Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4449, the ``Human Trafficking Prevention Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for their stewardship in bringing this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to expanding the training and capability of Federal government personnel in detecting and combating human trafficking and assisting its victims.

Throughout my tenure in Congress and a founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I have advocated on behalf of victims of human trafficking, especially children, who are the most vulnerable and innocent victims.

I am also committed to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools, resources, and training necessary to identify, apprehend, and prosecute criminals who ruthlessly traffic in people.

H.R. 4449 strengthens the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 by amending it to require training related to trafficking in persons for all State Department personnel. Specifically, the bill requires the following:

1. A distance learning course on trafficking in persons issues and the Department of State's obligations under the Act to be completed by embassy reporting officers, regional bureaus' trafficking in persons coordinators, and their supervisors;

2. Specific trafficking-in-persons briefings for all ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission before they depart for their posts; and

3. Annual reminders to all such personnel and other federal personnel at each diplomatic or consular post of the Department of State located outside the United States of key human trafficking problems, threats, methods, and warning signs.

This legislation does for the State Department what the Jackson Lee to H.R. 4660, ``Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act for 2015,'' does for the Justice Department.

That amendment, adopted earlier this year by the House, provides another tool in law enforcement's arsenal to tip the balance in favor of victims by ensuring funding for the Attorney General to provide training for State and local law enforcement agencies on immigration law that may be useful for the investigation and prosecution of crimes related to trafficking in persons.

Mr. Speaker, trafficking in humans, and especially child trafficking, has no place in a civilized society and those who engage in this illicit trade should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

To effectively combat human trafficking, we need to provide resources and training to government personnel to assist victims and apprehend criminals.

By providing the necessary training and support, we will catch more human trafficking criminals and save lives, and prevent many other persons, including children, from becoming human trafficking victims.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4449, the Human Trafficking Prevention Act of 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the unanimous vote of the U.S. Sentencing Commission to apply retroactively the reduction in the sentencing guideline levels applicable to most federal drug trafficking offenders.

This action is welcome news to the families and loved ones of the estimated 46,290 persons eligible to have their cases reviewed by a judge to determine if their sentence should be reduced by on average of 25 months, or as much as 18.8 percent.

The United States incarcerates nearly 25 percent of the world's inmates, even though it only has 5 percent of the world's population. Thirty years ago, there were less than 30,000 inmates in the federal system; today, there are nearly 216,000, an increase of 800 percent.

This over-crowding of our federal prison system--at an annual cost of about $6.5 billion--is the direct and proximate result of the proliferation of offenses carrying mandatory-minimums and the discriminatory 100-1 disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences in federal law.

African Americans and Hispanics comprise more than 6 in 10 federal inmates incarcerated for drug offenses. And African American offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes and are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory- minimum sentences than white defendants according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

The decision by the U.S. Sentencing Commission is particularly gratifying to those of us who worked tirelessly over the last two decades to restore balance and justice to federal drug sentencing policy.

In 2005, I introduced the ``No More Tulias Act of 2005'' (H.R. 2620) in response to the infamous drug task force scandal in Tulia, Texas that occurred six years earlier, during which 15 percent of the town's African American population was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison based on the uncorroborated testimony of a federally funded undercover officer with a record of racial impropriety.

Later, in 2007, I introduced the ``Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007'' (H.R. 4545), bipartisan legislation eliminating the unjust and discriminatory 100 to 1 disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences in federal law. Companion legislation in the Senate was introduced by then Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware (S. 1711).

Three years later, this effort bore fruit when the Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the ``Fair Sentencing Act of 2010'' (P.L. 111-220), which finally ended the 100:1 ratio that had resulted in unconscionable racial disparities in the average length of sentences for comparable offenses.

But a large gap remained in the justice provided by this landmark legislation: its provisions were not retroactive. That gap has been filled today by the unanimous vote of the Sentencing Commission.

Beginning in November of this year, all federal inmates sentenced under the old regime are to be afforded the opportunity to have their sentences reconsidered under the provisions of current law, and those eligible for release may be reunited with their families and loved ones as early as November 2015.

Mr. Speaker, the vote today by the Sentencing Commission is a giant step in the right direction as it makes federal drug sentencing policy and practice fairer for all, helps save the taxpayers millions of dollars annually, and reaffirms the premise that the men and women who have paid their debt to society are worthy of a second chance to redeem their lives and contribute to their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the STELA.

First, I would like to thank Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Nadler for holding two Judiciary Committee hearings in the past year where we have examined the laws in the satellite television arena in Title 17 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), and related issues.

The relevant part of STELA expires at the end of the year but I am sure that those in the industry would have us do something before then and preferably before the lame duck session after November.

I would note the inclusion of a provision in this bill which some consumer groups find objectionable because it repeals the integration ban which deprives consumers of choice. This is from the Energy and Commerce Committee--though hopefully it will be worked out before the President signs--because consumers must not be deprived of choices.

And now that the Supreme Court has decided the Aereo case, we have another set of variables on the table.

I mention the Aereo case because it is the seminal case due to its timing but it also reminds us of how ephemeral our work can be in this Committee and this Congress.

Back in 1992 and through all of the other reauthorizations of STELA and the concurrent surge of innovation from the late 1990's until present day--who could have contemplated the existence of an Aereo, HULU, Netflix, or Pandora?

In doing so we are able to take a walk down the memory lane of analog and digital television, the role of cable and satellite providers, vis- a-vis their network partners.

It is useful to note that in the 18th Congressional District my constituents are able to avail themselves of DISH, Comcast, ATT, and even Phonoscope which I believe is one of the oldest in the nation and a Houston, Texas company since 1953.

In looking at these laws, we must note the role of the Copyright Office which released a widely-read report on the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act in August 2011 as ordered by the last reauthorization, and the GAO report which focused on consumer issues.

Americans from Houston, Texas, Chicago, New York, the Bay Area, and all across this great nation benefit from a broadcast system which consists of the laws which undergird the system, buffeted by the policy and practices by which transmitters, providers, artists, writers, musicians, and other creators of all stripes benefit.

The system stands on principles of balance and fairness which allow for continued innovation while not infringing on the property rights of others.

In my state, I see satellite dishes in urban and rural areas but it seems like a higher percentage of rural homes have DISH or DIRECTV than in the cities and towns. Is that an accurate observation and if so, why?

What is the justification for a 30 foot outdoor rooftop antenna being the standard for measuring whether a home can get a broadcaster over- the-air signal?

Who has 30 foot antennas on their rooftops these days? Can folks even go out and buy those and install them easily?

Shouldn't the standard reflect the consumer realities and be changed to a regular indoor antenna that can be picked up at most electronics stores?

What are the criteria for a household to be considered `unserved'? Does the current definition of unserved households adequately account for those homes that do not receive over-the-air signals?

This will be the 6th reauthorization of STELA but to my knowledge there has never before been a discussion of these blackouts, because they simply didn't happen in the past like they do today. We've gone from zero blackouts to 12 in 2010 and now 127 in 2013.

Viewers in my state have experienced their fair share of blackouts and I stand with them in saying: we don't like them.

We must all agree that blackouts must stop.

The statutory framework for the retransmission of broadcast television signals has been based on a distinction between local and distant signals.

The signals of significantly viewed stations and the signals of in- state, out-of-market stations in the four states that satellite operators were allowed to import into orphan counties under the exceptions in SHVERA, originate outside the market into which they are imported; in that regard, they are distant signals and they have been subject to the Section 119 distant signal statutory copyright license.

Since significantly viewed stations and the ``exception'' stations can be presumed to be providing programming of local or state-wide interest to counties in particular local markets, arguably that content could be viewed as local to the counties into which they are imported and should be treated accordingly.

STELA modified the Copyright Act to treat those signals as local, moving the relevant provisions from Section 119 to Section 122.

If a broadcaster opts to negotiate a retransmission consent agreement, cable companies are no longer required to broadcast that signal pursuant to the must-carry requirement. Furthermore, if negotiations for retransmission consent fail, cable companies are not permitted to retransmit the broadcast signals that they have not been granted a license to retransmit. This is precisely what has happened in the dispute between Time Warner Cable and CBS Broadcasting.

My concern is that when retransmission consent negotiations fail, consumers often look to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to mediate the dispute. However, the FCC actually has very little authority over retransmission consent negotiations. The Communications Act requires that programming be offered on a non-discriminatory basis, and that the negotiations be conducted in good faith.

The FCC has the authority to enforce both of these requirements, but does not appear to have the authority to force the companies to reach an agreement, or the ability to order the companies to continue to provide programming to consumers who have lost access while the dispute is being resolved. Therefore, as was seen in the debacle that was the TWC-CBS negotiation, unless negotiations are not occurring in ``good faith'' the FCC has little power over retransmission consent agreements.

STELA clarified that a significantly viewed signal may only be provided in high definition format if the satellite carrier is passing through all of the high definition programming of the corresponding local station in high definition format as well; if the local station is not providing programming in high definition format, then the satellite operator is not restricted from providing the significantly viewed station's signal in high definition format.

Studying What the Impact Would Be If the Statutory Licensing System for Satellite and Cable Retransmission of Distant Broadcast Signals Were Eliminated

The United States Copyright Office has proposed that Congress abolish Sections 111 and 119 of the Copyright Law, arguing that the statutory licensing systems created by these provisions result in lower payments to copyright holders than would be made if compensation were left to market negotiations. According to the Copyright Office, the cable and satellite industries no longer are nascent entities in need of government subsidies, have substantial market power, and are able to negotiate private agreements with copyright owners for programming carried on distant broadcast signals.

Congress must have a role in the broadcasting space but whether that is doing away with compulsory licensing or becoming even more involved is what needs to be discussed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 5035, a bill to reauthorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

I thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Science, Space, and Technology House Committee for their work in advancing innovation and technology that will keep America strong and competitive into the future.

As a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and former member of the House Committee on Science, where I served for many years, I am well acquainted with the important work done by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

NIST is the nation's premier entity for development of standards that govern the level of reliability, security, and operation of most products sold in the United States and around the world.

Standards development is critical to our nation's leadership in many manufacturing areas. Businesses large and small look to NIST for leadership in coordinating the development of voluntary standards in a wide range of areas that include office equipment, manufacturing materials, and encryption.

Founded in 1901, NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.

NIST carries out its mission through the following programs through research conducted at:

NIST Laboratories that advance the nation's technology infrastructure and helps U.S. companies continually improve products and services;

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a nationwide network of local centers offering technical and business assistance to smaller manufacturers to help them create and retain jobs; and

The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, which promote performance excellence among U.S. manufacturers, service companies, educational institutions, health care providers, and nonprofit organizations.

Houston benefits from NIST's work in a wide range of areas.

Houston is known as the ``Energy Capital of the World'' with almost half of its economic activity driven by the energy industry. Houston is home to 40 of the nation's 145 publicly traded oil and gas exploration and production firms, including 11 of the top 25 as ranked by 2011 total assets.

NIST's fossil fuel Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) continue to be in high demand by the petroleum industry and the fossil fuel-based electric utility industries.

The fossil fuel SRM program is now 40 years old, and the current inventory of fossil fuel reference materials includes coals, cokes, residual fuel oils, distillates and gasolines.

To support regulatory and industry requirements for reference materials and standards, NIST produces and maintains a large inventory of fossil fuel SRMs that are certified for crude oils, gasolines, fuel oils, and diesel fuels. The program is continually adapting to meet the rapidly changing needs of the energy sector.

Houston's diverse workforce boasts a variety of skills and occupations. From medical professionals and engineers to production managers and accountants, Houston's labor force fills 2.7 million jobs and counting.

Houston has a world class medical center that serves the health care needs of residents and brings to our city people from around the world for health care.

NIST is responsible for leading the development of the core health IT testing infrastructure that will provide a scalable, multi-partner, automated, remote capability for current and future medical technology testing needs.

The objective of the NIST Health IT Testing Infrastructure Project is to harmonize the efforts of healthcare standards test development and delivery to meet the demands for conformance and interoperability within the healthcare domain.

NIST works in collaboration with health care providers, IT stakeholders such as vendors, implementers, standards organizations and certification bodies to establish a testing infrastructure that will:

Provide a variety of testing services;

Support a broad range of test environments;

Support numerous health data standards;

Provide a component-based user interface;

Support changing user requirements;

Leverage existing testing initiatives;

Provide a method for feedback so that health standards can be improved; and

Roll out tools and resources incrementally.

Houston also hosts universities, research institutions and agencies that rely upon NIST's core areas of work including:

Bioscience Health;

Building and Fire Research;

Chemistry;

Electronics & Communications;

Energy;

Environment and Climate;

Information Technology;

Manufacturing;

Mathematics;

Nanotechnology;

Neuro Research; and

Physics.

NIST's work touches the lives of every person in the United States from the smart electric power grid and electronic health records to atomic clocks, advanced nanomaterials, and computer chips, innumerable products and services rely in some way on the work of this small agency.

I ask that my colleagues join me in support this reauthorization of NIST and that we work together to end the impact on Sequestration on NIST programs.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and a former chair of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, I rise in support of H.R. 4803, the ``TSA Office of Inspection Accountability Act of 2014.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.

H.R. 4803 will save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands dollars annually by requiring the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to conform its personnel classification practices to existing Federal law and regulations regarding criminal investigator positions.

According to a report by the Homeland Security Department's Inspector General (IG), about half of the employees in the Office of Inspection (OII) are classified as criminal investigators even though their duties do not involve responsibilities that can be characterized as criminal investigation activities.

Instead, the responsibilities of these employees primarily consist of administrative duties such as duties of such investigating cases of TSA employee misconduct and conducting internal reviews.

Classifying these employees as ``law enforcement'' personnel, however, makes them eligible for premium pay and other significant economic benefits.

If TSA fails to reclassify criminal investigator positions as noncriminal investigator positions or non-law-enforcement positions, this will cost taxpayers as much as $17,000,000 over 5 years.

This money could be utilized to ensure that law enforcement agencies, which identify, apprehend, and prosecute criminals, have the- tools, resources, and training necessary to do their job efficiently, effectively, and economically.

Mr. Speaker, I have always strongly supported providing the resources needed by law enforcement and first responders and will continue to do in future.

But we have an obligation to the American people to be responsible stewards of the public fisc and it is not responsible to provide premium pay and benefits intended for law enforcement personnel to employees who do not perform the dangerous duties of law enforcement officers.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 803, which directs the Office of Inspection to reclassify its current criminal investigator positions to conform to the requirements of applicable law and save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. R. 4802, The Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act of 2014, which improves intergovernmental planning and communication during security incidents at domestic airport.

As a former chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee Transportation Security Subcommittee, I understand how important this bill will be in enhancing safety and protection in the air transit industry, not just for our citizens but for our Transportation Security Officers working in the line of duty.

This legislation, which requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to devote more resources for planning and communication during and in case of threats or emergencies, is prompted by the tragic death of Gerardo I. Hernandez, a Transportation Security Officer who was killed in the line of duty at Los Angeles International Airport in November of 2013.

At just 39 years old, Gerardo Hernandez was the first TSA officer to lose his life in the line of duty in the 12 year history of the agency.

He died from several gunshot wounds inflicted by an assailant while on duty at the Los Angeles International Airport

Gerardo Hernandez was among those thousands of TSA employs carrying out their mission to keep the airways safe for traveling citizens, and their work across the nation cannot be understated.

On average, TSA officers screen 1.7 million air passengers at more than 450 airports across the nation, which averaged over 637.5 million passengers in 2012.

H.R. 4802 will help ensure that all screening personnel have received training in how to handle potential shooting threats.

The bill also requires TSA to verify that all airports have plans in place to respond to any security threats, and provide technical assistance as necessary to improve those plans.

The bill also directs the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of Cybersecurity and Communication to report to Congress the capacity of law enforcement, fire, and medical response teams' communication and response to security threats at airports.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the implementation of H.R. 4802 would cost about $2.5 million in 2015. Of the $2.5 million, an estimated $1.5 million would serve to provide additional technical assistance to airports, and the remaining $1 million would be used to evaluate the interoperability of communication systems used by emergency response teams.

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 13 years since our country suffered the tragedy of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

We will never forget how that day changed our lives, and the lives of every American generation to follow.

Security measures in airports across the country have been enhanced dramatically, and the resulting inconvenience is a small price to pay for the protective measures needed to keep the travelling public safe.

It is people like Gerardo Hernandez who do their best to make the necessary screening as least intrusive and burdensome as possible, consistent with the mission of ensuring the security of all members of the flying public.

TSA officers willingly risk their lives to make sure the job gets done, and for that we owe these men and women a debt of gratitude.

In honor of Gerardo Hernandez's contribution to his country, I strongly support this bill and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and the former ranking member and chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4812, the Honor Flight Act of 2014.

H.R. 4812 authorizes the collaboration between the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Honor Flight Network, as well as other non-profit organizations that transport veterans to visit memorials, to ensure continued expedited and dignified passenger screening for veterans travelling to Washington, D.C. to visit memorials and other tributes to their bravery, heroism, and sacrifice in the cause of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, thousands of veterans across the country fought to protect the freedoms we take for granted and to keep our nation safe. They are deserving of our gratitude for the valor and courage they displayed in risking their lives to keep us free and to liberate captive peoples in other lands.

They are veterans of World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf Wars--Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom.

With each passing day, the number of World War II and Korea veterans declines by the hundreds. For many of these heroes, one of their last wishes is to visit the national war memorials in Washington, D.C.

Honoring and facilitating that request is the least we can do for those who did so much for us.

TSA works with the Honor Flight Network in expediting the screening process for veterans visiting the national war memorials, saving the veterans' time and showing them their due respect and appreciation.

The Honor Flight Network is a non-profit organization dedicated to transporting veterans on charter flights operated by commercial airlines to Washington, D.C. to visit memorials built in honor of their service.

Currently, the Honor Flight Network gives priority to WWII veterans and those from any war who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

The Honor Flight Network plans to expand the program in the future to include the veterans who served during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, followed by veterans of the wars in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Speaker, my home state of Texas has the second largest number of veterans of any state in the nation, with just over 1.6 million veterans. My home city of Houston is proud to be the residence of more than 300,000 veterans.

I strongly support the bill before us because I strongly support the efforts of TSA and the Honor Flight Network in making real the dreams, and in many cases the last wishes, of thousands of veterans who wish to visit the memorials dedicated by the nation in their honor.

I urge all members to join me in supporting H.R. 4812 so that our veterans continue to receive the security accommodations they need and deserve as they travel to Washington, D.C. to view the national memorials consecrated by their sacrifice in defense of our country.

Madam Speaker, my community has experienced over the last couple of weeks senseless horrific violence done with guns, wrapped and intertwined with domestic violence.

First, I offer my sympathy to Cassidy Stay, who lost six members of her family at the hands of a gun and an individual who was coming to do harm to her aunt; and then to the family of Candace Williams, whose three children--7-year-old Neira, 1-year-old Paris, and 6-year-old Torian--watched their mother gunned down in her bedroom with baby Paris, 1-year old, sleeping alongside her mother; and of course, the Stay family--Katie and Stephen, Bryan, Emily, Rebecca, and Zach--who lost their lives at the hand of a violent individual who was, as I said, coming to do harm to his own ex-wife.

It is time to raise the understanding of domestic violence. Today, at a press conference in Houston, we announced the Candace Way Out, so that women all over America would be able to know there are places to go.

I intend, Madam Speaker, to introduce legislation to enhance the penalty for anyone involved in domestic violence that uses a gun that results in the death of that loved one. Madam Speaker, violence, guns, and domestic violence must end.

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak to a tragedy resulting from another senseless act of domestic violence in my congressional district.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and relatives of Candace Williams, especially her three young children, 6-year-old Torian, 7-year-old Neira, and 1-year-old Paris, who were left without parents following the murder of their mother who was killed by their stepfather before taking his own life.

A few days earlier, Stephen Stay, his wife Katie, and their four children--Bryan, 13, Emily, 9, Rebecca, 6, and Zach, 4 were brutally shot and killed in their suburban Houston home by the ex-husband of Katie Stay's sister.

I offer my deepest sympathies and condolences to Cassidy Stay, the sole survivor of this horrific crime but who is also a hero for leading the authorities to the perpetrator of this crime.

It is imperative that we come together in strong support of a broad and comprehensive strategy to address the causes and effects of gun violence when domestic violence is involved.

Weighing heavily on our hearts and consciences is the fact that an estimated 46 million children in our country are exposed to violence each year through crime, abuse and trauma.

Domestic violence is the willful intimidation, physical assault, battery, sexual assault, or other abusive behavior perpetrated by a family member or intimate partner against another.

It is an epidemic affecting individuals in Houston and across the nation, regardless of age, economic status, race, religion, nationality or educational background.

Violence against women is often accompanied by emotionally abusive and controlling behavior, and thus is part of a systematic pattern of dominance and control.

Domestic violence results in physical injury, psychological trauma-- and as we have seen in Houston--too often in death.

The emotional, physical, and psychological damage caused by domestic violence can last a lifetime. Consider the following facts:

1. One in four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime

2. Historically, females have been most often victimized by someone they knew.

3. There were 187,811 incidents of family violence in Texas in 2010.

4. There were 120 domestic homicides in 2010 as a result of domestic violence of which 43% were committed by a spouse and 24% were committed by a dating partner.

In the United States, 9,146 people were killed by firearms in 2011 a number 223 times greater than the United Kingdom, which experienced only 41 homicides by firearm.

Homicide rates in the United States are 6.9 times higher than the combined rates in 22 most populous high-income countries.

Madam Speaker, we must begin discussing common-sense steps we can take right now to combat gun violence.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee and the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, I have introduced H.R. 65, the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act and other legislation to reduce the incidence of gun violence.

Changing a culture of violence will not happen overnight but that is no excuse for failing to try. We must try. We must not give up.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in redoubling our commitment protect our children and our communities from domestic violence.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of domestic violence everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I heard on the radio a Palestinian mother who said: I wish the bombing would stop so that I could get food for my children.

I don't expect that that mother would in any way deny Israeli mothers and fathers from their ability to live in peace.

I rise today to stand with the right of Israel to exist and to defend herself and to call upon the redoubling of peace efforts by the United States to ensure that there is a peace resolution. I also hope that, as Egypt is negotiating a ceasefire, the terrorist group Hamas can be isolated and the people in the Palestinian area in Gaza and the West Bank would come together as one, with Mr. Abbas leading a peaceful region.

It is time now for the unprovoked rockets to stop and for people to come together in a coalition of peace.

I have been to Israel. I have seen the Iron Dome. It is an Iron Dome of protection. I have listened to the President of Israel, who has argued for peace.

Let us stand for peace and the ceasing of the firing of rockets and a negotiation of settlement that is permanent.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding for just a moment because this is a colleague from Texas, and there are many issues that we have agreed on with respect to Texas.

I might say to you that I am a strong proponent of religious liberty. You had mentioned Hobby Lobby in terms of some of the issues you were discussing. I think I have stood fast on that question. I only raise the point, and you made the point that anything that was approved pre- Hobby Lobby by the FDA, but in actuality we know that, just from the religious liberty point of view, this is a slippery slope because it pits the large entity against the individual rights, and we know under our Constitution that the very premise of religious freedom is the idea that there is no pronounced, structured religious plan in place that denies me my freedom. And that is what you have done to women as it relates--when I say ``you,'' excuse me--that is what the decision has done. It has made the boss in charge of an individual.

I would just make the argument we can stand for religious liberty, but we must stand for it not only for corporations but for individuals such as women who use contraception for health care, Doctor. And you know that that happens. You are certainly very much an experienced medical professional. I would just make the argument that I can't imagine in the course of your medical history that you have not seen women who need contraception for health care.

The other point that I would just finish on is that, as I indicated on the question of a slippery slope, how else can a corporation suggest that I am, because of my needs, infringing upon their religious liberty? I am obviously going to be disadvantaged because, in essence, I am a minority of one. I am an employee. I am scared for my job. But I need to be able to express my religious freedom, and it may infringe upon someone else's. Let us be careful about this. And I frankly hope-- --

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today as a mother and a parent. I could offer that I am a Congresswoman, but I think we need to embrace those mothers whose girls are still missing.

How long? Too long. How long? Too long.

Next Wednesday will be 100 days since they have been gone. I join to say #bringbackourgirls.

I also want Shekau, the leader of the Nigerian terrorist group, Boko Haram, to be brought to justice. I want you to know that they are attacking girls and women.

I want President Goodluck Jonathan to establish the victims fund that he says he has established, but to utilize it for the victims that already exist. He announced that he established a victims fund after we, women of Congress and myself, pleaded with him to establish it when we went to Nigeria with my colleagues, Congresswoman Wilson, Mr. Stockman, and Ms. Frankel.

We must do as Malala has done. We must hug them and know them and love them.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have to bring the girls back. Hauwa Mutah, Hauwa Takai, Serah Samuel, these are the names. Bring the girls back.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about children and to talk about children around the world, here at home, and I guess what is most on many Americans' minds because of the visuals that they have seen, unaccompanied children coming into my State, the State of Texas.

I was down at the border some weeks ago, maybe just 2 weeks ago, and I looked at the reality of what many people see on television, and what I looked at was impoverished, frightened children, 12 years and under, children with diapers, children who were frightened and without their parents.

In addition, I saw the lovingness of volunteers from Catholic Charities to save the children, to many residents in the border community reaching out and helping.

Now, we are about to engage in a debate based upon the President's recommendation of what they need to humanely treat these children. Frankly, I believe that many in America have gotten the wrong information through various excerpts and commentaries that have been made by people who are uninformed.

I am very glad in Houston, on this past weekend, we had over 80 religious leaders from all denominations, communities, people who drove into Houston from counties way beyond Houston, all standing up and acknowledging their commitment to the humane treatment of children. They were from diverse backgrounds. They were ethnically diverse and racially diverse, as I said, religiously diverse.

Ministers like Dr. Terrance Grant Malone and Dr. Freddie Haynes, Dr. John Ogletree, Dr. D.Z. Cofield, pastors from Faith Temple, I believe, in Polk County--if I have it correct--and individuals from the United Methodist Church, Catholic Charities, Episcopal Church, people who are in the midst of Ramadan from the Islamic Muslim faith, all ready to help these children--that is the America that all of us know.

That is the America that the Statue of Liberty stands in the harbor of New York and has said, over the years, to bring me your forlorn.

That is the same America who can stand alongside of Jordan, who is taking thousands and thousands of Syrians; or Turkey, that is taking thousands upon thousands of Syrians--not the America who listens to the fears and wrong information about disease.

These children are medically checked, but if you will check the documents, you will find that, in spite of the poverty, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala immunizes at least 90 to 95 percent of their children; but yet we doublecheck, and we immunize again.

So I think it is important to understand that this law that has, in actuality, been at the center point of my friends on the other side of the aisle wanting to change, with the introduction now of the humane law, is a law that should stay in place and that we should give children of any country, contiguous or noncontiguous, at least due process rights because these are children who in actuality have fled violence or human trafficking or sex trafficking and they are sometimes unable to articulate that in a short period of time.

They need counsel, and they need courts that understand. To rush through the decision, to have a court make a decision in 72 hours is absolutely absurd and impossible.

To only increase immigration judges by 40, I have introduced H.R. 4940 that increases immigration judges by 70. At this point, immigration judges have 1,660 per court versus a district court that has less than 500 cases, and they are overwhelmed. There is no way that you can process these children presently, and the expedited proceedings are not going to work.

Where is our claim to due process for these children? I look forward to working deliberatively, having these children in the process that they are in. By the way, they are in a deportation process. They are not just here to stay.

Putting them in a humane condition, debunking the myth of disease, and having these children go and find that these children will appear in court by having lawyers and enforcing the border with the border security bill, H.R. 1417, that this House and this House leadership refuses to put on the floor of the House, which passed over almost 2 years ago.

If you want border security, pass the border security bill that we have written.

Finally, Mr. Speaker I want to care about American children. The violence must stop. I want to work with those who are being shot by guns across America. Let's stop the gun violence.

We need a Marshall Plan for the children who are being shot by guns in our country. Care for children all over the world.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the ranking member and the chairman of the full committee. We seek opportunities on the Judiciary Committee to compromise and work together. This legislation would have been an excellent opportunity to be able to work together.

I appreciate the position of my chairman, but I know that Mr. Conyers and myself worked on a compromise that I think and hope that, as we ultimately watch this bill make its way through the process, that we will be able to draw upon the Conyers-Jackson Lee compromise that makes this Internet Tax Freedom Act extended for a certain period of time.

We understand that there are frustrations on all sides. This bill would make permanent the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposes a moratorium on taxing Internet services, but as written would delete the existing grandfather clause which has been in place since the original passage of the bill in 1998 that allowed a number of States with unique circumstances, at the State and

local level, to impose tax on Internet access services.

Now, we can suggest that the present bill is a laissez-faire bill. Let me say that there is another principle of states' rights, and I have often heard it from my friends on the other side of the aisle. When it is for good, we should look at it as a reasoned answer to the uniqueness of the 50 States.

The Conyers-Jackson Lee amendment preserves the grandfather clause, so that Texas and other States could raise this very valuable revenue, but more importantly, it retains the moratorium for 4 years for us to be able to address this question in a fair manner. We offered this in the full committee, and there are many who support this compromise beyond the States that would be impacted.

A letter that I have received from the director of Citizens for Tax Justice writes in opposition to making permanent the Federal law--and I will include the letter for the Record--by banning State and local governments from subjecting Internet access to the same taxes they impose on other goods and services.

This letter goes on to say that it was decided that this infant industry needed special protection from taxes. Now, we are beyond that, but we are harming States.

I just want to use, as an example, the State of Texas will lose $280 million; cities will lose $51 million; transit, $18 million; special districts, $4 million; a total of $358 million. When we are putting more burdens on States, we need to not remove an opportunity where they can raise revenue innocently and in good conscience.

Why are we barring our States from doing their good due diligence, providing resources--needed resources--for schools and infrastructure and health care?

So I am well aware of the arguments on the other side, but listen to our arguments. We are not stopping the taxation issue; we are putting a moratorium for 4 years, so that we can reassess it.

I ask my colleagues to consider that as they consider this legislation. I rise in opposition to this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the bill would make permanent the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposes a moratorium on taxing Internet services, but, as written, would delete the existing grandfather clause that has been in place since the original passage of the bill in 1998 that has allowed Texas at the state and local level to impose tax on Internet access services.

At the markup in the Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member Conyers and I offered an amendment to extend the moratorium and the grandfather protections for four years. Unfortunately it failed on a primarily party line vote in the Committee.

Now, the authors of this bill would deem to tell Texas what it can do or not do regarding its tax policy. At the heart of the notion of federalism is the right of states to legislate matters within their own jurisdiction.

The lines of authority between states and the federal government are, to a significant extent, defined by the United States Constitution and relevant case law.

The Constitution does, however, provide certain specific limitations on that power. In this instance, states would be prohibited from taxing Internet access.

H.R. 3086 would make the moratorium permanent but it would not extend the grandfather protections on which seven states, including Texas, still rely on.

The Conyers-Jackson Lee amendment preserved this ``grandfather clause'' so that Texas could continue to raise this very valuable revenue.

And the Conyers-Jackson Lee amendment retained the moratorium on taxation for four years instead of making it permanent.

Unfortunately, for Texas, this legislation would delete the existing grandfather clause that has been in place since the original passage of the bill in 1998 that has allowed Texas at the state and local level to impose tax on Internet access services.

The original intent of ITFA in 1998 was to encourage development of the Internet, which at the time was a new technology. The Internet is no longer an infantile industry.

Madam Speaker, as a practical matter this justification is no longer applicable given the substantial advancements in technology that have occurred since 1998.

Bundling non-Internet based services with Internet services creates a loophole for industry to avoid taxes altogether.

Again, the Conyers-Jackson Lee amendment would have preserved this ``grandfather clause'' so that the state can continue to raise this very valuable revenue. As written the bill raises significant federalism concerns and essentially tells Texas what to do--nobody messes with Texas.

I urge my colleagues to vote for fairness and judicial economy by opposing this legislation in its current form.

H.R. 3086: Effect on Texas

State: $280 million

City: 51 million

Transit: 18 million

County: 5 million

Special districts: 4 million

Total: $358 million (per year)

Let me thank the gentleman from Colorado and, as well, the manager of this rule.

I too rise to be able to push for voting ``no'' on the previous question, dealing with making sure that we fix the taking away of women's rights as it relates to choice and pass the it is not my boss's business legislation that gets us back right-side up, taking care of women and their rights, in particular, as it relates to their own body and their family choices as well, to make sure that they have the right to take care of their own family.

Let me also say that I would wish and had hoped that the present underlying bill, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act, was truly a bill that committed to the American people that we believe in the investment of infrastructure in creating jobs.

This is not what this bill is. This is a temporary fix, saying to the American cities and transit centers, our transit facilities, and buses and highways and freeways, that you are only a side thought here in the United States Congress. We will give you a small amount of money, transferring $9.8 billion from the general fund and $1 billion from the leaking underground storage tank trust fund, just to give you a temporary fix. We are going to put a finger in the dam.

We are not going to have a concerted, concentrated, responsible assessment of America's transportation needs so that we can fund it. We are not going to ask Houston metro what monies they need. We are not going to ask Texas what monies they need. We are not going to ask New York or California.

I would simply say we have got to get away from the I don't believe in government crowd and work with the people who understand that government has a role. The Federal Government has a role. It is a rescue facility. It is an SOS. It helps people in need, when the States are in need, and it helps to build infrastructure.

The highway system that President Eisenhower, a Republican, created-- which we have been recognized for--here, we are nickel-and-diming, so I hope that we will get down to the table, work with those of us who are concerned.

Finally, vote ``no'' on the previous question because it is not your boss's business. If you want to have family planning, it is certainly not your boss's business.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security, I rise in to speak on the rule and in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 5021, the ``Highway and Transportation Funding Act,'' which reauthorizes federal-aid highway and transit programs for eight months--through May 31, 2015--by transferring $10.8 billion from in other federal funds to the Highway Trust Fund to cover projected trust fund shortfalls over that time.

Instead of this temporary extension, I would have strongly preferred that we were debating a comprehensive, fair, equitable, and long-term transportation reauthorization bill the nation desperately needs. We have had two years to do so.

Democrats want such a bill as does the President. But apparently our friends across the aisle do not since they have spent the last two years wasting time on advocating policies wanted by no one except for the right-wing extremists of the Tea Party.

But I support this emergency but temporary measure because as the Department of Transportation has reported, if we do not act now highway trust fund balances by the beginning of August will reach dangerously low levels and result in a reduction of payments to states by an average of 28 percent.

Many states have already begun to cancel or delay planned construction projects, threatening 700,000 thousands of jobs, including 106,100 jobs in my home state of Texas.

The funds to be transferred are $9.8 billion from the General Fund and $1 billion from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. The cost of the transfer from the general fund of the Treasury is offset through an extension of customs fees and ``pension smoothing,'' which is a euphemism for allowing some large corporations to underfund their pension systems.

Madam Speaker, the Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 during the Eisenhower Administration to help finance construction of the Interstate Highway System, which modernized the nation's transportation infrastructure and was instrumental in making the United States the world's dominant economic power for two generations. Our national leaders then understood that investing in our roads and bridges strengthened our economy, created millions of good-paying jobs, and improved the quality of life for all Americans.

It is currently composed of two accounts that fund federal-aid highway and transit projects built by states. Federal funding from the trust fund accounts for a major portion of state transportation spending.

The Highway Trust Fund is financed by gasoline and diesel taxes, which until the last decade produced a steady increase in revenues sufficient to accommodate increased levels of spending on highway and transit projects.

However, those tax rates--18.4 cents/gallon federal tax on gasoline and a 24.4 cents/gallon tax on diesel fuel--have remained unchanged since 1993 and were not indexed to inflation so the value of those revenues has eroded over the years, and, combined with the fact that vehicles have been getting increasingly better mileage, the revenues deposited into the Highway Trust Fund beginning last decade have not kept pace with highway and transit spending from the trust fund.

Consequently, since 2008, Congress has periodically had to transfer at the 11th hour general Treasury revenues into the trust fund to pay for authorized highway and transit spending levels and avoid a funding shortfall. The total amount to date is $54 billion.

Obviously, this is practice is economically inefficient and injects uncertainty in the highway construction plans, projects, and schedules of state and local transportation agencies, not to mention the anxiety it causes to workers and businesses who economic livelihood is dependent on those projects.

Madam Speaker, the last transportation authorized by Congress for 4 years or more, SAFETEA-LU, expired on September 30, 2009, at the end of FY 2009. Because Congress and the Administration could not agree to a new reauthorization, it was necessary to resort to stop-gap temporary extensions on no less than eight occasions spanning a period of 910 days before Congress finally enacted the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21 Act) on July 6, 2012, which reauthorized highway and transportation programs through Fiscal Year 2014, a little more than two years, or until September 30, 2014.

MAP-21 was intended as a short-term measure to give Congress and the Administration breathing room to reach agreement on a long-term reauthorization bill.

Yet, as Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, has pointed out, since gaining the majority in 2010, his Republican colleagues have failed to take any action to sustain the Highway Trust Fund over the long-term and shore up vital infrastructure projects and has not held even a single hearing on financing options for the Highway Trust Fund.

Instead, House Republicans have wasted the nation's time voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act more than 50 times, waging a War on Women, voting to hold the Attorney General in contempt, pursuing partisan investigations into Benghazi, the IRS, and the Fast and Furious scandal originating in the Bush Administration.

Instead of doing their job, their big new idea is to sue the President for doing his job.

Madam Speaker, enough is enough. It is long past time for this Congress, and especially the House majority, to focus on the real problems and challenges facing the American people.

And one of the biggest of those challenges is ensuring that American has a transportation policy and the infrastructure needed to compete and win in the global economy of the 21st Century.

To that we have to do extend the reauthorization of current transportation programs and to authorize the transfer of the funds to the Highway Trust Fund needed to fund authorized construction projects and keep 700,000 workers, including 106,100 in Texas on the job.

But that is only a start and just a part of our job. The real work that needs to be done in the remaining days of this Congress is to reach an agreement on a long-term highway

and transportation bill that is fair, equitable, fiscally responsible, creates jobs and leads to sustained economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to advancing STEM education and including computer science within the definition of