Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 49th anniversary of

Medicare, one of the most popular and successful social insurance programs in the history of the United States.

When President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law on July 30, 1965, less than 50 percent of seniors had health insurance and 35 percent lived in poverty.

Now, over 52.4 million Americans are given health care benefits regardless of their condition or income.

This includes over 40 million Americans age 65 or above and 9 million disabled Americans receiving Social Security benefits.

Medicare saves lives and money, and here is why.

Since its creation Medicare has provided comprehensive health care coverage for the senior citizens who cannot afford it.

Without Medicare, most seniors would not have insurance and be unable to afford health care due to high costs or pre-existing conditions.

It provides 37 million seniors prescription drug coverage and offers free preventive health screenings, including mammograms, diabetes, or cancer screenings now thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

Medicare is not welfare. It is an cost-effective social program that works.

In combination with the Affordable Care Act, I believe that Medicare's future is even brighter.

These improved benefits include incentives for doctors and health care providers to coordinate more smoothly, reduce waste and fraud, and lower out of pocket costs for beneficiaries.

Forty-nine years after its inception, the program continues to do its job and I hope that we can continue to support it.

Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weeks, many of us have visited my home State and have gone to places where I have gone over the decades of service and living in Texas, and that is to our great neighbors who live on the border. Many great citizens of the State of Texas and of the great country in which we live, they have lived and worked and played, and they have created an economic engine, cities like Brownsville, Laredo, Harlingen, McAllen, and many others. And they have, in fact, experienced over the years an influx of individuals coming to do harm.

As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and a member who has served as chairwoman and ranking member on a number of subcommittees, we have made great strides.

I am reminded of the low number of Border Patrol agents some many years ago, and now we are upwards to 25,000 hardworking Americans who serve on both the northern and southern borders.

They have met the challenge of a serious influx. First, the drug cartels. The violence on the Mexican side of the border. We have come together with Mexican Presidents and have worked with the Mexican national defense forces, and we have quashed, to a certain extent, the extensive violence. But yet, our Federal agents of the ATF, the DEA, FBI, and certainly other collaborative efforts have worked to bring this violence down.

We take note of the fact that El Paso is noted as the safest city in the United States, and it is on the border. We note that a great deal of commerce comes through the southern border, as it does the northern border.

Over the last couple of weeks, beginning maybe in 2013, we saw a new phenomenon, an unplanned phenomenon, a phenomenon driven by the devastating and destructive elements found in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Central America, none of which were driven by a pointed pronouncement from the United States or the President of the United States, President Barack Obama. But elements who wanted to misuse and abuse the need for comprehensive immigration reform decided to misrepresent the laws of the United States of America.

Every Member of Congress has adhered to a particular theme. I started using it in the 1990s. We are a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants. And the laws are intended to be used to instruct how we guide our hearts and our laws. We still have the Statue of Liberty in the harbor of New York that says, we welcome the forlorn and those who are in need.

Unfortunately, bad information was given to desperate people. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: desperate people. Desperate mothers and fathers who saw the beheading of young people, or people in their neighborhood threatened by MS-13 and other horrific gangs who say, if your child does not join, your child will be killed, or your little girl will be raped. Or maybe the 3-year-old that I saw down in Brownsville with a diaper on was given to someone just to save her life.

That is the misnomer and the abuse that has been going on in the debate

here. These are the real lives of children who fled with a more than credible fear of the loss of life. I am so disappointed sometimes in how we can reinvent truth, and that is that these children are fleeing because of what President Obama represented. That is not true. And it is important to tell the American people the truth.

They were fleeing because of the sheer unbelievable violence, insane violence, mixed in with the mistruths and misrepresentations of those who just wanted to make money and abuse the system. So now we have the surge, maybe 50,000 plus here in the United States. And we have to do something about it.

I listened to three young people yesterday. Most of us have not heard from the children because we were protecting the children's privacy. But these youngsters explained the arduous journey that they took and how they came here for nothing more than a better life, and that violence was all around them.

Yes, we need to work with Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador. But we started out trying to do what was right. The President offered a supplemental. He knew it was right to have funding for the wilderness funding. He knew it was right to give the Border Patrol agents their appropriate moneys, and he knew it was right for enforcement to add more judges.

But what I would say is, what we have on the floor now, Mr. Speaker, is a pitiful example in H.R. 5230. This is a bad emergency supplemental. It is not even that. It is not worth voting for. America is better than this, and we need to do better than this with the supplemental to help these children and help America.

Mr. Speaker, thank you President Johnson, and happy birthday to Medicaid and Medicare. I am excited about the lives that have been saved, and I am looking forward to the full expansion in all 50 States of Medicaid in 2015, its 50th birthday.

I will tell you, when President Johnson signed Medicare into law, less than 50 percent of our seniors had health insurance and 35 percent lived in poverty. Now, over 52.4 million Americans are given health care benefits through Medicare, Medicaid, regardless of their condition, and then for some also when their income is very low.

Mr. Speaker, 43.6 million Americans age 65 and above have Medicare and Medicaid, including 8.8 million disabled. Our seniors are able to be in long-term living because of Medicaid. By the time the baby boomers reach 65, it is expected that 80 million people will be covered by Medicare.

What is the common sense and lack thereof of the States that have not accepted expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act? Mr. Speaker, Medicare and Medicaid together save lives. I am interested in saving lives. Let's stand up for the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid to save the lives of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up--and I am pleading to bring up--H.R. 377, the Paycheck Fairness Act, to jump-start the middle class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen very much on behalf of the State that has one of the largest populations of veterans, including those in my congressional district. I would like to say thank you.

To Ranking Member Michaud and Chairman Miller, thank you for allowing me to sit in on a hearing. Thank you to the conferees. Thank you for understanding that, when our soldiers put on the uniform, have any of us ever had them question why? And therefore, we should never question why are we giving the best service that we can give to our veterans.

I am grateful for the $5 billion that allows this temporary flexibility, that if you cannot get service, you are, in fact, able to go to civilian doctors.

The professionals that are going to be added with primary and specialty doctors are the TMI, housing, PTSD, sexual assault. All of these are making a difference.

In the name of the World War II veteran that I saw in Normandy, by the name of Curtis, a veteran in my district who had an appointment in 2013 and never heard back from the veterans hospital, in his name, I believe that this is the most important opportunity. We should vote for this and be able to provide our veterans with the promise we have made to them: You serve, and we will serve you.

God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, I rise in strong support of the Conference Report to H.R. 3230, ``Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014.''

We must remember that freedom is not free and pause to recognize the valor and self-sacrifice of our nation's veterans.

We also need to keep our promises to the nation's more than 2 million troops and reservists and 23 million veterans.

I support the Conference Report for 6 principle reasons. The legislation before us:

1. Expands access to health care for veterans;

2. Addresses the shortage of health professionals in the VA;

3. Ensures access to care for rural veterans;

4. Provides funding to establish 27 new VA clinics;

5. Expands access to education for veterans and their families; and

6. Extends a community-based housing program for veterans.

Specifically, the conference report provides that the bulk of the funding in this agreement--$10 billion in emergency funding--be used to expand access to non-VA health care options for veterans who have been left waiting for more than 30 days for an appointment or live more than 40 miles from the nearest VA facility.

Additionally, the bill provides $5 billion to VA to hire more primary and specialty care physicians and other medical staff and includes incentives to attract more doctors, nurses and other medical personnel to the VA, and to increase medical education opportunities to attract doctors in the future.

Third, the bill extends the ARCH (Access Received Closer to Home) pilot program for two years. The ARCH program expands VA's ability to serve veterans who live far from VA facilities in Northern Maine; Farmville, Virginia; Pratt, Kansas; Flagstaff, Arizona; and Billings, Montana.

Fourth, the bill expands VA authority to provide counseling, care and other services to veterans and certain other non-veteran service members who have experienced military sexual trauma during active or inactive duty training (including members of the National Guard and Reserves). The legislation also requires the VA and DOD to conduct an annual assessment focused on the transition and continuum of care from DOD to VA for those who have experiences military sexual trauma.

Fifth, the conference report includes $1.5 billion to lease 27 new VA clinics, including a new research facility in my home city of Houston, Texas, bringing care closer to where veterans live and increasing access to specialty care services.

Sixth, the Conference Report permits veterans who are eligible for education benefits under the Post 9-11 New GI Bill to qualify for in- state tuition and it expands the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship to include spouses of members of the Air Force who die in the line duty while serving in active duty.

Finally, the Conference Report gives the VA Secretary the authority to immediately fire or demote senior executives based on poor job performance or misconduct but includes an expedited appeals process for terminated employees to prevent political firings and protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

Mr. Speaker, my state of Texas and Houston appreciates the service and sacrifices of veterans and takes care of them.

The Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, for example, located in Houston, Texas serves the 32,477 veterans and is the primary healthcare provider for almost 130,000 veterans in southeast Texas.

Veterans from around the country are referred to the DeBakey VA Medical Center for specialized diagnostic care, radiation therapy, surgery, and medical treatment including cardiovascular surgery, gastrointestinal endoscopy, nuclear medicine, ophthalmology, and treatment of spinal cord injury and diseases.

DeBakey VA Medical Center provides vital healthcare services to Veterans in the Houston area and through the nation.

I am proud to support the Conference Report since veterans from Houston and surrounding regions will benefit with the establishment of a new facility that will extend access to specialty care services.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to long wait times at VA facilities, many veterans face a number of other challenges, including homelessness, coping with PTSD, and finding suitable employment in the civilian job market.

To address these problems, earlier this year I was successful in passing amendments to this year's Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act and the Defense Appropriations Act providing additional funding and resources targeted to helping homeless veterans secure housing and treating veterans suffering from PTSD in underserved urban and rural areas.

I also introduced H.R. 4110, the ``Transitioning Heroes Act of 2014,'' which provides strong tax incentives for employers to hire, retain, and employ veterans in positions that take maximum advantage of their skills and experience.

Mr. Speaker, our men and women in the military have fulfilled a commitment to this nation and to each other that we should imitate in our actions to work to provide for veterans now that their military service has ended.

That is why as Members of Congress we need to make sure our veterans receive the best medical care that modern medicine has to offer to them and their families.

That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Conference Report to H.R. 3230, ``Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014.''

I thank the gentlewoman very much, and I rise to oppose H. Res. 676, which is seeking an unconstitutional right to sue the President for doing his duty and following the law.

The underbelly of this resolution would, in essence, put fire in the hearts and minds of Americans when we find out that this legislation is to undermine the President and any of his officers and employees from doing their jobs.

This is a failed attempt to impeach the President. I am willing to say that word because the President has been following the law. The law passed, and it gives him discretion to interpret the Affordable Care Act to make it best work for the American people. As has been stated, if you want to change the law, go to the floor of the House. But in actuality, this resolution smacks against the Constitution which says there are three equal branches of government. Therefore, the Executive has the right to perform his duties.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is, in fact, a veiled attempt for impeachment, and it undermines the law that allows the President to do his job. It is a historical fact that President Bush pushed this Nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush because as an Executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.

I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to, in essence, provide the opportunity for us to do valid things for the American people--improve the minimum wage, paycheck fairness--and stop undermining the authority as indicated in the Constitution that gives equal authority to the three branches of government.

We can pass laws. We have the ability to pass laws, and citizens have the right to go into court on their independent standing. The courts have often said that the Congress has no standing. The House of Representatives has no independent standing, as evidenced by many cases that we have already taken to court and determined that Congress has no standing.

The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements, derived from the case or controversy provision in article III, and prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be modified by Congress.

That dictates on how you gain standing, and I would say the constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have suffered a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete, and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely be redressed by the relief requested from the court.

Let me be very clear. We in Congress can make no argument that the President has injured us. We can make no independent argument of that, and so I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution and do not accept a veiled attempt at impeachment when our President is doing his duty and following the law under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H. Res. 676, providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other Executive Branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the constitution of the United States.

We could be doing some very important legislation to help the American people from Texas to the tip of Maine, like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the Appropriations Border Supplemental, comprehensive tax reform, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization, or the Voting Rights Act, yet my Republican colleagues insist on wasting valuable time.

The Congressional Black Caucus did a Special Order earlier this week entitled: the GOP's March Towards Impeachment, and that is where we appear to be headed.

But first let me make a distinction between impeachment and a lawsuit initiated by the House, qua House of Representatives, via H. Res. 676.

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

In any impeachment inquiry, the Members of this branch of government must confront

some preliminary questions to determine whether an impeachment is appropriate in a given situation.

The first of these questions is whether the individual whose conduct is under scrutiny falls within the category of President, Vice President, or ``civil Officers of the United States'' such that he is vulnerable to impeachment.

A preliminary question is whether the conduct involved constitutes ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.''

Now Mr. Speaker, whether we get to this point where we are actually considering impeachment of the President is a question that only the GOP majority can answer. It appears that we are heading in that direction--even in the face of doubt from numerous experts as to whether the effort will succeed or not.

Indeed, it is a matter of historical fact that President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending the terrorists of September 11, 2001; and weapons of mass destruction, ``WMD's'' have yet to be found.

House Democrats refused to impeach President Bush.

Let me state that again: House Democrats refused to impeach President George W. Bush.

Now I wish to turn to the resolution which the GOP Majority intends to put before this body in a last-ditch effort to stir their base before November.

Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger testified before the Rules Committee two weeks ago and had this to say about the potential lawsuit:

The House of Representatives lacks authority to bring such

a suit. Because neither the Speaker nor even the House of

Representatives has a legal concrete, particular and personal

stake in the outcome of the proposed lawsuits, federal courts

would have no authority to entertain such actions.

Passage of the proposed resolution does nothing to change

that. If federal judges were to undertake to entertain suits

brought by the legislature against the President or other

federal officers for failing to administer statutes as the

House desires, the result would be an unprecedented

aggrandizement of the political power of the judiciary.

Such a radical liberalization of the role of unelected

judges in matters previously entrusted to the elected

branches of government should be rejected.

My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the President from exceeding his constitutional authority,

But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the President's powers under the Constitution.

The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements, derived from the case or controversy provision in Article III, and prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be modified by Congress.

The constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have suffered a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by the relief requested from the court.

Constitutional Requirements

To satisfy the constitutional standing requirements in Article III, the Supreme Court imposes three requirements.

The plaintiff must first allege a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual or imminent, concrete, and particularized.

Second, the injury must be ``fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct, and'' third, the injury must be ``likely to be redressed by the requested relief.''

Prudential Requirements

In addition to the constitutional questions posed by the doctrine of standing, federal courts also follow a well-developed set of prudential principles that are relevant to a standing inquiry.

Similar to the constitutional requirements, these limits are ``founded in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society,'' but are judicially created.

Unlike their constitutional counterparts, prudential standing requirements ``can be modified or abrogated by Congress.''

If separation-of-powers principles require anything, it is that each branch must respect its constitutional role.

When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a federal law, the other branches must abide by the decision.

The executive branch's ability to fulfill its obligation to comply with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by Congress pursuant to this bill as my amendment to H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE ACT made clear.

And Mr. Speaker, a basic respect for separation of powers should inform any discussion of a lawsuit from both a constitutional standpoint and a purely pragmatic one.

In our constitutional democracy, taking care that the laws are executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion.

And it is a well-settled principle that our Constitution imposes restrictions on Congress' legislative authority, so that the faithful execution of the laws may present occasions where the President declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law, or delays such enforcement, because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land.

This resolution, like the bill we considered in the Judiciary Committee on which I serve and before this body, the H.R. 4138, The ENFORCE Act, has problems with standing, separation of powers, and allows broad powers of discretion incompatible with notions of due process.

The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to faithfully execute the law.

These are critical problems. First, Congress is unlikely to be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, which the Supreme Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally injured by the challenged conduct.

In the wide array of circumstances incident and related to the Affordable Care Act in which the resolution would authorize a House of Congress to sue the president, that House would not have suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of any legislator's votes.

Second, the resolution violates separation of powers principles by inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left to the other branches to be decided.

And Mr. Speaker, I thought the Supreme Court had put this notion to rest as far back as Baker v. Carr, a case that hails from 1962. Baker stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate political questions--and that it is impossible to decide such questions without intruding on the ability of agencies to do their job.

Third, the resolution makes one House of Congress a general enforcement body able to direct the entire field of administrative action by bringing cases whenever such House deems a President's action to constitute a policy, of non-enforcement.

This bill attempts to use the notion of separation of powers to justify an unprecedented effort to ensure that the laws are enforced by the President--and I say one of the least creative ideas I have seen in some time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to deliberate before we are at a bridge too far.

Mr. Speaker, often, the American people hear the term ``Congress,'' but I think it is important to let all of my colleagues know and remind them what the Republicans will be doing over the next 48 hours.

It is important to know that there will be a resolution--a bill--on the floor of the House, H. Res. 676, and it says that they are looking for the power to intervene in one or more civil actions to file suit against the President, to seek any appropriate relief against the President, the head of any department or agency, or any other officer or employee.

Let me be very clear. The Republicans are looking to sue the secretary who didn't order enough paper clips and indicate that we need to sue the President for not doing his job, while veterans are suffering and need a whole reformation and a new bill, while people are still not getting their unemployment insurance, while we are not able to expand Medicaid to help those who need health care, and while we are not raising the minimum wage.

Democrats want to work for the American people, but Republicans want to sue the secretary, meaning the secretary who orders paper clips, because the President is not doing his job. Let's work for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, let me welcome the young African leaders that are here from all over Africa. They came because they view America as a working government, a government of democracy and collaboration and coalition. So I welcome them. But I also ask my colleagues to show them that government and pass the emergency supplemental now.

The issues at the border, the unaccompanied children, are not the fault of President Obama or any of us who believe in immigration reform. They are the fault of people fleeing violence, prepared to flee from losing their lives.

Just like the unfortunate circumstances in Nigeria, where Boko

Haram is terrorizing people, people are fleeing for their lives. Boko Haram needs to be addressed because they have just kidnapped the Vice Prime Minister's wife in Cameroon. And, as well, we need to bring about some solution to the devastation of Ebola in Liberia, brought to my attention.

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues. We should not go home. We should address them and not point the blame. We need to get to work and do what is right by the people of the world and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise is strong support of H.R. 4838, which designates the railway station located at 2955 Market St. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, commonly known as the ``30th Street Station,'' as the ``William H. Gray III 30th Street Station.''

This is a fitting tribute to the late Congressman William H. ``Bill'' Gray III, who was a legislator, a politician, a pastor, a teacher, a public servant, and a larger-than-life patriot.

Congressman Bill Gray was born on August 20, 1943 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but he spent most of his childhood in Florida, where his father was president of Florida Normal and Industrial College, which later became Florida A & M University.

Congressman Gray, like his father, was a strong supporter of education and leading advocate for strengthening America's educational systems.

He earned several degrees: a bachelor's degree in 1963 from Franklin and Marshall College, a Master's of Divinity in 1966 from Drew Theological Seminary, and another Master's in Church History from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1970.

Additionally, he was awarded more than 65 honorary degrees from America's leading colleges and universities.

At an early age, he accepted his calling to become a preacher, and from that day, he proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus in the church, in the community, and even in the halls of Congress. His faith was unshakable. It was evident that he lived his life based upon what he preached.

Congressman Gray was the pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church in Philadelphia for more than 25 years, a church pastored by his father and grandfather.

Elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1978, Congressman Gray was a persistent voice for equal rights, educational access, and opportunity for all persons, in the United States and abroad.

In 1985, Congressman Gray became the first African American in history to chair the House Budget Committee, where he introduced H. R. 1460, the ``Anti-Apartheid Action Act of 1985,'' which prohibited loans and new investment in South Africa and imposed sanctions on imports and exports with South Africa.

In 1989, Congressman Gray was elected by his colleagues Chairman of the Democratic Caucus and later that year was elected Majority Whip.

As the first African American to hold these two senior leadership positions, Bill Gray's success inspired a generation of African American elected officials.

In 1991, Congressman Gray resigned from Congress to become the president and chief executive officer of the United Negro College Fund (UNCF).

Approximately one-half of the more than $1.6 billion raised in UNCF's history was collected during Congressman Gray's tenure.

During the Clinton Administration, Congressman Gray served as President Clinton's special adviser on Haiti.

As a result of his commitment to Haiti, Congressman Gray and President Clinton received the Medal of Honor from Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one word to convey the sweep and scope of Congressman Gray's life of service: giant. He was a giant of Philadelphia, of the Congress, and in the history of our country.

By designating ``30th Street Station'' to ``William H. Gray 30th Street Station,'' the American people, not just the residents of Philadelphia, will be reminded of Congressman Gray's illustrious legacy of public service to his city, his state, his country, and the world.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of H.R. 2430.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees and as founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus I rise in strong support of S. 1799, the Victims of Child Abuse Reauthorization Act 2014.

This bill authorizes the Children's Advocacy Program for FY 2014-18 and modifies the program to improve the fiscal accountability of those receiving grants under the program--including required audits, requirements for nonprofit organizations and limitations on conference expenditures. It also permits surplus amounts in the Crime Victims Fund to be used only for specific purposes: a victim notification system and the improvement of services for crime victims in the federal criminal justice system.

Throughout my tenure in Congress and as founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I have advocated on behalf of victims of abuse, especially children, who are the most vulnerable and innocent victims. There is no greater crime that an individual can commit than the crime of child molestation and child abuse. The perpetrators of this crime rob children of their innocence.

Moreover, victims of child molestation are profoundly affected for the rest of their lives. As parents, elected officials and concerned citizens, we have an obligation to condemn this violence, work for stronger enforcement of the law and provide adequate funding for programs to assist children who may have experienced such abuse.

Although child sexual abuse is reported almost 90,000 times a year, the numbers of unreported abuse is far greater because the children are afraid to tell anyone what has happened, and the legal procedure for validating an episode is difficult. It is estimated that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will have experienced an episode of sexual abuse while younger than 18 years.

Protection from child sexual abuse in the United States is principally the responsibility of state and local governments. Each of the 50 states has enacted laws defining child sexual abuse and mistreatment, determining when outside intervention is required, and establishing administrative and judicial structures to deal with mistreatment when it is identified.

In my home city of Houston, child safety continues to be a top priority. Houston has the largest child population in Texas with more than 1 million children which presents unique challenges. In 2012, 52,000 children in Houston, Texas were victims of abuse and neglect.

This bill will provide the funding necessary for Child Advocacy Centers to continue serving child victims of violent crimes to the highest possible standard. An increase in funding will enable Child Advocacy centers to be better equipped in helping law enforcement hold perpetrators of these child abuse crimes accountable.

Children's Advocacy Centers (CACs) are community based public-private partnerships dedicated to a team of professionals pursuing the truth in child abuse investigations.

A recently conducted cost-benefit analysis found that the use of a Children's Advocacy Center in a child abuse case saved, on average, more than $1,000 per case compared with non CAC communities due to the efficiencies gained through this tested evidence-supported model.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will make a difference and deserves the overwhelming support of this body.

The primary mission of a Children's Advocacy Center is to prevent further victimization by ensuring that investigations are comprehensive and meet the age appropriate needs of the child. Communities with Children's Advocacy Centers demonstrate increased successful prosecution of perpetrators, reduction in re-abuse rates for child victims, as well as better access to medical and mental health care for the victims.

The sheer volume of child abuse victims being served by these Centers warrants continued funding at a level which will maintain these programs and allow for future development in underserved areas.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in protecting our children and those suffering from abuse by supporting S. 1799.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3202, the Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in strong support of my bill, H.R. 3202, the Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act and, again, want to offer my appreciation to Chairwoman Miller of the committee, that I am the ranking member of, for her collaboration, cooperation, and commitment to America's security and working together in a bipartisan manner not only at the subcommittee level, but at the full committee level.

Again, thanking Mr. McCaul, the chairman of the full committee, and Mr. Thompson, the ranking member of the full committee, I would offer to say that Homeland Security has put national security first beyond any of our partisan desires, so I am grateful for that as we move this legislation forward.

I would like to think that both Chairwoman Miller and myself believe that there is a value to the TWIC card. Even this weekend, as I was in my district canvassing an area about crime issues, a gentleman came out and said: I have a house here, I am training individuals how to apply for the TWIC card.

I couldn't believe it. In a neighborhood, there was someone who was trying to get resources to train people to get a TWIC card because they knew how valuable it was if you want to work in the Nation's ports.

It is valuable, but I want to acknowledge the card reader pilot results are unreliable, and security benefits need to be reassessed. This was done by the GAO in May 2013. I would just like to read these words from what the GAO recommended:

Congress should halt DHS' efforts to promulgate a final regulation until the successful completion of a security assessment of the effectiveness of using TWIC.

Here is an issue where Congress rose to the occasion, and this is this legislation, to be able to respond to make something better. When Congress enacted the SAFE Port Act in 2006, we directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a biometric credential program to ensure that individuals with unescorted access to sensitive areas of ports and vessels were vetted and known.

I think there is enough evidence for us to know that terror can come in many forms, and we know that by some of the terrible incidents that have occurred--the incident in Yemen where one of our ships was attacked--so we know how difficult securing these large areas and vessels are.

However, we learned that, as implemented by TSA and the Coast Guard, there are weaknesses in the program. Indeed, the Government Accountability Office has identified serious shortcomings with the TWIC program, as implemented, that may undermine the program's intended purpose and make it difficult to justify costs, particularly the costs to workers.

I want to emphasize workers because when we first began this program, there were a number of us on the committee who wanted to do several things, wanted to provide more centers where TWIC cards could be accessible because many of the longshoremen and other workers were finding it difficult in their schedule to be able to secure one.

I secured a TWIC card to be able to determine how the process works. The biometrics issue came out from the 9/11 reports. It was suggested that biometrics would be the way to go, and so the TWIC card was designed that way, to deal with biometrics.

Unfortunately, all those efforts of trying to make it accessible didn't answer the question of whether or not it was going to be effective. Again, I remember trying to get around-the-clock sites where longshoremen and others who worked in these areas could get it, according to their shifts. Some of them are out for many days and months at a time.

Specifically, GAO's review of the pilot tests aimed at assessing the technology and operational impact of using the TWIC with card readers show that the test results were incomplete, inaccurate, and unreliable for informing Congress and for developing a regulation about the readers.

GAO found that challenges related to pilot planning, data collection, and reporting effected the completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the pilot results. GAO determined that these issues call into question the program's premise and effectiveness in enhancing security.

In response, I introduced H.R. 3202, with the support of subcommittee Chairwoman Miller as an original cosponsor, to ensure that Congress received an independent--I want to make it very clear that this is very important--an independent scientific assessment of the program and to require the Secretary to ensure a corrective action plan in response to the assessment. The required assessment should give Congress the information it needs to determine how best to proceed with the program.

I want to point out that in committee, language was integrated that clarified that any pending rulemaking would not be impacted by this bill and refine the scope of the assessment we are seeking, made it more pointed, and made it very clear that any rulemaking would not be interfered with.

I think that is the right way for Congress to work. The department has said that the final rule for biometric readers will be published in January 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that we can continue to be on that schedule. We were hoping that it was going to be earlier, but we hope that this report will be more helpful to Congress in determining how, ultimately, this program will work.

There is great interest in the final rule; particularly, there is interest in how many ports and vessels will be required to install readers for biometric cards.

If the final rule requires only a limited number of vessels in ports to have biometrics readers, as has been previously proposed by the department, we will certainly need to have a discussion about what this means for the approximately 2 million truckers, longshoremen, and port workers who today are required to carry biometric cards to do their jobs.

We want an effective system. I believe it could be effective. I believe it is valuable. I believe people should be carded going into security areas or sensitive areas, and I think we have gotten our workers to be able to understand it as well, if it works right for them.

So we will look forward to this process where we continue to collaborate, and this legislation will be helpful as such.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just have some closing remarks to emphasize that the idea of the Transportation Worker Identification card, the TWIC card, was to promote security and standardization.

It was a common credential that enables facility and vessel operators, as well as Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement entities to verify the identity of individuals, a step that was not feasible prior to TWIC implementation, with potentially thousands of different facility-specific credentials, which is why many of us supported--and I strongly support--the TWIC card. I want it to work.

TWIC also allows transportation workers to move among facilities, vessels, and geographic regions as needed for routine demands during emergencies while still maintaining security. In the interest of security and in order to provide proper stewardship of appropriated funds and collected TWIC funds or fees, this legislation was introduced, the Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act, to really get a better investment for our money.

I am looking forward to a comprehensive assessment that will, in essence, be done by a not-for-profit laboratory and so that the many problems and vulnerabilities that persist in this program can be either eliminated or corrected.

We want to work with our, if you will, our partners, the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Agency, and many others. As we all know, national security has to be for all of us our highest priority, particularly Members of Congress, and it certainly is for those of us in the Homeland Security Committee.

So I would ask my colleagues, again, to support H.R. 3202, the Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act, and move us closer to completing our commitment after 9/11, which is to make this country the most secure country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, my chairwoman and collaborator, Mrs. Miller, for her assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bill, H.R. 3202, the Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act.

When Congress enacted the SAFE Ports Act in 2006, we directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a biometric credential program to ensure that individuals with unescorted access to sensitive areas in ports and vessels were vetted and known.

However, we have learned that, as implemented by TSA and the Coast Guard, there are weaknesses in the program.

Indeed, the Government Accountability Office has identified serious shortcomings with the TWIC program, as implemented, that may undermine the program's intended purpose and make it difficult to justify program costs, particularly the costs to workers.

Specifically, GAO's review of the pilot test aimed at assessing the technology and operational impact of using the TWIC with card readers showed that the test's results were incomplete, inaccurate, and unreliable for informing Congress and for developing a regulation about the readers.

GAO found that challenges related to pilot planning, data collection, and reporting affected the completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the pilot results.

GAO determined that these issues call into question the program's premise and effectiveness in enhancing security.

In response, I introduced H.R. 3202, with the support of Subcommittee Chairman Miller as an original cosponsor, to ensure that Congress receives an independent scientific assessment of the program and to require the Secretary to issue a corrective action plan in response to the assessment.

The required assessment should give Congress the information it needs to determine how best to proceed with the program.

I want to point out that in Committee, language was integrated to ensure that clarified that pending rulemaking would not be impacted by the bill and refined the scope of the assessment we are seeking.

The Department has said that the final rule for biometric readers will be published in January 2015.

There is great interest in that final rule, particularly there is interest in how many ports and vessels will be required to install readers for biometric cards.

If the final rule requires only a limited number of vessels and ports to have biometric readers, as has been previously proposed by the Department, we will certainly need to have a discussion about what this means for the approximately 2 million truckers, longshoremen and port workers who today are required to carry biometric cards to do their jobs.

In closing, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Miller for the bipartisan nature of the work on this and all the bills that originate in our Subcommittee and thank you and your staff for their cooperation.

As a Houstonian, I have a special appreciation for what is at stake. We owe it to the men and women that rely on our Nation's ports for their livelihoods to get this right.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, the Ranking Member of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, and the author of the legislation, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 3202, the ``Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act.''

The Essential Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit to Congress and the Comptroller General (GAO) a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the transportation security card program at enhancing security or reducing security risks for maritime facilities and vessels.

I introduced, H.R. 3202, in response to this GAO TWIC Report on the Weaknesses in the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Reader Pilot program that impacted the accuracy, and reliability of the system.

The GAO report stated that data collection and retention was done in an incomplete and inconsistent manner during the pilot, further undermining the completeness, accuracy, and reliability of the data collected at pilot sites.

Problems identified included by the GAO report included:

Installed TWIC readers and access control systems could not collect required data on TWIC reader use, and TSA and the independent test agent did not employ effective compensating data collection measures.

Reported transaction data did not match underlying documentation.

Pilot documentation did not contain complete TWIC reader and access control system characteristics.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the independent test agent did not record clear baseline data for comparing operational performance at access points with TWIC readers.

TSA and the independent test agent did not collect complete data on malfunctioning TWIC cards.

Pilot participants did not document instances of denied access.

TSA and the independent test agent did not collect consistent data on the operational impact of using TWIC cards with readers.

Pilot site reports did not contain complete information about installed TWIC readers' and access control systems' design.

The seeks to address the problems outlined in the GAO report by directing the Secretary to issue a corrective action plan based on the assessment that responds to the findings of a cost-benefit analysis of the program and enhances security or reduces security risk for such facilities and vessels.

Following the assessment the Comptroller General, within 120 days must: review the extent to which the submissions implement certain recommendations issued by the Comptroller General, and inform Congress as to the responsiveness of the submission.

Prohibits the Secretary from issuing a final rule requiring the use of transportation security card readers until: the Comptroller General informs Congress that the submission is substantially responsive to the GAO recommendations, and the Secretary issues an updated list of transportation security card readers that are compatible with active transportation security cards.

My Congressional District is located in Houston Texas, which is home to one of the world's busiest ports.

The Port of Houston is critical infrastructure:

According to the Department of Commerce in 2012, Texas exports totaled $265 billion.

The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2012 ship channel-related businesses contribute 1,026,820 jobs and generate more than $178.5 billion in statewide economic impact.

For the past 11 consecutive years, Texas has outpaced the rest of the country in exports.

1st ranked US port in foreign tonnage

2nd ranked US port in total tonnage

7th ranked US container port by total TEUs in 2012

Largest Texas port with 46% of market share by tonnage

Largest Texas container port with 96% market share in containers by total TEUs in 2012

Largest Gulf Coast container port, handling 67% of US Gulf Coast container traffic in 2012

2nd ranked US port in terms of cargo value (based on CBP Customs port definitions)

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), reports that this port, and its waterways, and vessels are part of an economic engine handling more than $700 billion in merchandise annually.

The Port of Houston houses approximately 100 steamship lines offering services that link Houston with 1,053 ports in 203 countries.

The Port of Houston has $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest worldwide.

The bill will address the underlying concerns regarding Transportation Worker Identification Credentials documented by the Government Accountability Office report published in May 2013.

When Congress enacted the SAFE Ports Act in 2006, we directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a biometric credential program to ensure that individuals with unescorted access to sensitive areas in ports and vessels were vetted and known.

However, under the Homeland Security Committee's oversight responsibilities we learned that, as implemented by TSA and the Coast Guard, there are weaknesses in the program.

One of the greatest engines our economy has is the Port of Houston, which hosts a $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest worldwide?

The Port of Houston petrochemical complex supplies over 40 percent of the nation's base petrochemical manufacturing capacity.

What happens at the Port of Houston affects the entire nation.

For this reason, I introduced H.R. 3202, with the support of Subcommittee Chairman Miller as an original cosponsor, to ensure that Congress receives an independent scientific assessment of the program and to require the Secretary to issue a corrective action plan in response to the assessment.

Indeed, the Government Accountability Office has identified serious shortcomings with the TWIC program, as implemented, that may undermine the program's intended purpose and make it difficult to justify program costs, particularly the costs to workers.

Other considerations for security are in the infrastructure necessary to make sure that there is an ability to electronically check the credential of workers as they enter ports.

The required assessment should give Congress the information it needs to determine how best to proceed with the program.

I want to point out that in Committee, language was integrated to ensure that clarified that pending rulemaking would not be impacted by the bill and refined the scope of the assessment we are seeking.

The Department has said that the final rule for biometric readers will be published in January 2015.

There is great interest in that final rule, particularly there is interest in how many ports and vessels will be required to install readers for biometric cards.

If the final rule requires only a limited number of vessels and ports to have biometric readers, as has been previously proposed by the Department, we will certainly need to have a discussion about what this means for the approximately 2 million truckers, longshoremen and port workers who today are required to carry biometric cards to do their jobs.

Bill Background

The nationwide recognition of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) promotes security and standardization.

A common credential enables facility and vessel operators as well as federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement entities to verify the identity of individuals--a step that was not feasible prior to TWIC implementation with potentially thousands of different facility-specific credentials.

TWIC also allows transportation workers to move among facilities, vessels, and geographic regions as needed for routine market demands and during emergencies, while still maintaining security.

``In the interest of security and in order to provide proper stewardship of appropriated funds and collected TWIC fees, I introduced legislation to insist that DHS demonstrate how the TWIC Program will improve maritime security.

The Transportation Worker Identification Credential Assessment Act will require the Secretary of Homeland Security to complete and submit to Congress and GAO a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the TWIC Program at enhancing or reducing security risks for maritime facilities and vessels.

The comprehensive assessment will be completed by an independent, not-for-profit laboratory.

Many problems and vulnerabilities persist and will have to be resolved if the TWIC Program is to ever realize the security benefits envisioned by Congress.

I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Miller for the bipartisan nature of the work on this and all the bills that originate in our Subcommittee and thank you and your staff for their cooperation.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly support this bipartisan bill.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 3846, the United States Customs and Border Protection Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud original cosponsor of the bill sponsored by my subcommittee chairman, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller). We are working throughout this Congress in a bipartisan manner, and it seems that our particular subcommittee has been particularly energized by a number of issues that have come to the attention of the American people.

This is an authorization bill that is long overdue. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is among the largest and most significant of the Department of Homeland Security's components. CBP is charged with ensuring the security of America's borders while facilitating legitimate trade and travel.

I want to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to just offer my appreciation for the hardworking men and women that come under CBP. They are on the border. They are on the northern and southern borders. They are in our ports, both airports and seaports, and so I think it is appropriate for us to take a moment and express our appreciation.

Might I also, just as another aside, express my appreciation for the transportation security work of the TSOs. As we were working on their issues, we lost one of our very brave agents in the last year. All of them should be appreciated.

Again, despite the essential nature of CBP's mission, it has not been authorized in law since the recognition of the Department of Homeland Security announced by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff 9 years ago this month. It is imperative that CBP is authorized in law to ensure that Congress can conduct proper oversight of the agency and its programs. This legislation does just that.

I am very pleased to have been part of crafting legislation that really responds to an important need: giving the guidelines and infrastructure and structure to make sure that we have a security arm of the DHS that really works, that we appreciate, and that has a guideline to operate effectively. I am pleased that the bill includes several amendments offered by Democratic members during consideration by the Homeland Security Committee.

Again, I want to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson of the full committee for their bipartisan efforts, working with Chairman Miller and myself on this legislation.

I was particularly pleased that the committee accepted an amendment I offered to help address the recent surge in the number of unaccompanied children entering the U.S. at increasingly younger ages, particularly in my home State of Texas. Let me be very clear: this is a humanitarian crisis and an issue that I think we are finding our way forward on, and I hope as we are passing this legislation, we will also pass the emergency supplemental that is needed for this issue and many others. This issue requires immediate attention from Congress given that the welfare of so many children is at stake.

I am also pleased that, during committee consideration, an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) was adopted to enhance CBP's oversight of an adherence to short-term detention standards at these facilities. While these facilities are not intended to house individuals for long-term immigration detention, it is imperative that basic standards are adhered to in order to ensure the health and well-being of people, including children in CBP custody.

So many of us have gone to the border in years past. I have been in many detention facilities over the years as I have served on this committee. We know that standards are important for whatever facility that we have. Whether they are detention facilities for adults who are coming across illegally or other resources that are needed, we must have a standard.

I am also pleased that the committee accepted an amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell) stating that CBP may not enter into or renew a Trusted Traveler Program agreement with a foreign government unless that government reports lost and stolen passport data to Interpol. We know that passengers on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 were traveling on stolen passports, and that enormous tragedy is still unsolved. While the U.S. has relatively limited ability to ensure foreign governments utilize Interpol's database, encouraging them to report their own lost and stolen passports improves the quality of Interpol's list used by the U.S. to screen travelers to and from our country.

That said, I was disappointed the committee did not accept an amendment I offered to increase, by an additional 2,000, the number of CBP officers deployed at our ports of entry. I think we are seeing that there have been a number of State efforts that this number of CBP officers might have countered, and I look forward to us continuing to pursue opportunities to increase those numbers.

Congress recently provided the resources necessary to hire 2,000 additional CBP officers, but still more are needed. I understand current budgetary constraints, but so many of the challenges CBP faces at our ports of entry are related to or affected by persistent staffing shortages. Congress has a responsibility to do its part to alleviate these shortages, and I hope to continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this important issue.

That said, I strongly support the bill and am pleased that Customs and Border Protection will, for the first time in the years that they have been organized, in 2014, under the present chairman and myself, the ranking member, be authorized in its current form.

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

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

Let me offer just a few thoughts. I am delighted to associate myself with a very important point that the chairman of the committee made, and I will use the terminology ``authorization equals affirmation.''

It is important for us in this Congress to affirm an agency that is handling some of the most precious responsibilities, alongside of the intelligence community, alongside of the United States military, Defense. It is Homeland Security. That is why this is a first start toward making sure that we are, in fact, looking to affirm or reauthorize the importance of this particular agency.

What I would say is that, when we were crafting this bill along with my chairwoman as she introduced this legislation, we were somewhat before this rising surge, and we began to think about what we needed to do to get in front of it. I am very glad that I laid the framework in my language in the bill dealing with having DHS find out what are the causes, how do we address the issue of unaccompanied children that are coming. We might have used the term ``surge.'' It was a surge, but it wasn't at that point.

I believe that facts are crucial, and I think it is important that this bill will encourage some of the things that have already been done. The President has met with the three Presidents of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to determine and assess what the reasons are, how extreme the violence is. The stories are horrific.

And then, of course, to separate out the children who are running toward the men and women in green and begin to look at the border and securing the border, which none of us quarrel with. We realize that there have been some strides--we have worked with the Mexican government--but we also know that drug cartels, drug smugglers, sex traffickers, and human traffickers still prevail, because bad guys are always prevailing. We have to make sure that mixed into those bad guys that have those particular desires are not terrorists that will come and disturb this community or this Nation.

I think this bill lays a good framework for us to collaborate with so many others.

I want to thank Chairman Miller for the bipartisan nature of the work on this bill, and the bills that originate from our committee. I would like to say that this is only the beginning.

I am looking forward to our committee partnering with Judiciary, and that we look to a reauthorization of ICE, which is a partner to the work that is being done on Homeland Security. I think it can be done. We have set a good model here today. As we make our way through the Department of Homeland Security, we have set a very good model on how we can affirm the vitality, the vigorousness, and the crucialness of these subagencies in providing for domestic security.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I am going to conclude my remarks by indicating that I want to, again, express my appreciation for the work that we have done.

As a Houstonian, and as the chairman indicated, we are Texans, we see this, we have seen it, we live with our neighbors, but, more importantly, we live with our friends on the border. Members of Congress are our friends, are our neighbors, and they are a part of this great Nation as well. It gives me a special sense of pride and responsibility to be able to work with their needs.

As someone who has representation over one of the largest ports, along with some of my other colleagues in Houston, the Houston port, these are very important issues. I think America needs to realize that when we safeguard our ports, provide for these agents, and give them an infrastructure of authorization, we affirm them. We are securing the homeland.

I think the border towns have handled this humanitarian crisis with great valor and a great sense of what America is all about. We need to respond to their needs, but we also need to address this question from a perspective of the humanitarian issue that it is and a balanced perspective of securing the border.

I think we have begun that process with this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3846, the ``United States Customs and Border Protection Authorization Act.''

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill, sponsored by my Subcommittee Chairman, the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Miller.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is among the largest and most significant of the Department of Homeland Security's components.

CBP is charged with ensuring the security of America's borders while facilitating legitimate trade and travel.

Despite the essential nature of CBP's mission, it has not been authorized in law since the reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security announced by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff nine years ago this month.

It is imperative that CBP is authorized in law to ensure that Congress can conduct proper oversight of the agency and its programs.

This legislation does just that.

I am pleased that the bill includes several amendments offered by Democratic Members during consideration by the Homeland Security Committee.

I was particularly pleased that the Committee accepted an amendment I offered to help address the recent surge in the number of unaccompanied children entering the U.S., at increasingly younger ages, particularly in my home state of Texas.

This issue requires immediate attention from Congress, given that the welfare of so many children is at stake.

I am also pleased that during Committee consideration an amendment offered by the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez, was adopted to enhance CBP's oversight of and adherence to short-term detention standards at its facilities.

While these facilities are not intended to house individuals for long-term immigration detention, it is imperative that basic standards are adhered to in order to ensure the health and wellbeing of people, including children, in CBP custody.

I am also pleased that the Committee accepted an amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, stating that CBP may not enter into or renew a trusted traveler program agreement with a foreign government unless that government reports lost and stolen passport data to INTERPOL.

We know that passengers on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 were traveling on stolen passports.

While the U.S. has relatively limited ability to ensure foreign governments utilize INTERPOL's database, encouraging them to report their own lost and stolen passports improves the quality of INTERPOL's lists used by the U.S. to screen travelers to and from our country.

That said, I was disappointed that the Committee did not accept an amendment I offered to increase by an additional 2,000 the number of CBP officers deployed at our ports of entry.

Congress recently provided the resources necessary to hire 2,000 additional CBP officers, but still more are needed.

I understand current budgetary constraints, but so many of the challenges CBP faces at our ports of entry are related to or affected by persistent staffing shortages.

Congress has a responsibility to do its part to alleviate those shortages and I hope to continue to work with my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, on this important issue.

That said, I strongly support the bill and am pleased that Customs and Border Protection will, for the first time, be authorized in its current form.

In closing, I would like to thank the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Miller, for the bipartisan process.

I believe we produced a solid bill that should garner broad bi- partisan support in the House today.

I am particularly pleased that at this time when there is so much rancor about the Administration's response to the influx of fleeing unaccompanied children at our Southwest Border, we are standing together to authorize resources for the CBP to continue to do its part.

With that Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3846, the United States Customs and Border Protection Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3696, the National Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2014.

I would like to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson for their leadership on the protection of our nation's critical infrastructure.

Several Jackson Lee amendments were included in the H.R. 3696, the ``National Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2014.''

I submit to the committee for its consideration the following five amendments that would:

Identify the best methods for developing exercise to challenge the security measures taken to protect critical infrastructure from cyber attacks or incidents;

Assure efforts to conduct outreach to education institutions to promote cybersecurity awareness;

Provide better coordination for cyber incident emergency response and recovery;

Explore the benefits of establishing a visiting scholars program; and

Prioritized response efforts to aid in recovery of critical infrastructure from cyber incidents.

The Jackson Lee amendments improved H.R. 3696:

The first Jackson Lee amendment supports discussions among stakeholders on the best methods of developing innovative cybersecurity exercises for coordinating between the Department and each of the critical infrastructure sectors designated under section 227.

The second Jackson Lee amendment directs the Secretary to conduct outreach to universities, which shall include historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, Native American colleges and institutions serving persons with disabilities to promote cybersecurity awareness.

The third Jackson Lee amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to make available Department contact information to serve as a resource for Sector Coordinating Councils and critical infrastructure owners and critical infrastructure operators to better coordinate cybersecurity efforts with the agency related to emergency response and recovery efforts for cyber incidents.

The fourth Jackson Lee amendment directs the Department of Homeland Security to determine the feasibility and potential benefit of developing a visiting security researchers program from academia, including cybersecurity scholars at the Department of Homeland Security's Centers of Excellence.

The fifth Jackson Lee amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to collaborate with Sector Coordinating Councils, Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, Sector Specific Agencies, and relevant critical infrastructure sectors on the development of prioritized response efforts, if necessary, to support the defense and recovery of critical infrastructure from cyber incidents.

Global dependence on the Internet and particularly the interconnected nature of the cyber-space makes cyber security a very difficult public policy challenge, but H.R. 3696 is making a significant step forward in addressing cyber security threats.

Cyber thieves work around the clock to probe and breach computer systems resulting in the largest unlawful transfer of wealth in history.

H.R. 3696 emphases on public/private partnerships and information sharing is a critically important first step in combating illegal, damaging and expensive data breaches. This legislation already addresses many useful and essential cybersecurity tools and initiatives such as: enhanced education, increased research, information sharing, data breach security and technical assistance strategies.

H.R. 3639 will allow the Department of Homeland Security to partner with and support the efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators to secure their facilities and guide the agency in its work to create resources to support the global mission of infrastructure protection, which is vital to the nation.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3696.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2952, a bill that will create a research and development strategy for critical infrastructure security technologies to protect critical American infrastructure from physical and cyber-attacks.

As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I believe that the technology and protection of our critical infrastructure falls short in addressing the cyber-attacks we face on a daily basis.

We are in dire need of new security technologies to keep pace with rapidly evolving threats and the rapid advancement of the infrastructure itself.

This bill requires the Homeland Security Department to facilitate the development of a research and development (R&D) strategy for critical infrastructure security technologies.

The measure requires the Homeland Security Department, within 180 days of enactment and every two years thereafter, to submit to Congress a strategic plan for research and development efforts addressing the protection of critical infrastructure.

The plan must identify critical infrastructure security risks and any associated security technology gaps

The department also must submit a report to Congress, within 180 days of enactment and every two years thereafter, on departmental use of public-private consortiums to develop technology to protect such infrastructure.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill would cost less than $500,000 annually in 2014 and 2015, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local or tribal governments.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of this bill is a small price to pay for the increased security and safety it will provide once it has been successfully implemented.

In closing, I would like to state that I have always advocated for strengthening our Department of Homeland Security and giving the department the proper tools to protect our country.

It is important that we continue to help support the agencies that protect us.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York.

I just want to take a moment to compliment both Mr. Horsford and Mr. Jeffries for this Special Order, among others. I could not imagine, as we end this session, to have a more important statement to the American people. We want to work, and in a few days, we will be voting on an action to sue the President of the United States.

Let me refer you to Justice Antonin Scalia, who has said in United States v. Windsor:

Our Constitution rejects a system in which Congress and the

executive can pop immediately into court whenever the

President implements a law in a manner that is not to

Congress' liking.

Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that while some European countries allow one branch of government to sue another, that is obviously not the regime that our Constitution establishes.

Our Constitution contemplates a more restricted role for article III courts. In fact, our Constitution clearly states the separation of the three branches of the government: the judiciary, the legislature, and, of course, the executive branch of government. That is the way it is supposed to be structured.

Now, we come and find ourselves with the legislature trying to step into leading the executive. The President has made it very clear. What has he done wrong?

We just heard the Speaker of the House tell the President with respect to the unaccompanied children: you can handle it. Well, frankly, I would make the argument that you are right. There are executive powers, and so the basis upon which this lawsuit is about to be projected, to me, evidences that we have lost our way.

As my colleagues have said as I was walking onto the floor, we still have the extension of unemployment insurance, the raising of minimum wage, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and the fixing of the veterans health system, which I hope that we will be able to do this week. If not, we should stay here and fix it for our veterans.

The Constitution is clear, and I want to say those branches of government again: the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches are separate. Scholars and conservative jurists have indicated that there is no reason for us to jump into court on the responsibilities of each particular branch.

Mr. Speaker, I would make the argument that this week is going to be 3 days of wasted time, and I know that there are people who disagree with the Affordable Care Act, immigration reform, the unaccompanied children--not one of those issues is attributable to the malfeasance of the President of the United States.

I don't know whether this is a substitute for impeachment, but I would make the argument that the President has committed nothing equal to impeachment, and this second class citizenship of a lawsuit certainly is inappropriate.

I believe the American people are much more interested in making sure that we follow what is good for them: creating jobs, protecting children, providing for education, and, Mr. Speaker, ending wars and fighting for what is right.

This is not the way the people of the United States value their principles to be misused. The executive, judiciary, and legislature are three separate branches. We are expected to do our separate duties.

I would, again, ask that we adhere to the Constitution by respecting these three separate branches of government. Let's do our job and provide for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk briefly about the GOP's march towards impeachment. But first let me make a distinction between impeachment and a lawsuit initiated by the House, qua House of Representatives.

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

In any impeachment inquiry, the Members of this branch of government must confront some preliminary questions to determine whether an impeachment is appropriate in a given situation.

The first of these questions is whether the individual whose conduct is under scrutiny falls within the category of President, Vice President, or ``civil Officers of the United States'' such that he is vulnerable to impeachment.

One facet of this question in some cases is whether the resignation of the individual under scrutiny forecloses further impeachment proceedings against him.

A second preliminary question is whether the conduct involved constitutes ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.''

Now Mr. Speaker, whether we get to this point where we are actually considering impeachment of the President is a question that only the GOP Majority can answer. It appears that we are heading in that direction--even in the face of doubt from numerous experts as to whether the effort will succeed or not.

Indeed, it is a matter of historical fact that President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending the terrorists of September 11, 2001; and weapons of mass destruction, ``WMD's'' have yet to be found.

House Democrats refused to impeach President Bush.

Let me state that again: ``House Democrats refused to impeach President George W. Bush.''

Now I wish to turn to the resolution which the GOP Majority intends to put before this body in a last-ditch effort to stir their base before November.

Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger testified before the Rules Committee two weeks ago and had this to say about the potential lawsuit:

The House of Representatives lacks authority to bring such

a suit. Because neither the Speaker nor even the House of

Representatives has a legal concrete, particular and personal

stake in the outcome of the proposed lawsuits, federal courts

would have no authority to entertain such actions.

Passage of the proposed resolution does nothing to change

that. If federal judges were to undertake to entertain suits

brought by the legislature against the President or other

federal officers for failing to administer statutes as the

House desires, the result would be an unprecedented

aggrandizement of the political power of the judiciary.

Such a radical liberalization of the role of unelected

judges in matters previously entrusted to the elected

branches of government should be rejected.

My colleagues on the other side argue that lawsuits by Congress to force the administration to enforce federal laws will prevent the president from exceeding his constitutional authority,

But the Supreme Court has constantly held that the exercise of executive discretion being taken by President Obama is within the president's powers under the Constitution.

The doctrine of standing is a mix of constitutional requirements, derived from the case or controversy provision in Article III, and prudential considerations, which are judicially created and can be modified by Congress.

The constitutionally based elements require that plaintiffs have suffered a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual, imminent, concrete and particularized. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by the relief requested from the court.

Constitutional Requirements

To satisfy the constitutional standing requirements in Article III, the Supreme Court imposes three requirements.

The plaintiff must first allege a personal injury-in-fact, which is actual or imminent, concrete, and particularized.

Second, the injury must be ``fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct, and'' third, the injury must be ``likely to be redressed by the requested relief.''

Prudential Requirements

In addition to the constitutional questions posed by the doctrine of standing, federal courts also follow a well-developed set of prudential principles that are relevant to a standing inquiry.

Similar to the constitutional requirements, these limits are ``founded in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society,'' but are judicially created.

Unlike their constitutional counterparts, prudential standing requirements ``can be modified or abrogated by Congress.''

If separation-of-powers principles require anything, it is that each branch must respect its constitutional role.

When a court issues a decision interpreting the Constitution or a federal law, the other branches must abide by the decision.

The Executive Branch's ability to fulfill its obligation to comply with judicial decisions should not be hampered by a civil action by Congress pursuant to this bill as my amendment to H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE ACT made clear.

And Mr. Speaker, a basic respect for separation of powers should inform any discussion of a lawsuit from both a Constitutional standpoint and a purely pragmatic one.

In our Constitutional Democracy, taking care that the laws are executed faithfully is a multifaceted notion.

And it is a well-settled principle that our Constitution imposes restrictions on Congress' legislative authority, so that the faithful execution of the Laws may present occasions where the President declines to enforce a congressionally enacted law, or delays such enforcement, because he must enforce the Constitution--which is the law of the land.

This resolution, like the bill we considered in the Judiciary Committee on which I serve and before this body, the H.R. 4138, The ENFORCE Act, has problems with standing, separation of powers, and allows broad powers of discretion incompatible with notions of due process.

The legislation would permit one House of Congress to file a lawsuit seeking declaratory and other relief to compel the President to faithfully execute the law.

These are critical problems. First, Congress is unlikely to be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, which the Supreme Court has held that the party bringing suit have been personally injured by the challenged conduct.

In the wide array of circumstances incident and related to the Affordable Care Act in which the resolution would authorize a House of Congress to sue the president, that House would not have suffered any personal injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing requirement in the absence of a complete nullification of any legislator's votes.

Second, the resolution violates separation of powers principles by inappropriately having courts address political questions that are left to the other branches to decided.

And Mr. Speaker, I thought the Supreme Court had put this notion to rest as far back as Baker v. Carr, a case that hails from 1962. Baker stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate political questions--and that it is impossible to decide such questions without intruding on the ability of agencies to do their job.

Third, the resolution makes one House of Congress a general enforcement body able to direct the entire field of administrative action by bringing cases whenever such House deems a President's action to constitute a policy of non-enforcement.

This bill attempts to use the notion of separation of powers to justify an unprecedented effort to ensure that the laws are enforced by the president--and I say one of the least creative ideas I have seen in some time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to deliberate before we are at a bridge too far.