shifted from supporting gun control measures to greater support of ``protecting the right of Americans to own guns.''

This shift has happened even as major mass shootings, such as the attacks on Columbine High School and Sandy Hook Elementary School, have received more press attention.

Although mass shootings are often viewed as some of the worst acts of gun violence, they seem to have little effect on public opinion about gun rights.

That helps explain why Americans' support for the right to own guns appears to be rising over the past 20 years even as more of these mass shootings make it to the news.

Although Americans say they want to protect the right to bear arms, they are very much supportive of many gun policy proposals--including some fairly contentious ideas, such as more background checks on private and gun show sales and banning semi-automatic and assault-style weapons.

This type of contradiction is not exclusive to gun policy issues.

For example, although most Americans in the past said they do not support Obamacare, but most of them also said they like the specific policies in the health-care law.

On average, 7 children and adolescents lose their lives to gun violence each day, 75 percent of which are under the age of 12 years old.

So many people die annually from gun violence in the United States that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses the total lives lost in all the armed conflicts in the history of the United States.

On June 7, 2015, a gunman shot and killed nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church Charleston, South Carolina, one of the oldest and largest black congregations in the South.

On November 11, 2009, at Fort Hood, near Killeen, Texas, a gunman shot and killed 13 people, and wounded 30 others.

On August 5, 2012 in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, a gunman shot and killed six people, and injured three others, at the Sikh Temple of Oak Creek.

On July 7, 2015 in Chattanooga, Tennessee a gunman shot and killed five people, including two U.S. Marines and a Naval Officer, and shot and injured two others at a recruiting center and U.S. Naval Reserve Center.

On December 2, 2015 in San Bernardino, California, two gunmen killed 14 people and injured 21 others at the Inland Regional Center.

On December 14, 2012, a gunman murdered 26 persons, including 20 children and 6 school administrators and teachers, at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.

On August 8, 2015, a gunman brutally murdered his ex-girlfriend and her six children and husband in one of the most notorious cases of domestic violence in the history of Houston, Texas.

On April 16, 2007, a gunman killed 32 persons and injured 17 others at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Mass shootings occur more frequently in states that do not require background checks for all gun sales.

Analyses of mass shootings in the United States between 2009 and 2015 document that the majority of mass shootings occur in venues where the carrying of firearm is not restricted.

In states that require background checks for all handgun sales, including guns offered in unlicensed sales online and at gun shows, there are 52 percent fewer mass shootings.

Congress must take action to prevent other incidents such as the recent act of terror and hatred in Las Vegas, Nevada that resulted in the tragic loss of 58 innocent lives.

We extend our deepest sympathies to all those affected by this tragedy and recognize the skill and heroism of the law enforcement officers and first responders who came to the aid of others.

We commend the efforts of those who are working to care for the injured and investigate this horrific incident.

We extend our heartfelt condolences and prayers to the families of the fallen, and to all those affected in the community of Las Vegas and in the United States.

And I pledge to continue to work to reduce gun violence and prevent mass shooting.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me and for her leadership on this very important issue.

She is standing in the gap because all that we have heard from Republicans and their media advocates is that their intention, of course, is to create a 21st century Saturday night massacre.

In my questioning of the Deputy Attorney General, that is the exact terminology that I utilized, which is: Was the Deputy Attorney General and the Department of Justice prepared to defend Special Counsel Mueller against a potential Saturday night massacre?

Of course, that is the Watergate massacre perpetrated by President Nixon in firing the Attorney General, and then requiring and firing the special prosecutor and--getting someone to fire--literally creating a institutional crisis.

Madam Speaker, it is clear, as evidenced by the words of Sean Hannity on December 5, FOX News, who led off his broadcast with the outrageous charge that Mueller is frankly a disgrace by the American justice system and has put the country now on the brink of becoming a banana republic.

Not surprisingly, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who enthusiastically praised the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel as a superb choice to be special counsel because his reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity, has done a complete 180-degree turn and now declaims falsely that the very top at the Justice Department and the FBI have become corrupt.

I was pleased to join this letter and to join with Congresswoman Waters, along with my other colleagues, for a very important statement.

I also believe that this statement must be backed up with legislation, such as H.R. 3654, which I have offered, the Special Counsel Independence Protection Act.

But basically I think we have a situation where if we do not make this a public announcement of indicating that between the administration, the President, and others, along with Republicans in this House, there is an entrapment being set up for Special Counsel Mueller to be considered biased because of the staffing actions of which, by the way, those individuals have been replaced or they have been transferred to other positions.

There is no doubt that a man who served in Vietnam, a man who came

back to the Justice Department as an entry-level employee to be able to serve his country, there is no question that there is no evidence of any corruption.

Madam Speaker, I would conclude my remarks by saying the importance of this legislation and this letter is because Director Mueller is working his way into the White House, and the issues of Russian collusion and the issues dealing with criminality are approaching the front door. We must protect this investigation.

Madam Speaker, in recent days, the shrill but politically-charged attacks on Special Counsel Robert Mueller have reached a deafening roar.

For example, on December 5, Fox News host Sean Hannity led off his broadcast with the outrageous charge that `Mueller is frankly a disgrace to the American justice system and has put the country now on the brink of becoming a banana republic.

Not surprisingly, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who enthusiastically praised the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel as a `superb choice to be special counsel' because `his reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity' has done a complete 180-degree turn and now declaims falsely that at ``the very top, the Justice Department and the FBI became corrupted.''

These despicable accusations by Trump acolytes and ultraconservative zealots against a distinguished public servant and veteran who has served his country with honor and unimpeachable integrity for more than a half-century are outrageous.

But the public sees them for what they are: a thinly disguised attempt by a panicked White House and its right-wing media allies to inflame and persuade base Trump supporters to question the impartiality of the Special Counsel's investigation that daily uncovers more evidence of wrongdoing and collusion by operatives of the Trump campaign, transition, and White House.

In light of the barrage of baseless attacks against Special Counsel Mueller by Trump apologists and right-wing media, it is urgent that Congress act immediately to protect the independence and integrity of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, including questions surrounding collusion between Russian operatives and Trump campaign officials.

That is why I am calling upon the House leadership to bring H.R. 3654, the `Special Counsel Independence Protection Act,' to the floor for debate and a vote by the full House at the earliest time possible.

This legislation, which I introduced on August 15, 2017, insulates the Special Counsel from the whims of this President by permitting the removal of the Special Counsel only where:

The attorney general files an action in federal district court in Washington, D.C., and files a contemporaneous action with the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee; and

A panel of three federal judges sitting in Washington, D.C., finds removal appropriate based on a finding of misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or other good cause.

We are on the verge of a constitutional crisis as Trump operatives try to dismantle, destroy, and undermine Special Counsel Mueller's investigation.

This cannot be allowed to happen.

The state of our democracy hinges upon our ability to ensure the integrity of our elections and the rule of law.

And the necessary and ongoing work of the Special Counsel must be insulated against outside influence and interference.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 11 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, December 14, 2017, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 3359, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2017.

I thank Chairman McCaul for introducing this important piece of legislation that addresses the cybersecurity needs of our nation.

H.R. 3359, amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to redesignate the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) National Protection and Programs Directorate as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

Under its new designation the CISA would be headed by a Director of National Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security, who will be responsible for leading national efforts to protect and enhance the security and resilience of U.S. cybersecurity, emergency communications, and critical infrastructure.

CISA will be composed of DHS components reorganized as: the Cybersecurity Division; the Infrastructure Security Division; and the Emergency Communications Division, which was previously the Office for Emergency Communications.

The agency will also have its own privacy officer to ensure compliance with relevant federal laws.

CISA must carry out DHS's responsibilities concerning chemical facilities antiterrorism standards.

The bill requires DHS to:

develop, implement, and continually review a maritime cybersecurity risk assessment model to evaluate current and future cybersecurity risks;

seek input from at least one information sharing and analysis organization representing maritime interests in the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center;

establish voluntary reporting guidelines for maritime-related cybersecurity risks and incidents;

request that the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee report and make recommendations to DHS about methods to enhance cybersecurity and information sharing

among security stakeholders from federal, state, local, and tribal governments; public safety and emergency response agencies; law enforcement and security organizations; maritime industry participants; port owners and operators; and maritime terminal owners and operators; and

ensure that maritime security risk assessments include cybersecurity risks to ports and the maritime border of the United States.

As with other threats that this nation has faced and overcome, we must create the resources and the institutional responses to protect our nation against cyber threats while preserving our liberties and freedoms.

We cannot accomplish this task without the full cooperation and support of the private sector, computing research community and academia.

Earlier this Congress, I introduced H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Reporting Act, which was passed by the full Homeland Security Committee.

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

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

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

The reason that I worked to bring this bill before the committee is the problem often referred to as a ``Zero Day Event,'' which describes the situation that network security professionals may find themselves when a previously unknown error in computing code is exploited by a cybercriminal or terrorist.

I am pleased that the Committee on Homeland Security passed H.R. 3202 to address the need to support information sharing regarding threats to computing networks.

I look forward to the Full House consideration of H.R. 3202.

In the first few weeks of this Congress I introduced a number of measures on the topic of cybersecurity to address gaps in our nation's cyber defensive posture:

SCOUTS Act--H.R. 940;

CAPITALS Act--H.R. 54;

SAFETI Act--H.R. 950;

Terrorism Prevention and Critical Infrastructure--H.R. 945; and

Cybersecurity and Federal Workforce Enhancement Act--H.R. 935.

H.R. H.R. 940, the ``Securing Communications of Utilities from Terrorist Threats'' or the ``SCOUTS Act,'' directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the sector-specific agencies, to work with critical infrastructure owners and operators and State, local, tribal, and territorial entities to seek voluntary participation on ways that DHS can best defend against and recover from terrorist attacks that could have a debilitating impact on national security, economic stability, public health and safety, or any combination thereof.

H.R. 940, is relevant to today's hearing because it addresses the need for a two way communication process that enables private sector participants in information sharing arrangements with DHS to communicate their views on the effectiveness of the information provided; the method of information sharing; and their particular needs as time passes.

Specifically the bill establishes voluntary listening opportunities for sector specific entities to communicate their challenges regarding cybersecurity, including what needs they may have for critical infrastructure protection; and how DHS is helping or not helping to meet those needs.

The Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals have endorsed H.R. 940, and input on the legislation included the Edison Electric Institute, an electric utility association.

H.R. 54, the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity Asset Protection of Infrastructure under Terrorist Attack Logistical Structure or CAPITALS Act, which directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to produce a report to Congress regarding the feasibility of establishing a DHS Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource.

H.R. 950, requires a report and assessment regarding Department of Homeland Security's response to terrorist threats to Federal elections. The Comptroller General of the United States is directed to conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of Department of Homeland Security actions to protect election systems from cyber-attacks and to make recommendations for improvements to the actions taken by DHS if determined appropriate.

H.R. 935, The ``Cybersecurity and Federal Workforce Enhancement Act'' identifies and trains people already in the workforce who can obtain the skills to address our nation's deficit in the number of workers and positions available for those with needed skills.

H.R. 940, the ``Securing Communications of Utilities from Terrorist Threats'' or the ``SCOUTS Act,'' is the relevant to today's hearing because this bill focuses on the communications sent by DHS to sector specific entities and the ability of these entities to communicate to the agencies their perspective on the usefulness of the information; the form of communication that would be most helpful; and requires a report to Congress by DHS on the views of critical infrastructure owners and operators on the information sharing process related to cybersecurity.

Each of these bills will build upon an aggressive approach for securing cyber technology to manage critical infrastructure, chemical facilities, and port operations, ranging from communication and navigation to engineering, safety, and pipelines, that are critical to protect our nation's interest.

Over the past year, Russian actors' targeted U.S. election infrastructure, hackers escalated efforts to breach the domestic energy sector, and WannaCry and NotPetya ransomware wreaked havoc on public and private infrastructure around the world.

According to Symantec, a leading provider of cybersecurity solutions, said that ``The world of cyber espionage experienced a notable shift towards more overt activity, designed to destabilize and disrupt targeted organizations and countries.''

As cyber threats continue to evolve and become more sophisticated, so must U.S. efforts to confront them.

The Department of Homeland Security, through the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), plays a central role in the federal government's cybersecurity apparatus and in coordinating federal efforts to secure critical infrastructure.

DHS is charged with coordinating agency efforts to secure the (dot).gov Domain, while also serving as the hub for cybersecurity information sharing between and among the private sector and federal government.

It is my hope that as this Congress moves forward that we will seek out the best ways to bring the brightest and most qualified people into the government as cybersecurity professionals.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida and the author of the legislation and manager for their leadership on this issue as members of the Oversight Committee and indicate that I rise to support H.R. 4171.

I am a member of the Judiciary Committee and have worked very hard on patent and trade issues, and particularly the patent office, and I see this as

raising the caliber of opportunity of different types of employees, which are very important. The patent office is a skilled entity, and clearly, this gives a greater opportunity for those individuals to work in places beyond Washington, D.C.

I also think it is important to note that telework is advancing, and it should not be considered less work than anyone who is at an office. I would hope that, as we look at legislation dealing with telework, that telework would not diminish the benefits that an employee gets and they would not be distinguished because they are working at home, if it was allowed, versus in an office.

So I think this is an important responsibility of the Oversight Committee, and clearly, I rise to support that. Keeping in mind that the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee have worked together on a number of issues, I might just comment on, I think, an element that needs the cooperation of the Judiciary Committee as well.

I think, today, many of us heard of a statement being offered by the Oval Office. I would like to read part of it into the Record. It deals with the standards of accountability and protocol and decorum. It was sent by the Oval Office.

``Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office `begging' for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against . . .''--I will just say the Oval Office.

This requires oversight of the appropriate committees because it is a question of protocol, dignity of the office.

I would offer to say, as a woman, I am outraged that these comments were made. I don't know what it means to say ``would do anything.'' We all know that we do not have public finance, and members of various parties and levels of government raise fundraising dollars to communicate to their constituents. I would imagine that they go to any number of individuals who live in their State.

I think that Senator Gillibrand obviously went to an individual who lived in her State, but to silence a sitting Senator on her expression of outrage over treatment of women and to utilize a theme that has been used for decades regarding how women rise--this is the larger question, how women rise.

Are they Ph.D.'s? Are they law enforcement? Are they secretaries or doctors? Are they teachers? Are they in businesses in Hollywood? Are they in aviation? How do they rise?

This squarely talks about, overall, all women and, frankly, I think it is important, in an oversight capacity, that the women who have asked to be heard as it relates to issues of the Oval Office should be heard, as all, in a process of combining committees, such as Oversight and Judiciary. That is our appropriate protocol.

All that I have said, I have always said that these issues should be allowed the appropriate investigation and due process, and that, I think, would be what the American people would want us to do.

So I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I could not be on the floor, and I would be remiss, if I did not bring to the attention of my colleagues the dastardly comment that does not fit the office and, really, characterizes women, American women, since this is an issue and a statement made here in the United States, characterizes women in a highly inappropriate manner; and a professional colleague in an equal branch of government to be castigated by the Oval Office, I think an apology is warranted.

But I think an investigation is warranted for those women who have made allegations who have yet, to date, been heard, and I might add, they have yet, to date, been sued, so they have not had their day in court to be able to answer any such allegations.

I hope that our respective chairpersons and committees will investigate this in the most appropriate way forward.

And any woman that is of a generation of this time, millennials or other women, have had the allegations made against them that the only way they have risen is because they have acted in a certain manner, I don't think that that is appropriate and appropriate decorum.

With that, I support this legislation. I look forward to the answer to our request for full hearings on these women who have to have their say and to be heard regarding the protocols of the Oval Office.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 407 condemning the persecution of Christians around the world, as amended.

I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with all those who have been persecuted for their religious views and remain committed to fighting with you as we embark on the journey of promoting freedom of conscience, speech, association, religion, and all other freedoms that are inalienable to all humankind.

As a Member of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, I continue to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner in order to amplify the important work of upholding religious freedom, facilitating human dignity, and protecting human rights.

As a Member of Congress, one of our charges is to understand how to improve religious freedom and diplomacy across the globe and here at home.

A good measure for this congressional call of fostering religious freedom and diplomacy is H. Res. 407 that calls on:

(1) discriminatory regimes to cease their persecution of not only Christians but all religious minorities, and

(2) the President and heads of the governments of all democratic countries to uphold the right to religious freedom and condemn the persecution of Christians and minorities.

This resolution highlights the United States foreign policy commitment to the protection and promotion of religious freedom across the globe from Indonesia, to Pakistan to Nigeria to China to name a few.

The persecution of religious minorities is a global problem, occurring in countries across the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

Christians, for example, face persecution not only from Islamic extremist groups, like the Islamic State and Boko Haram, but also from other religious extremist groups and from officials at all levels of certain foreign government.

Such persecution of religious minorities ranges from social harassment and discrimination to physical violence, imprisonment, torture, enslavement, rape, and death.

Over 200 million Christians experience persecution across the globe, the majority of those are found in the Middle East. But it is important to note that Christianity is not a Western imposition on historically Islamic countries in the Middle East.

The Middle East has been a home to Christians since the first century A.D., but unfortunately the Christian population in the Middle East has significantly decreased over the past few decades as a result of persecution, displacement, and genocide.

Not only Christian lives, but also Christian holy sites have been destroyed by the Islamic State.

And not only Christians, but anyone who opposed their ruthless war on peace.

In many places, Christians must practice their faith in secrecy because churches are not allowed, and makeshift churches in homes are raided.

A loud example of this persecution is aimed at the Coptic Christians in Egypt that have faced persecution for over 50 years, and on April 9, 2017, Palm Sunday, 44 people were killed in bomb attacks by the Islamic State on Coptic churches.

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack on a bus on May 26, 2017, in which 29 Coptic Christians were killed while traveling to a monastery in Minya, Egypt;

This important resolution describes numerous instances where Christians have been attacked by terrorist groups, groups that hide behind religion as a pretext to destroy minority groups and to recklessly and harmfully seek power.

Religious minority persecution has been on the rise in Asia, primarily due to religious nationalism.

Recently, in Bangladesh, hundreds of Christians are being forced off their property, and legal action rarely results in the favor of a Christian party.

In Burma/Myanmar, since late August 2017, more than 645 thousand ethnic Rohingya have fled a campaign of ethnic cleansing by Burma's security forces and sought asylum in Bangladesh.

The Rohingya massacre is another example of religious minority persecution, overlooked and disregarded by a government that, as some may surmise, values power over people.

Not surprisingly, Christians and other dissidents of the government in North Korea are forced into harsh labor camps, where approximately 70,000 Christians are imprisoned in 2017.

All that is to say that religious discrimination is a global human rights problem and the right to religious freedom is a universal right recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In the 114th Congress, I introduced and continue to support legislation by my colleagues that seek to protect religious freedom and democracy which are the very bedrock of the United States Constitution.

Fighting for human rights across the globe is one of my passions and I have sought to promote and protect religious freedom such as H. Res. 290, a resolution I introduced in the last Congress condemning blasphemy laws that serve as a pretext to persecute religious minorities; that resolution was co-sponsored by our former colleague, Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania.

Within the context of H. Res. 407 and other legislation addressing human rights, some of the issues we continue to grapple with include:

Expanding the Country of Particular Concern (CPC) list to include more countries who have not improved in their treatment of religious minorities or upholding religious freedoms;

The need for an Annual Countries of Particular Concerns Designations;

Double hatting of sanctions and indefinite waivers;

The need to designate non-state actors as violators of religious freedom;

Prosecuting Islamic state militants; and

The need to have a high functioning Department of State with appropriate leadership for both senior and junior staff, and sufficient funding.

Mr. Speaker, I really rise on behalf of the American people. All it takes is a simple pen and cooperation between appropriators to get the job done.

Just a few days ago, I listened to representatives from the city of Houston. They are only a sample of the hurting people who have suffered after hurricanes--one of the toughest hurricane seasons in the history of the United States. They indicated that there are 300,000 single- family homes and multi-family homes still under.

In my district alone, among other districts, from one part of the State to the next, there are people living in shells of a house. We have yet had a response to be able to help those individuals who have either maxed out or don't have the insurance because they were not in a flood zone. That requires us to not do a CR, but to work on the appropriations.

I have got health clinics and the Texas Children's Hospital coming to me every day wondering about the Children's Health Insurance Program because people are hurting.

You see, I am not trying to oppose a bill for myself. I am opposing a bill that doesn't have the needs of the American people. It doesn't have healthcare in it. It doesn't have the hurricane funding in it. It doesn't have the funding we need for the Army Corps for pending projects to stop the major catastrophic flooding in Houston, Harris County; and it has low nondefense spending.

Let me be very clear. I want a prepared military. I want them to have the training and the equipment that they need. It doesn't have that as well.

So, frankly, I believe that we have to stand against a war on the American people, a tax bill that is moving along, but the appropriations is not; $1.4 trillion taken out of the fat that does not exist so the bones of the American people's budget--so that a tax cut can go to the top 62 percent and 80 percent, but we can't have the funding that we need for the American people.

This is a war on the American people and, for once, Mr. Speaker, I have got to be on the winning side and fight for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend just spoke on the floor of the House, and I certainly look forward to working with him and being committed to standing against any legislation that does not provide Hurricane Harvey funding, and the CR does not.

There is nothing in the CR that has anything to do with those who are suffering, with houses that are in disrepair or destroyed, as well as other items, Army Corps of Engineers items. That is why I stand ready not to be in a dispute, but to really raise the issue with my colleagues of how urgent it is to move to the appropriations process.

I mentioned in my remarks that I am concerned as much about military preparedness as I am about nondefense discretionary spending. I want everybody to be helped. I want the American people to be helped.

So my vote, whatever it might be, is going to be to drive this engine forward to make sure resources get down to Harris County, Houston, Corpus Christi, and all the parts of Texas that are in need, and my fellow brothers and sisters in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of House Concurrent Resolution 90 which condemns the attacks against civilians by Burma's (also known as Myanmar) security services and calls on Burma's Commander-in-Chief, Min Aung Hlaing, to end such attacks in the state of Rakhine.

I share the sentiments of this Resolution that expresses appreciation for the government of Bangladesh for providing refuge to those fleeing violence.

As the Resolution does, I, too, condemn the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army attacks, but also warn that these attacks do not justify the response that has resulted in severe human rights violations and atrocities against civilians.

Rightfully so, the Resolution calls on Burma's government and military and security forces to: (1) implement the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, and (2) allow humanitarian access to refugees and internally displaced persons.

Further, the bill urges support and access for the United Nations Fact Finding Mission to Burma, and I strongly support that effort.

The Resolution calls on Burma's military and government to allow refugees to return to Burma and to change laws and policies that have contributed to insecurity in the state of Rakhine.

And last but not least, the Resolution calls on the President to impose sanctions on those responsible for human rights abuses, including members of Burma's military and security services.

Over the past month, 436 thousand Rohingya have fled from their homes in Myanmar's western Rakhine State to neighboring Bangladesh.

This is the second exodus of Rohingya, members of a Muslim ethnic minority, in the past year.

The current exodus, like the previous one in October 2016 that led 87 thousand to flee, is being driven by a brutal government crackdown following attacks by armed Rohingya.

Despite calls from international rights groups for stronger action to stop the violence, there appears to be little appetite within the wider international community for more robust intervention.

Permitting the current crisis to unfold, however, eats away at its credibility and threatens peace and stability in Southeast Asia.

On August 25, militants attacked 30 police posts and an army base in northern Rakhine

State, killing ten police officers, a soldier, and an immigration official.

Following this attack, the government designated the organization responsible, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), also known as Harakah al-Yaqin, a terrorist group.

Security forces have responded with indiscriminate force against the Rohingya community.

Shamefully, security forces have razed entire villages to the ground and have killed, tortured, and raped civilians.

The United Nations has previously described the October 2016 violence against the Rohingya as ``crimes against humanity,'' and on September 11 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad al-Hussein, referred to the current situation as ``a textbook example of ethnic cleansing.''

The government of Myanmar (also known as Burma) has denied these accusations.

Instead, Myint Swe--a former chief of military intelligence--said that ``people from abroad have fabricated news claiming genocide.''

I am all too familiar with the instance of a head of government denying his own shameful actions by blaming an imaginary fake news source.

The Myanmar government insists it is only targeting ``terrorists.''

With hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fleeing, many of whom are women and children, the government's claim rings false.

The UN estimates that children make up about 60 percent of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh.

Although Myanmar has refused to allow international fact-finding missions into the country, groups including the UN, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, which interviewed Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, have documented atrocities committed by security forces.

I am proud to be on the right side of history today, standing here in Congress, to speak out on my support for these human rights organizations that fight against anti-democratic governments that would go as far as backing genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1266, the Enhancing Veteran Care Act.

I support this legislation because it would establish in the Department of Veterans Affairs the capacity to conduct independent analysis of the healthcare services provided by the VA to our nation's veterans.

The Enhancing Veteran Care Act would authorize the Secretary to contract with nonprofit private healthcare auditors and investigators to investigate a VA Medical Center and to then, assess and report deficiencies found at the medical center.

This bill will not vacate the authority of the Inspector General or the Government Accountability Office from conducting investigations of VA medical facilities.

Mr. Speaker, the reason this important legislation is needed is illustrated by the tragic and heart breaking cases of thousands of veterans who were left waiting for care for serious medical conditions.

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

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.

In the State of Texas we have 1,099,141 Veterans under the age of 65 and 590,618 who are over the age of 65. There are over 1,689,759 veterans living in our state.

The 18th Congressional District has 20,607 under age 65 and 9,844 Veterans over the age of 65.

Nationwide more than 9 million veterans and their families enrolled in the VA health care system in 2014,

In the city of Houston, the Michael E. Debakey Veterans Hospital Center, serves the health care needs of thousands of veterans and their families.

The Debakey Veterans Hospital Center provides support to veterans and their families who are amputees, cancer, spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injury, and have visual impairments.

The Medical center provides family support services through its Fisher House that provides living suites at no cost to family members of hospitalized Veterans and military members.

The devotion and dedication of family members who provide care to our nation's wounded warriors should not be forgotten.

Last month was National Caregivers Month to show our caregivers how grateful we are for them.

Today, 5.5 million spouses, parents, children, and other loved ones care for our wounded warriors and 15 percent of caregivers spend 40+ hours a week providing care for our military families.

The wounds of war and the recovery process may be long in healing, which is why it is important that as members of Congress we provide them with the best healthcare treatment possible.

I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass S. 1266.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that the problems that my good friend just mentioned on the floor can be solved by real, sensible gun safety legislation. Unfortunately, H.R. 38 is not that, and it is not that because it has ignored the pleas of law enforcement, and it has ignored the rational addition of amendments that would save lives.

H.R. 38 is dangerous, it is reckless, and it is secretly packaged as a fix to gun violence, but, instead, it is laced with lethal elements of catastrophic proportion.

Then, in the midnight hour, it matches the NICS Fix, dealing with the background checks, with the concealed carry reciprocity. That is patently unfair, Mr. Speaker.

Then it would not allow reasonable amendments, exposing victims of domestic violence, an amendment that I had, it will expose them, victims of domestic violence, to stalkers, and those who have been involved in domestic violence to gun violence or death.

It will entice those who perpetrate hate crimes. It will add to the current alarming death rate. Unfortunately, where we could have fixed the NICS, it does not do that.

556 women have been murdered this year alone by intimate partners with firearms. My amendment would have made this bill safer on the concealed carry bill. Didn't want to have it. Fourteen other sensible amendments were blocked.

4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened by abusers.

Hate crimes, those worshippers in Charleston, South Carolina, were killed by a person who came there with hate. My amendment dealing with not allowing someone convicted of a hate crime--even though they say that that is the Federal law, why not have it in this underlying bill where so many people are killed?

Let me give you an example. Under the Brady Campaign, 114,994 Americans are killed by guns. They include those in Las Vegas; they include those at the Pulse nightclub; in Charleston; those who marched in Charlottesville, with all the violence that they had; and of course, Sandy Hook. Seventeen thousand children are gunned down by guns.

The laws of different States, 12 States, have an open carry law with no rules. That means that if you are in Washington, D.C., where heads of state and other dignitaries come, then recklessly someone can come on the streets.

Do we even listen to police officers? The Major Chiefs Association has indicated that they are opposed to H.R. 38 because it will require those making legitimate legal stops as law enforcement officers, seeking to come home to their families, being subjected to individuals whose documents they may not know are credible, or whether they are fraudulent or whether, in fact, these individuals legitimately should have a gun.

I can't understand why this is not understood. So let me just say that it is usually understood that we respect the constitutionality of States. This is a bad bill. It ignores sovereignty, and we should vote it down because too many people are murdered by guns without safety regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 38, the ``Concealed to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017''.

I oppose the bill for the following reasons:

H.R. 38 is dangerous, reckless and secretly packaged as a fix to gun violence, but instead, is laced with lethal elements of catastrophic proportion.

It will expose victims of domestic violence or stalking to gun violence or death.

It will entice those who perpetrate hate crimes.

It will add to the current alarming death rate.

The majority has elected to combine this dangerous measure with a more sensible and bipartisan measure, the Fix NICS Act, which we all supported as a stand-alone bill at markup.

This trickery tactic is both disappointing and deadly, of which, neither approach is welcome, for this reckless effort will negate any protections offered by the Fix NICS Act.

My Amendments would have remedied these glaring defects in H.R. 38, which is a recipe for disaster because it authorizes anyone who is allowed by one state to carry a concealed handgun to do so in any other state, even if other states have higher standards than the state where permit was granted.

This bill would endanger many more lives when dealing with domestic partners by exposing victims to gun violence.

Approximately, 556 women have been murdered this year alone by intimate partners with firearms, as statistics show that guns are the weapon of choice for domestic violence homicides.

My domestic violence amendment is an important public safety measure. Had it been made in order, it would have provided that States not be required to allow an individual to carry where such person is convicted of an offense of domestic violence or stalking as defined under the law.

Despite this sensible measure, my amendments along with 14 other germane democratic amendments were all blocked by the majority.

A 2016 meta-analysis found that approximately 4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened by abusers with firearms; of those, one million had either been shot or shot at by their abusers.

Stalking is also a strong indicator of lethality, with one study of female murder victims in ten cities finding that 76% of women who were murdered by an intimate partner were stalked the previous year.

My second amendment would have prohibited any person convicted of a hate crime, as defined under section 249 of title 18 United States Code, or any substantially similar offense under the law of any State, from carrying under this bill.

We all remember the vicious church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina where a white supremacist opened fire in a historic black church, killing nine people, including a pastor, during a prayer meeting.

Again, recently, in Charlottesville, VA, white nationalists invoked violence during a march by plowing a car into a group of anti- protesters, killing 32 year old Heather Heyer of Charlottesville.

This event prompted Attorney General Sessions to call the fatal attack ``domestic terrorism'' and said you can be sure we will charge and advance the investigation toward the most serious of charges that can be brought.

Imagine if this killer from Ohio was allowed to cross state lines freely at that time under this bill with a gun; the additional loss of life on that day could have been catastrophic.

New analysis of National Crime Victimization Survey data by the Center for American Progress reveals that between 2010 and 2014, roughly 43,000 hate crimes were committed in the United States that involved the use or threat of a gun.

Under federal law and the law in most states, individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes remain free to buy and possess guns. And now, under this bill, they can take their guns with them to inflict mayhem beyond their home states.

Hate-motivated individuals such as violent extremists and hate criminals often use guns as a tool to terrorize, threaten and intimidate members of historically vulnerable or marginalized communities. My amendment therefore, was a sensible and practical measure.

Mass shootings and carnage-filled classrooms, churches, workplace, concerts and clubs should not be the new normal because Congress can and should do better.

Every day on average, 315 people are shot, of which 93 die from gun violence, daily. And of the 315 shot, 46 are children and teens between the age of 0-19 and at least 7 of our children die daily from gun violence.

Every year on average, 114,994 people are shot, of which 33,880 people die from gun violence and of those shot, 17,012 of those victims are children and teens. Therefore, we lose at least 2,647 of our children a year to senseless gun violence.

These numbers are alarming and we should be devoting our efforts to saving lives, not opening up the flood gate to more carnage by snuffing innocent lives in passing H.R. 38.

This bill will amplify tragedies such as Sandy Hook Elementary, Charleston, SC, Florida's Pulse night club, San Bernardino, Las Vegas bump stocks killings, Texas recent church massacre, and the countless lives lost on our streets across this country daily.

Although the NRA argues that the United States is a dangerous place and that owning and carrying a gun is the only way to protect oneself and one's family, there are over 30,000 dead.

Removing safeguards intended to protect the public against potential harm or deadly force by private individuals jeopardizes universally recognized human rights--including the right to life.

H.R. 38 prohibits Congress' ability to address gun violence in a constructive and realistic manner? Adding more guns to our streets and loosening existing laws is extremely dangerous and counterproductive to ensuring public safety.

Disguising the danger in this bill, by wrapping it in the cloth of H.R. 4477, a more sensible measure, does not negate the toxicity level of H.R. 38.

In response to the TX recent church shooting, my amendment strengthened H.R. 4477 by requiring DoD to conduct a more comprehensive review of the procedures used by each branch of the Armed Forces to ensure that the Department is in substantial compliance with the DoD instruction 5505.11 entitled, ``Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission Requirements'', dated December 1, 1998. But again, these amendments were blocked.

Unlike H.R. 4477, the Fix NICS Act, a bipartisan measure and good first step, which aims to improve key elements in the submission of information by federal and state agencies to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and which I supported, H.R. 38 as is and combined is lethal.

For the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article by Mark Kelly entitled ``Good Guys With Guns Can Be Dangerous, Too. Don't Gut Conceal Carry Laws. Why is Congress about to Vote to Loosen Gun Laws Again;'' a letter from Major Cities Chiefs Association opposing H.R. 38; a letter from the chief of police from the City of Houston; and, finally, a report from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.

`Good Guys With Guns' Can Be Dangerous, Too. Don't Gut Concealed Carry

Laws

why is congress about to vote to loosen gun laws again?

(By Mark Kelly)

That day in Tucson, amid a gun tragedy, one of the heroes

almost got shot.

It was Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011, and a mentally ill young man

who'd gotten his hand on a gun opened fire on my wife, then-

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), and her constituents at an

event in a Safeway parking lot. He shot my wife in the head

at close range, injured 12 others and took the lives of six

people. One victim was a 9-year-old girl.

After Gabby's would-be assassin dropped the full magazine

as he sought to reload his gun and continue his rampage,

people tackled him, kicked his gun away, subdued him as they

waited for law enforcement to arrive and brought an end to

the chaos. They were heroes.

The chaos nearly continued, though. Because the man who

murdered those innocent people wasn't the only one there with

a loaded, concealed gun.

Joe Zamudio was shopping at a drugstore nearby when he

heard the shots. Allowed to carry a concealed weapon under

Arizona law, Zamudio recognized the sound of gunfire and

rushed to the scene with his gun in his jacket pocket, his

hand on his weapon and ready to fire. But then Zamudio--a

good guy trying to do the right thing--almost shot another

good guy.

As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun.

Zamudio confronted him: ``Drop it, drop it!'' he yelled.

But that man with a gun was a good guy, too. He was one of

the heroes who had wrestled the shooter to the ground. And he

was moments away from being shot for the wrong reason.

To his credit, Zamudio held his fire--just barely. As he

recounted to reporters later, ``It was a matter of seconds. .

. . I was really lucky. . . . I've never been in the military

or had any professional training. I just reacted.''

The situation that played out in the Safeway parking lot

that day shows the potential for tragedy and bloodshed when

untrained people carrying loaded guns react to a crisis. Even

with the best intentions, an armed person without the

extensive firearms training that is required to respond under

pressure in a crisis will risk making the situation worse,

not better.

But this week, as we approach the seventh anniversary of

the tragedy in Tucson and the fifth anniversary of the

tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School--and after two of the

five deadliest mass shootings in modern history happened in

the last two months--Congress is working hard to pass one of

the big-ticket items on the National Rifle Association's

wishlist, a bill that weakens our gun laws and poses serious

threats to public safety.

The House of Representatives is on the verge of voting to

allow people permitted to carry concealed weapons to carry

them into any other state regardless of what that state's law

on such guns is. That would make it harder for law

enforcement to do their job and allow all permit holders,

even if they don't have a single shred of training, to carry

loaded, hidden guns on every street in our country.

Right now, each state has the right to determine the extent

to which it will recognize the concealed carry laws of other

states. Some states have strong laws, preventing dangerous

people like domestic abusers and convicted stalkers from

obtaining concealed carry permits and requiring training and

a thorough evaluation as part of the process. In other

states, concealed carry laws have much lower standards. The

12 states with the weakest laws, permitless carry states, do

not even require a permit. That means a resident of those

states may carry loaded, concealed guns in public spaces

without ever having passed a background check.

The bill before Congress would allow people who have a

permit issued by any state--including permitless carry

states--to carry loaded, concealed handguns in any other

state that allows concealed carry, even though they might not

meet local public safety standards. This would mean an 18-

year-old high school student from West Virginia could legally

carry a concealed firearm in New York City, where residents

must be 21 to even own a handgun.

And what would it mean for law enforcement? Nothing good.

The bill would impose a threat of personal litigation on all

law enforcement officers by allowing anyone whose ability to

carry a concealed gun is mistakenly questioned by law

enforcement to personally sue the officer. This bill would

also effectively require them to be an expert on nationwide

gun laws as they work to determine if it's legal for someone

from out of state to be carrying a gun in whatever state they

might be visiting. Just as concerning, it will mean that more

law enforcement officers will have to confront more people

with guns. And think back to the tragedy in Tucson: When law

enforcement officers arrive at a crime scene where multiple

people are holding guns, how do they even know who the good

guy is?

We need politicians to show courage and listen to the

American people, who want stronger laws to make them safer,

not giveaways to gun lobbyists that threaten the safety of

our communities. And that's exactly what this irresponsible

bill would do.

As members of Congress consider this bill, they have to ask

themselves if they want to be remembered as voting to help

the Washington gun lobby instead of supporting law

enforcement and public safety. And they should know that

their constituents are watching their decision closely.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, in Detroit, the dean of the United States Congress offered his retirement immediately. He has asked me, a member of the Judiciary Committee, to offer his words to his colleagues and to put his statement in the Record that indicates that he has notified Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi, and Governor Snyder of his retirement from the United States House of Representatives.

It is important to note, as I begin, that there is no difference or no undermining of the rights of women and the abhorrence of sexual harassment and sexual assault. But this is a statement that I believe should be read on behalf of the dean of the United States Congress, Mr. John Conyers.

As a Member of Congress, I have known Mr. Conyers to not shy away from a legislative challenge. In addition to being the first Member to introduce the Martin Luther King holiday bill, he was the first to hold hearings on police misconduct, the first to examine the problem of solitary confinement, the first to offer racial profiling legislation, the first to introduce legislation protecting against disenfranchisement of ex-felons, and the first to pursue legislation protecting Black farmers from discrimination, among many other civil rights measures.

In 2007, Representative Conyers stood up for the prerogatives of the House of Representatives and successfully brought a suit against the former President Bush White House for failing to comply with subpoenas relating to a U.S. attorney's investigation.

He has been the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and he will continue to, in his life, as he has indicated, stand for what is right.

It is now my privilege to read this statement from Mr. John Conyers. I reiterate that he says that he notified Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi, and Governor Snyder of his retirement from the United States House of Representatives.

It was his honor--these are his words--and his privilege to serve the constituents of Detroit, Michigan, as their United States Congressman in the 13th and 14th Congressional District for 53 years.

This is his statement again:

I came to Congress in 1964. Since then, I have devoted my

entire career to improving the lives of my constituents in

Detroit and on the behalf of justice everywhere. These years

witnessed a profound evolution in civil rights, led by

millions in the streets who marched for justice and people of

conscience in the Congress--both Democrats and Republicans--

who heard them and enacted the Civil Rights Act, the Voting

Rights Act, and other landmark reforms. I have been in the

forefront of the civil rights movement. I have been a

champion of justice for the oppressed and the

disenfranchised. I never wavered in my commitment to justice

and democracy.

I am proud to have been part of that rich history. I have

been privileged to be a founder of the Congressional Black

Caucus and to represent the United States Congress by being

dean.

I passed, as indicated, the law dealing with the Martin

Luther King, Jr., Holiday Act, the Violence Against Women

Act, the Hate Crimes Act, the USA Freedom Act, and the

extension of the Voting Rights Act. I have led the fight

against mandatory minimum sentences, hoping to reverse the

devastating incarceration rates for African Americans and

poor people. I have tried to pass a universal healthcare law,

H.R. 676. Every Congress since 1989, I have introduced H.R.

40 to study reparations for slavery, and I deeply appreciate

those handful of courageous colleagues who have joined me.

For Detroiters, I am proud of what we have been able to

accomplish to bring hundreds of millions of dollars in

critical grants and Federal funding for southeast Michigan to

revitalize our great city, attract rich talent, and return to

us prosperity.

I recognize that in this present environment, due process

will not be afforded to me. I was taught by a great woman, my

mother, to honor women. The first employee I ever hired was

Mrs. Rosa Parks, who worked in my office for 22 years. It has

been my great honor to work alongside some of the most

talented and honorable staff on Capitol Hill and in Detroit.

I have stated my position on these allegations. I have

worked with both women and men.

Given the totality of the circumstance of not being

afforded the right of due process in conjunction with my

current health condition, and to preserve my legacy and good

name, I am retiring.

I hope that my retirement will be viewed in the larger

perspective of my record of service, and as I enter a new

chapter, I pledge to continue my commitment to a progressive

vision and a better future for this country that I love. I

owe that to the legacy of my father, John Conyers, Sr., who

integrated labor unions in this country; to my brother

Nathan, who integrated business, and he is my ``main man;''

and to my loving wife, Monica; and to my son, John III, who I

believe offers hope to this generation of leadership, and who

is committed to being an advocate of fairness and justice for

all; and to Carl Edward, who never leaves my side.

I cannot allow the great work of this body to be distracted

from the important work, or the goals of the Democratic Party

to be distracted. It has been an honor and a privilege of my

life to represent the people of Michigan in the House of

Representatives, but that responsibility will now fall to my

colleagues and my successor. They have my deepest support and

prayers. Jobs, justice, and peace.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, thank my good friend, Mr. Katko, who is the original sponsor; and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. We serve on the Homeland Security Committee and have oversight over the Secret Service, as does the aspects of this legislation, as relates to Judiciary has oversight as well. So ensuring that our men and women, who put their lives on the line daily, are protected is an important initiative. As I said earlier, I am proud to be an original cosponsor, along with my colleague from New York (Mr. Katko).

The Secret Service Recruitment and Retention Act of 2017 is intended to provide overtime pay for employees of the United States Secret Service. Currently, the premium pay for protective services, under the Overtime Pay for Protective Services Act of 2016, has severe earning limitations, or otherwise caps, which many of these men and women have reached.

Due to earnings limitations put in place through 5 U.S.C. 5547, many Secret Service employees are not receiving timely or full payment for the hours they work. The requirements of protective operations directly contrast with the intent of an annual pay cap, as the protective mission requires continued, uninterrupted coverage for our protectees, beyond the control of the Secret Service. I think that is an important point.

And I want my colleagues to know that I wholly support that our protectees are protected wherever they go. But I would be remiss if I did not express my concern on the number of trips that the Secret Service today has had to make on outings for entertainment, Mar-a-Lago, which I think is over 100 times, and the enormous amount of money and burden that is being placed on the Federal Government.

This does not mean that I do not want these individuals to be compensated. And might I stop for a moment to thank the Secret Service, who I have known and have seen working over the years that I have served in the United States Congress in many different ways. Let me personally thank them for their service and for their professional service, dedicated service, and longstanding service and commitment to sacrificing their life for their protectee.

I would say that this problem often requires individuals to work over the amount of premium pay, for which they are able to be legally paid, due to the annual cap. We have seen the extent to which Secret Service members are stretched in this administration alone. Providing protection for the President, his family members, and other high officials requires depth within the agency to ensure protectees are covered as well as their respective posts when pulled away. As I made the point, these various family members and President go in many ways off of the path of their government service related to the people of the United States.

It is my hope that we are able to eventually work collaboratively on a more permanent fix to this problem since the Secret Service cannot administratively control protective overtime, which is dependent on the schedules of the protectees. Raising the pay cap will aid the Secret Service in reducing attrition rates and retaining personnel, which is what this bill purports to do. I truly want to make sure that happens.

Exit interview data indicates the pay cap issue is the number one concern among employees leaving the Secret Service. We must ensure that we are employing the best available candidates when dealing with the protection of America's highest diplomats. Therefore, pay should not be a deterrence in the recruitment and/or retention of Secret Service agents, and it is crucial that we retain them.

Departing employees said raising the pay cap would have had an effect on their decision to leave, and they would have stayed. They are leaving the Secret Service for other positions in the Federal Government with equal pay and less travel.

The U.S. Secret Service is currently protecting a historic number of protectees--about 25 percent more protectees--than during the Obama administration. In comparison to the previous five Presidential administrations--Bush 41 to Obama--for the first 6 months in office, Trump administration Secret Service protectees had more travel stops and travel days than any other President.

As such, the operational tempo for protective activities have remained higher than normal. Protective overtime hours for special agents are about 15 to 20 percent higher when compared to CY 2015, the last non-Presidential campaign year.

For CY 2017, as of 9-30-17, the Secret Service anticipates approximately 1,200 personnel will exceed the statutory pay cap.

The costs related to protective overtime in excess of the pay cap for CY 2017 is estimated at $10.5 million. The same costs are projected for 2018, if the protective tempo remains unchanged.

I, therefore, support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Any way that we can help protect the protectees, and keep these well-experienced, committed, dedicated agents, willing to sacrifice their lives, from leaving, so that we can also recruit, is a vital step forward. I hope not only is this bill passed by the House, but I also hope passed quickly by the Senate to be able to be signed by the President of the United States.

Ensuring that our men and women, who put their lives on the line daily, are protected is an important initiative. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor along with my colleague Mr. Katko from New York.

``The Secret Service Recruitment and Retention Act of 2017'' is intended to provide overtime pay for employees of the United States Secret Service.

Currently, the premium pay for protective services under the ``Overtime Pay for Protective Services Act of 2016'' has severe earning limitations, or otherwise caps, which many of these men and women have reached.

Due to earnings limitations put in place through 5 U.S.C. 5547, many Secret Service employees are not receiving timely or full payment for the hours they work.

The requirements of protective operations directly contrast with the intent of an annual pay cap, as the protective mission requires continued, uninterrupted coverage for our protectees, beyond the control of the United States Secret Service.

This often requires individuals to work over the amount of premium pay for which they are able to be legally paid due to the annual cap.

We have seen the extent to which the Secret Service members are stretched in this administration alone. Providing protection for the President, his family members and other high officials require depth within the agency to ensure protectees are covered as well as their respective posts when pulled away.

It is my hope that we are able to eventually work collaboratively on a more permanent fix to this problem since the Secret Service cannot administratively control protective overtime, which is dependent on the schedules of the protectees.

Raising the pay cap will aid the Secret Service in reducing attrition rates and retaining personnel, which is what this bill purports to do.

Exit interview data indicates the pay cap issue is the number #1 concern among employees leaving the Secret Service. We must ensure that we are employing the best available candidates when dealing with the protection of America's highest diplomats. Therefore, pay should not be deterrence in the recruitment and/or retention of Secret Service agents.

Departing employees said raising the pay cap would have had an effect on their decision to leave the agency. (They are leaving the Secret Service for other positions in the federal government with equal pay and less travel.)

The USSS is currently protecting a historical high number of protectees--about 25 percent more protectees than during the Obama Administration.

In comparison to the previous five presidential administrations (Bush 41 to Obama), for the first six months in office, Trump Administration Secret Service protectees had more travel stops and travel days than any other.

As such, the operational tempo for protective activities has remained higher than normal. Protective overtime hours for special agents are about 15 to 20 percent higher when compared to CY 2015--the last non- presidential campaign year.

For CY 2017, as of 9/30/17, the Secret Services anticipates approximately 1,200 personnel will exceed the statutory pay cap.

The costs related to protective overtime in excess of the pay cap for CY 2017 is estimated at $10.5 million. The same costs are projected for CY 2018, if the protective tempo remains unchanged.

I therefore, support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, we must do everything we can to protect our United States Secret Service personnel and ensure an effective process for recruitment and retention of these agents.

These agents play a vital role in our democratic system both here at home and abroad. Their keen attention to details and adequate response to dangerous situations around the world cannot be measured in dollar signs.

Beyond protecting the President, Vice-President, their families and other identified individuals, the Secret Service plays a vital role in representing the United States interest around the world through criminal investigation activities that span the gamut from anti- counterfeiting operations to now encompassing financial crimes, identity theft, counterfeiting, computer fraud, and computer-based attacks on the nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas.

For all these reasons, I therefore, support this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the chairman and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

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

Let me acknowledge Mr. Cummings for his leadership on this legislation. I believe the combination of Members who are sponsoring this legislation and the work of the Oversight and Government Reform, Homeland Security, and Judiciary Committees clearly speak to almost the crisis of the issue and what we are dealing with.

As we come to a close, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that my colleagues will vote for this legislation in resounding numbers and I hope that the Senate will hotline this legislation so that it can immediately get to the desk of the President.

I would also ask that we recognize that we must do everything we can to protect our United States Secret Service personnel and ensure an effective process for recruitment and retention of these agents.

I am glad there is an element in this legislation that will allow for a review of all of these issues and that the Congress will have a role in assessing how we can work with the Secret Service agency to improve its performance, its retention, and certainly to say to those hardworking agents that we appreciate them, by way of compensation.

These agents play a vital role in our democratic system both here at home and abroad. Their keen attention to details and adequate response to dangerous situations around the world cannot be measured in dollar signs.

Beyond protecting the President, Vice President, their families, and other identified individuals, the Secret Service plays a vital role in representing the United States' interests around the world through criminal investigation activities that span the gamut from anticounterfeiting operations to now encompassing financial crimes; identity theft, which has exponentially grown in the United States; counterfeiting; computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on the Nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure, among other areas.

Congress is standing up to make its voice known and to make appropriate changes.

I think it is appropriate for the administration in this instance, the Commander in Chief, to stand up as well and review the extensive travel and the burdens that are being placed on the Secret Service agents and their families. They are not complaining, but I think it behooves any good leader to look at what can be improved and what can be corrected in order to ensure the astuteness, the excellence, and the safety and security of the protectees and those agents who are out there on the line sacrificing or willing to sacrifice their life.

For all of these reasons, I therefore support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for this legislation, H.R. 3731, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Florida for managing this bill along with the previous initiative, and let me thank Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Trott for their leadership on this very important legislation.

Protecting girls and young women from abuse and exploitation is vital to the health of our communities. The Stopping Abusive Female Exploitation Act is intended to amend 18 U.S.C. Section 116 by raising the penalty such that the maximum penalty for the crime of genital mutilation is 15 years.

Given the abhorrent nature of this practice, States should have in place laws that require healthcare professionals, school employees, and other professionals who work with children to report any suspected practice of female genital mutilation to the appropriate law enforcement entity.

This legislation is important as a means for Congress to appropriately punish those who commit this crime. Female genital manipulation, cutting, is internationally recognized as a violation of human rights of girls and women. It is currently a crime in 26 States, including Michigan and Texas. It is also a Federal crime.

Around the world, at least five girls are mutilated, cut, every hour. An estimated 100 million girls and 140 million women worldwide are living with the consequences of FGM. Despite the fact that FGM has been banned in the United States since 1996, people continue to engage in this abusive practice.

Recently, Michigan was faced with the first Federal prosecution under this statute, whereby a Michigan doctor was charged with performing female genital mutilation on two girls that crossed State lines. Because this intolerable practice has no medical benefits, it has no place in our society, and those who commit these horrendous crimes should be held accountable for their actions. I, therefore, ask support for this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Protecting girls and young women from abuse and exploitation is vital to the health of our communities.

``The Stopping Abusive Female Exploitation Act of 2017'' is intended to amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 116 by increasing the maximum penalty for the crime of female genital mutilation (FGM) from five years to fifteen.

Given the abhorrent nature of this practice, States should have in place laws that require health care professionals, school employees and other professionals that work with children, to report any suspected practice of female genital mutilation, to the appropriate law enforcement entity.

I support this legislation as a means for Congress to appropriately punish those that commit this crime.

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It is currently a crime in 26 states, including Michigan and Texas. It is also a federal crime.

Around the world, at least five girls are mutilated/cut every hour. An estimated 100 million girls and 140 million women worldwide are living with the consequences of FGM.

Despite the fact that FGM has been banned in the United States since 1996, people continue to engage in this abusive practice.

Recently, Michigan was faced with the first federal prosecution under this statute, whereby, a Michigan doctor was charged with performing female genital mutilation on two girls that crossed state-lines.

Because this intolerable practice has no medical benefits, it has no place in our society and those who commit these horrendous crimes should be held accountable for their actions.

I therefore, support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, we must do everything we can to protect victims, particularly, the most vulnerable people in our society, our children.

This bill will certainly do that. Beyond serving as a deterrence for many in our society that continue to engage in the practice of female genital mutilation, this legislation will also provide a more appropriate punishment for violation of the FGM statute, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 116.

For all these reasons, I therefore, support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), a good friend and a champion of these issues dealing with vulnerable women, the original sponsor of this legislation along with Mr. Trott.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

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

Again, let me thank the gentleman from Florida for managing and joining me in the managing of this legislation, and, again, I thank the cosponsors.

Let me also express my appreciation to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Trott) for his service to this Congress and, as well, for his excellent bill that is on the floor.

I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), as well, for her leadership on this legislation.

I think it is important to note that these are dastardly acts against women and girls; and as I indicated, across the world, we are talking about 140 million women and 100 million girls who have been subjected to living with the consequences of the FGM. It was banned in the United States since 1996, but we know this act still goes on. So we must do everything we can to protect victims, particularly the most vulnerable people in our society: our children.

This is not a mandatory minimum. This is upwards of 15 years. This is a deserving penalty for a horrific crime. This bill will certainly do that to try to protect these children here in the United States.

Beyond serving as a deterrent for many in our society who continue to engage in the practice of female genital mutilation, this legislation will also provide appropriate punishment for violation of the FGM statute under 18 U.S.C. 116.

For all these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the House Judiciary Committee and serve as the ranking member on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, which means that I deal with every single Federal law enforcement entity across the Nation.

I am disappointed and I am outraged by the language from the Commander in Chief to suggest that the FBI is in tatters. We have agreements and disagreements with the chief law enforcement agency, but these men and women protecting us in this Nation, but also against domestic terrorism and even beyond, are called around the Nation to investigate heinous crimes. Their expertise is respected.

I remember when there was a child molester in my community. I worked with local police, but I insisted that the FBI get involved. They were willing to do so even though it was not a matter across State lines. Their very presence made a difference.

I think we owe them a better response, and I certainly think the Commander in Chief has a responsibility to do a better job.

I also believe that we have got to pass CHIP because thousands of children need healthcare. It is important for us to do our job.