Floor Statements

Let me thank my colleagues who have gathered here today and tonight.

Thank you, Congressman Jeffries again for the combined leadership of yourself, Mr. Horsford from Nevada, and, of course, my dear, dear friend, Congressman Don Payne, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, and I know that the gentlelady from Ohio was also contributing this evening, and I certainly thank her for her leadership.

I am very pleased to be able to stand here and honor a group that I, frankly, believe are the anchor of the economy for the United States of America, and that is small businesses. We look at the landscape of American history. We did not start with multinationals and international corporations. We really started with mom-and-pop businesses, whether it is, in fact, when we were told in the historical concept to go West young man and woman, and those from the 13 Colonies originally as they moved from the east coast to explore the West as far as California. In those pioneering towns, you had to have small businesses.

Then, of course, if we speak about the history of our community, first coming to this Nation as slaves and then developing artisan skills in the spirit of Booker T. Washington, being carpenters, painters, and bricklayers. If you will look at the history of the South, many of the African Americans, this was their business, along with funeral homes and along with restaurants.

I remember the aunt of my husband. It was one of our special treats to be able to go down to Aunt Frances' location in Alabama. Her store was near Alabama State, and it was the place to go. It was also a little hotel, and there was no doubt that Aunt Frances could cook, but she turned it into a business. And the students knew that that was a place that was a comfort to them, that good meals could be gotten for reasonable prices. Those were small businesses in the African American community.

Frankly, I believe that we have not done well by them. We have not done well by minority businesses overall, by women-owned businesses. Yes, there are some moments of success that I will recount in just a moment, but in terms of the Federal Government really putting elbow grease to the idea of outreach to minority businesses, they can do better. Yes, we have the Small Business Administration and there are many instances of outreach, but let me share with you how we could do better.

First of all, we can eliminate the sequestration. We can put on the floor H.R. 900, which is legislation that many of us have signed, led by John Conyers. I'm an original cosponsor among many others. Eliminate the sequestration. It is killing us. Frankly, it is killing small businesses. It is killing the opportunities for small businesses in terms of small businesses who do a small amount of business with the Federal Government. All of that is being cut.

We can also fix the Internal Revenue Service because I will tell you, Mr. Jeffries, if you poll any of your small businesses, any of those S corporations or any of those mom-and-pops or any of those individuals who have businesses in their name, I can assure you that there is a difficult situation with IRS audits. They seem to find small businesses, and they seem to find minority businesses. And so I think, as a Congress, we want fairness. We certainly want the IRS, that has a lot of hardworking workers--we have just found out that they targeted liberal groups as well as others. We want them to find a sort of the right space to be able to allow our small businesses to not suffocate but to grow and to work with them in what we call offer in compromise. So I think we need to fix the IRS.

Certainly, we need to fix the whole issue of credit scoring, allowing small businesses to access, if you will, the right kind of credit. If they can get credit, then they can grow. I would imagine that if this whole place was filled up with small businesses and I asked them, the colleagues that are in this room, it was all filled up with small businesses, asked them to raise their hand about access to credit or this whole issue of credit scoring--and we in the Federal Government can do better. We can do better with a fixed tax system that respects the growth of small businesses to allow them to grow their business and give them the kind of tax incentives that would be helpful.

Let me also say, as I bring my remarks to a close, and I want to say to Congresswoman Clarke, who is already on the floor--she knows now that I'm going to have to cite some of my businesses that have come and made great opportunities for workers. But let me just say that we need to be able to--how should I say it?--encourage, encourage all these government agencies.

Do you know how much the General Services Administration buys and how much they build? All of these agencies, every single bill that comes through here, we should work with our Republican colleagues, who believe in small businesses, to be able to add amendments that deal with the outreach to minority, women, and small businesses. That's what we're missing. They're intimidated by doing business with the Federal Government.

The General Service Administration is one of the worst offenders. They spend money on building buildings. They spend money on buying buildings, and their MWBD record is horrific. And what they say is they don't have a provision that incentivizes them, or there's no provision in their structure that causes them to move forward on MWBD.

We've got to do something about that. Maybe we can collectively do it as a Congressional Black Caucus to be

able to address the question of an agency that buys everything and builds everything for the Federal Government, and they don't have an incentive.

Just last week I put an amendment on the defense authorization. I want to thank the Democrats and Republicans for being supportive. I look forward to working with them again in the agriculture bill.

But finally what I would say is that I am grateful that we are highlighting small businesses today, and I hope that I've listed a few items that we will hear from small businesses about, that we can hear your voices tell us how we can help you better, either with the IRS, with sequestration, with the outreach in the Small Business Administration or working with the General Services Administration so that you have more opportunity to participate as a small business.

Now let me cite a few of my businesses, as I go to my seat, in Texas. I want to celebrate Frenchy's, the Creuzot family, that has been in the chicken frying business for 50 years plus. Yes, I have a great excitement that they have taken that business and they are in the marketing business of making food products that they are selling to grocery stores. They've grown from being that place where the students from Texas Southern University would go and the rest of us would go by expanding. They have kept people hired for 50 years. Their father has gone on to glory, their mother is still alive, but the children have kept it alive. I want to salute them because it is a business of the family. They came from Louisiana, made their way over in this direction.

I want to salute Kase Lawal and CAMAC as one of the only standing energy companies owned by an African American in the United States, along with Osyka, owned by Michael Harness, and a pipeline company, Milton Carroll, who's had Precision Instruments for a number of years that was in the oil drilling business. I want to salute them.

I want to salute Cool Runnings, my first visit to them, a Jamaican restaurant. They have taken their business and grown it--in Houston, Texas by the way. To be able to have a restaurant and a takeout business is great. I want to salute the Houston Black Expo, because they are having their big event on June 21 and businesses all over Houston will be benefiting from Mr. Love's great effort in the Houston Black Expo.

Finally, I want to conclude by saying that small businesses are in fact the backbone of America. I know that there will be a great opportunity for us to expand on that.

Let me close by thanking you, Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Horsford, thank you so very much for highlighting what is truly the infrastructure of jobs in America, small businesses and minority-owned businesses, women- owned businesses. Thank you for your courtesy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to stand with the families of those who fell in Sandy Hook who are here on this campus today to talk about unfinished business. I stand with them in mourning for those of their family members who died by senseless gun violence and thousands who have died since.

I will soon leave this House to go to read the names of those who have died in Sandy Hook and beg my colleagues for once to come together and vote for universal background checks and gun storage laws that simply provide safety and security for our children--unfinished business.

I stand here today, as well, to restore the trust to the American people about their privacy rights and civil liberties and ask my colleagues in a very bipartisan manner to rein in the number of private contractors--70 percent of the intelligence budget--and I intend to introduce legislation that will hopefully find an opportunity for bipartisan, thoughtful efforts to bring back the trust of the American people.

Madam Speaker, we have unfinished business. I stand here to finish it.

I thank my good friend, and I thank the manager of the underlying legislation and this rule.

Happy Father's Day to all of the men who serve in the United States military, for this legislation points, in some instances, to the needs of these great servants--and to the women who serve in the United States military as well.

I, too, would have wanted to see the Speier-Gabbard amendment be included. I am glad for an amendment that I submitted to post sexual assault prevention information and to be able to ensure that there are ways of getting resources to those victims, the number of whom we want to see diminished. I am also glad to note that Mr. McGovern's amendment has been put in another amendment by Mr. Conyers that has to do with not using force in Iran. Also, we recognize that our soldiers suffer from PTSD, and I am glad that an amendment has been made to extend the mental health services and counselors for our soldiers.

One that I have been working on for a long time has come to fruition--and I want to thank the Rules Committee and, of course, the Armed Services Committee--which is to collaborate between the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense on finding the biomarkers on triple-negative breast cancer. It will save the lives of so many women.

I had hoped that we could have moved the 1.8 percent salary increase to 2.2 percent. I know that it costs money--yes, it does--but our soldiers are valuable.

Finally, I wish we could have had a thoughtful discussion to restore the trust of Americans around our civil liberties, and to simply rein in the number of private contractors that deal with intelligence gathering, and I intend to introduce legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of amendment No. 13 to H.R. 1960, ``National Defense Authorization Act for FY2014,'' offered by Ranking Member Smith and Congressman Gibson of New York.

The amendment strikes Section 1022 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act and amends Section 1021 of same law to eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in the United States and its territories and possessions by providing immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States or by an appropriate State court.

This amendment would bar any President or any other government official from ordering the military to put anyone in the United States, or its territories or possessions, into indefinite detention without charge or trial, or to put anyone in the United States on trial before a military commission.

Federal criminal courts are open, operating, experienced, and secure--and are the appropriate venue for any proceedings here in the United States itself.

The Bill of Rights applies to all persons within the United States and its territories, this amendment is consistent with 233 years of constitutional precedent as it does not pick and choose between which persons on located on U.S. soil will receive constitutional protections.

Further, the amendment bars the transfer of anyone in the United States to the military for indefinite detention without charge or trial. This provision is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act, and would provide an additional protection against any misuse of civilian law enforcement as a way to put suspects into military detention without charge or trial.

It is fully consistent with the Constitution, with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, and with the Non-Detention Act of 1971. It will reinforce the protections that most Americans assume apply--and do apply--within the United States.

Since 2001, this executive power has only been utilized 3 times which makes it clear that it is not necessary to protect our national security; however, creates a gap in our civil liberties.

This amendment would repeal section 1022 of the FY2012 NDAA. Section 1022 requires the military to put some civilian suspects into military detention.

The current Administration has waived application of section 1022 to many groups of potential suspects, but it has not foreclosed the

possibility of section 1022 being applied to all categories of civilians, including even within the United States itself. To ensure this provision will not be used against those living in the United States, we must repeal section 1022.

Our military is designed to fight and win our battles overseas and to protect our borders; it is not designed to enforce domestic laws.

The military has not been required to enforce domestic laws since the Civil War. We have a Department of Justice, State and Federal Prosecutors, and local law enforcement that have been successful for hundreds of years.

The amendment reaffirms the importance and availability of due process protections for all persons within the United States. It prohibits the NDAA detention provisions from providing any authority for the military to detain persons under any claim of authority under the NDAA or the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting civil liberties and upholding the constitution by supporting this amendment.

Let me thank the gentleman from Washington for his leadership and the gentleman from California for their work and their work with my office and staff.

One of the efforts that we have been working on--when I say that, Congress and individual Members--is to approach and to continue to work on the issue of breast cancer that impacts women throughout this country, and certainly women and men in the United States military.

I'm very pleased in this en bloc to have an amendment by Jackson Lee that really cements the collaboration between the Department of Defense Office of Health to collaborate with the National Institutes of Health to provide resources, to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for triple negative breast cancer, often not heard of.

I will tell you, in the course of my involvement, I've had daughters of those who lost their lives--triple negative breast cancer is a particularly negative but deadly form of breast cancer where the victim does not last very long. I've lost dear friends. And this highlighting the biomarker will bring down the cost of treatment, but more importantly will help to stem the tide of those who quickly die because there is no treatment because it accelerates so quickly and lives are lost.

I also am grateful that we are beginning to make some steps. Though I indicated my support for the Speier and Gabbard amendment, I am pleased to be able to have in this language, a board, a place where sexual assault prevention information and resources bring it out in the open and let people know, men and women, how they can access resources. Let's put it forward so that people are safe, so that we can stop it and get in the gap. I think honoring our men and women in the United States military is particularly important.

Over the years, I have supported increased funding for PTSD and recognized the crises that many of our soldiers are facing in the need for mental health services. We can see some of the impact of those in terms of family situations and violence, domestic violence. So I have in this en bloc an amendment that will provide more mental health counselors, or focus on more mental health counselors, to ensure that the 200,000 veterans of military service and Active Duty soldiers will have the ability to be able to get that kind of service.

It is also important to be fiscally responsible, and I have an amendment that improves the management of defense equipment and supplies through automated information data-captured technology. This will support the work of the DOD to adopt a proven private sector method for more efficiently

managing inventory, and that's inventory going from what we have in Afghanistan to left over in Iraq and to many other places. We want to save money.

I also am very grateful that there is a manager's amendment in this en bloc, something very close and near and dear to my heart, and that is the outreach by the Department of Defense to small businesses, minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses. I can tell you that they are the backbone of America. Even though we are downsizing on some of the contractual relationships, I can tell you that obviously they bring about $537 billion as obligated by Federal agencies. These small businesses can benefit. They create jobs. And the outreach is going to be vital beyond where the bases are, beyond where the areas where you would likely think.

Let me also say this. I want to thank the committee for working with me on an amendment that I thought was very important, and that is the study of the procurement practices of our intelligence assets and to be able to improve how we deal with intelligence. I know that we will work together on that going forward, and I believe that it is important that we do work together.

These are amendments that I believe will improve the conditions of our very important military personnel. And again, to all of them, Happy Father's Day.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith and the Rules Committee for making in order and including in En Bloc Amendment #1 Amendment Number 35 and Amendment Number 111 to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

These amendments are offered by the House Committee on Homeland Security's Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, as well as the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security's Chairwoman Miller and Ranking Member Jackson Lee.

In addition to the Jackson Lee amendments offered to this bill, I joined my Colleagues on the Committee on Homeland Security in supporting an amendment to promote collaboration and cooperation between the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security regarding the identification of equipment, either declared excess, or made available to DHS on a long-term loan basis that will help increase security along the border.

I also request that my colleagues support another amendment that I joined in sponsoring along with the leadership of the House Committee on Homeland Security, which would allow the transfer of technology from DOD to state and local law enforcement. Before the creation of DHS a program was created to facilitate this type of equipment transfer and this amendment adds the Secretary of Homeland Security in a consultative role in the equipment transfer process. This amendment also gives applicants seeking DOD equipment for use in border security preference in this statute. This will facilitate expedited transfer of equipment that Federal, state and local first responders can use to strengthen our border security efforts.

I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for including these amendments in the En Bloc Amendment #1 and I urge all members to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith and the Rules Committee for making in order and including in En Bloc Amendment #2 three amendments that I offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

The Jackson Lee Amendments are simple and if adopted would improve the final bill.

The Jackson Lee Amendment designated as #81 calls for the collaboration between the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer. The Amendment directs the Department of Defense Office of Health to collaborate with the National Institutes of Health to provide resources to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for

Mr. Chair, the Rules Committee made several amendments I offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 in order.

The Jackson Lee Amendments are simple and if adopted would improve the final bill.

The Jackson Lee Amendment designated as #95 provides for the improved management of defense equipment and supplies through automated information and data capture technologies. The private sector has leaped forward in using inventory tracking technology to monitor large and small products from the time they leave manufacturing facilities until they are sold at retail or wholesale stores.

Adoption and implementation of DOD's Item Unique Identification (IUID) policy for serialized asset control will make several asset management and supply chain management improvements. Once fully implemented, if an item is in the inventory of any DOD facility anywhere in the world, it would be easy to locate and deliver where and when it is needed. This happens every day in retail settings and it should be the standard way DOD inventory is managed. My amendment would support the work of the DOD to adopt a proven private sector method for more efficiently managing inventory.

The most advanced warehouse inventory management systems are fully automated and biometrically controlled to track items and create records of people who make request to transport items from storage to use. These systems make sure that persons' seeking to move items have the authority to do so and that the requests create records that can be tracked as well as track the items moved. These fully automated warehouses have no staff, but rely upon technology that is designed to store and retrieve items in the most cost effective and efficient manner possible.

The automated warehouse systems are in use in the private sector and are one of the many innovations that may assist the DOD in improving efficiency of equipment management while saving potentially millions of dollars in labor and acquisition costs.

The Jackson Lee Amendment designated as #49 requires outreach by the DOD to small business concerns owned and controlled by women and minorities before conversion of certain functions to contractor performance. Federal contracting can be an important revenue source for businesses of any size. In fiscal year 2011, federal agencies obligated a total of around $537 billion in government contracts to businesses. However, federal agencies goal for contracting with women and minority owned businesses is five percent.

The Department of Defense is a major consumer of products and services that range from office products to military specific equipment. The wide ranges of business opportunities provide ample reasons to engage women and minority owned businesses as contractors or subcontractors.

This Amendment requires outreach by the DOD to small business concerns owned and controlled by women and minorities before conversion of certain functions to contractor performance. Federal contracting can be an important revenue source for businesses of any size. In fiscal year 2011, federal agencies obligated a total of around $537 billion in government contracts to businesses. However, federal agencies goal for contracting with women and minority owned businesses is five percent.

The Jackson Lee Amendment designated as #95 provides an improved management of defense equipment and supplies through automated information and data capture technologies. The private sector has leaped forward in using inventory tracking technology to monitor large and small products from the time they leave manufacturing facilities until they are sold at retail or wholesale stores.

Adoption and implementation of DOD's Item Unique Identification (IUID) policy for serialized asset control will make several asset management and supply chain management improvements. Once fully implemented, if an item is in the inventory of any DOD facility anywhere in the world, it would be easy to locate and deliver where and when it is needed. This happens every day in retail settings and it should be the standard way DOD inventory is managed. My amendment would support the work of the DOD to adopt a proven private sector method for more efficiently managing inventory.

The most advanced warehouse inventory management systems are fully automated and biometrically controlled to track items and create records of people who make request to transport items from storage to use. These systems make sure that persons seeking to move items have the authority to do so and that the requests create records that can be tracked as well as track the items moved. These fully automated warehouses have no staff, but rely upon technology that is designed to store and retrieve items in the most cost effective and efficient manner possible.

Fully automated warehouse systems, such as the ones operated by Genco, are in use in the private sector and are one of the many innovations that may assist the DOD in improving efficiency of equipment management while saving potentially millions of dollars in labor and acquisition costs.

I urge all members to support these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, today, June 10th, 2013, marks the 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. By mandating equal pay for equal work, this landmark legislation improved the standard of living for women across America. In 1963, when President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, women who worked full-time earned 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by men. In a country where equality, progress, and hard-work are valued, legislation such as the Equal Pay Act continues to stand for those values and promote progress and equality for all Americans.

Indeed the Equal Pay Act has allowed for much progress in the work place. Today, women who work full-time make 77 cents on average for every dollar earned by men. Compared to the rate of 59 cents on the dollar in 1963, this is progress, but not nearly enough. Women are still left wanting in terms of equality in the workplace.

When compared to their Caucasian counterparts, the pay gap for African American and Latina Women is even greater. African American women on average earn only 64 cents and Latina women on average earn only 55 cents for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men.

According to nationwide data, the yearly pay gap is $11,084 between full-time working men and women. The National Partnership for Women and Families has calculated that $11,084 could purchase 89 more weeks of food, could cover more than a year's worth of rent, or pay for more than 3,000 additional gallons of gas. These are vital and necessary expenses for American families.

Although women are directly affected by the Equal Pay Act, it is important to recognize that this is not only a woman's issue. When women are paid less, sons, husbands, daughters, foster children, dependent parents--in short families--suffer. It is, therefore, our responsibility, the representatives of these families, to continue to support and push for equality. This is one reason why Democrats strongly advocate passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act for the first time in 50 years. The Paycheck Fairness Act strengthens the Equal Pay Act, by closing loopholes, including:

Prohibiting employers from retaliating when workers discuss their salaries; making gender-based wage discrimination subject to the same remedies as race-based wage discrimination; recognizing employers for excellence in pay practices and providing assistance to employers that need help implementing equal pay practices; and Enhancing the federal government's ability to investigate and enforce pay discrimination laws.

A Democratic-led House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act in the 110th and 111th congresses but both times Republicans blocked the bill in the Senate. Fifty years ago we had the opportunity to celebrate progress. Today, we have the opportunity to fight for continued progress in our country. I stand today in support of women, in support of families, in support of the Equal Pay Act, and in support of, the Paycheck Fairness Act. It is time to move forward. I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of equality, so that 50 years from now, we may all be able to celebrate the progress we are fighting for today.

Mr. Speaker, later this month, on June 23, 1972, we will mark the 41st anniversary of the enactment of Title IX amendment. This landmark legislation changed America for the better by mandating equality for women in educational programs and activities. As we continue to move forward in terms of women's equality, I believe that it is important to recognize how far we have already come.

Title IX has resulted in significant advances for women in athletics. Since its enactment, Title IX has promoted equal opportunity for women in athletics and contributed to the athletic and educational achievement of hundreds of thousands of young American women. In 1972, before there was a Title IX, less than 300,000 high school girls participated in intramural sports nationwide. Today, that number has grown ten-fold to more than three million. In similar fashion, the amount of young women participating in college sports has increased by more than 600 percent, from fewer than 30,000 in 1972 to more than 190,000 in 2012.

While recognizing the advances in sports that Title IX has provided, it is important also to acknowledge the progress made outside of athletics. Title IX itself makes no explicit mention of sports or athletics; its reach extends to all areas of education. Title IX has helped make it possible for women to pursue careers in all fields, including the increasingly important fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

Title IX has also helped to ensure that as women and girls take advantage of these educational opportunities, they are able to do so in an environment free of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and violence.

In my state of Texas, for example, young women are making their mark in academics, in athletics, and in standing up for what is right. Just last year, a young high school female in Texas was assaulted at school by a classmate. The school's response to the incident was to send the young woman, and her attacker, to an alternative school for 45 days-- where she had to suffer the indignity of seeing him daily. The young woman, assisted by the ACLU of Texas, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.

Title IX granted this young woman the right to an educational experience free from gender discrimination or retaliation. As a result, the OCR determined that the school had violated her rights when they failed to adequately address her complaint. This decision resulted in clearing the young woman's disciplinary record and required the school district to reevaluate the way it handles sexual assault. A new set of Title IX procedures was developed and staff members were trained to respond accordingly to future incidents.

Through Title IX's legacy, educational environments have changed substantially. Women of all ages have had the opportunity to take advantage of the rights allotted to them through the amendment, and we can only

move forward from here in terms of gender equality. Title IX guarantees the civil right to learn free from discrimination, retaliation, and sexual violence. This victory is something that every student, parent, and educator can celebrate today, tomorrow, and for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, later this month, on June 23, 2013, we will mark the 41st anniversary of the enactment of Title IX amendment. This landmark legislation changed America for the better by mandating equality for women in educational programs and activities. As we continue to move forward in terms of women's equality, I believe that it is important to recognize how far we have already come.

Title IX has resulted in significant advances for women in athletics. Since its enactment, Title IX has promoted equal opportunity for women in athletics and contributed to the athletic and educational achievement of hundreds of thousands of young American women. In 1972, before there was a Title IX, less than 300,000 high school girls participated in intramural sports nationwide. Today, that number has grown ten-fold to more than three million. In similar fashion, the amount of young women participating in college sports has increased by more than 600 percent, from fewer than 30,000 in 1972 to more than 190,000 in 2012.

While recognizing the advances in sports that Title IX has provided, it is important also to acknowledge the progress made outside of athletics. Title IX itself makes no explicit mention of sports or athletics; its reach extends to all areas of education. Title IX has helped make it possible for women to pursue careers in all fields, including the increasingly important fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

Title IX has also helped to ensure that as women and girls take advantage of these educational opportunities, they are able to do so in an environment free of gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and violence.

In my state of Texas, for example, young women are making their mark in academics, in athletics, and in standing up for what is right. Just last year, a young high school female in Texas was assaulted at school by a classmate. The school's response to the incident was to send the young woman, and her attacker, to an alternative school for 45 days-- where she had to suffer the indignity of seeing him daily. The young woman, assisted by the ACLU of Texas, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.

Title IX granted this young woman the right to an educational experience free from gender discrimination or retaliation. As a result, the OCR determined that the school had violated her rights when they failed to adequately address her complaint. This decision resulted in clearing the young woman's disciplinary record and required the school district to reevaluate the way it handles sexual assault. A new set of Title IX procedures was developed and staff members were trained to respond accordingly to future incidents.

Through Title IX's legacy, educational environments have changed substantially. Women of all ages have had the opportunity to take advantage of the rights allotted to them through the amendment, and we can only move forward from here in terms of gender equality. Title IX guarantees the civil right to learn free from discrimination, retaliation, and sexual violence. This victory is something that every student, parent, and educator can celebrate today, tomorrow, and for many years to come.

Some years ago, many of us heard of a tsunami. As we approach this weekend of congratulating our wonderful graduates, we

should in fact tell them this is the best and the greatest time of their lives. But it is important for Members of Congress to recognize that we have a task of graduating to do. We must graduate past sequestration and eliminate it, for it is a tsunami against our young people.

We have to in fact graduate past this horrific, pending devastation of an increase in the student loan interest rates that will go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. That's a tsunami against our young people--our brightest. And we must turn back the clock on an amendment against those who came here as youngsters, through no fault of their own, who are now graduating from places around America, in high schools and colleges. Yes, immigrant children who are undocumented, who want to give back to this Nation, pay their taxes, get a work certificate and give back to those who no longer can work, a tsunami has just come against them.

We have to end this and stand for our children. Congratulations to the 2013 graduates. As I go home to their graduations, I want to give them a gift that America really stands for them.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a privilege to be able to come to the floor and begin a dialogue, because there's one thing that I think is vital. We could hold up the Constitution, which I often do. We can speak with great eloquence on the floor of the House, even go to our districts and speak to our constituents.

But I do think it is important that the trust of the American people, even though sometimes tattered, sometimes challenged, that what we can at least adhere to are the values of this Nation,

the constitutional underpinnings that we all are created equal under the Declaration of Independence and those vital 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, among others, that really go to the trust that the American people have in their government and in their documents that are the infrastructure of government.

And when I say that, I am not in any way diminishing some very emotional debate that we've had over the years. We've engaged in debates on war and peace. We've engaged in debates on impeachment. Tragically, we've seen assassinations of our Presidents. We've seen assassination attempts on our Presidents, and so I know that the issue of trust or the issue of stability sometimes wobbles because it is human nature.

We've seen the tragedy of 9/11. But yet, Americans, by and large, with polls going up and down, will probably be more trustworthy than any other population of people. Why?

Because they have a sense that, even in the midst of vigorous disagreement between the partisans, between Republicans and Democrats and Independents, that there's something that holds America together.

And so I am rising today to try to be able to weave in and out why we must get back to that trust, and why it serves us no purpose to go on an unsubstantiated witch hunt on what is one of the finest public servants that this country has seen, and that is the Attorney General of the United States, Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Now, I will be discussing a number of items because, in the course of this discussion, I realize that some will agree and some will not. But minimally, what I would like to ensure is that we have a forthright and truthful discussion. That's really what is key.

I base that upon being a battle-worn member of the House Judiciary Committee for any number of years. I have ascended to the position where you are called a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. And in the course of my work there, I have seen investigations that are far and wide.

I lived through the horrific heinousness of 9/11, and having to craft something called the Patriot Act, which still needs to be challenged, and we need to err on the side of the rights of the American people.

I have seen the investigation of the tragedy of Waco. Many people might not even remember that, the terrible loss of life.

I've seen the throngs pulling a child, a Cuban child, between families--Elian Gonzales.

I've seen the ups and downs of immigration and the debate about where we should go on immigration reform.

I have seen the issues of impeachment and attempts on impeachment, trying to uphold civil rights, trying to write a Patriot Act--which came out of the Judiciary Committee right after 9/11, in our most vulnerable time--in a bipartisan way that balanced the rights of Americans alongside of the responsibilities that we had to secure America.

I have seen the fight for individual rights, and I'd like to think that when it comes to that challenge, that when you look at the record that I have offered, you have seen a record that prizes individual rights.

So I do not believe that it is of any value, no matter what party you're in, to be in a coverup. Coverups usually wind up with the covers being taken off, and so there's not really much advantage to a coverup.

But I want to discuss, away from the aura of cameras and hysteria, the work of a public servant that I've known for a number of years. Having come to this Congress a few years ago, I remember that Attorney General Holder not only worked for Democratic Presidents, but also worked for Republican Presidents.

In fact, George Bush II held Mr. Holder as his Acting Attorney General, or Deputy Attorney General, which is the highest ranking under the Attorney General. The view of him as an unbiased figure allowed him to be, in essence, that bridge between administrations.

He has served as a judge. He has been a prosecutor. He has likewise, prosecuted those who would do Americans harm. He is a son, if you will, of those who struggled to overcome.

And he had the honor of being appointed, named as President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, the first African American to be so named.

He pulled himself up by his bootstraps, having graduated from Columbia College, as he's so proud of, in New York, attended the public schools, even schools that I'm familiar with--some of my friends graduated from Stuyvesant High School--where he earned something that was very much sought after in those times, a Regents Scholarship. That allowed him to attend Columbia College, where he majored in American history, and he graduated from Columbia law school.

He is not one to accept your challenge of the affection he has for his college and his law school.

He had a sense of desire to do good. And in those times, one of the premiere civil rights law firms was the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. No, it is not the NAACP. This is a lawyers' group that would defend you, no matter who you were.

In fact, I remember Constance Baker Motley, out of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, defending the Klan in Alabama, because it is the motto and mission of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund that if your rights are abridged, no matter who you are, we will stand up for those rights.

And so he started there, with a very refined sense of right and wrong and who should be defended, and wound up at the Department of Justice as what you call a line lawyer, Criminal Division.

And then he joined, previously, I guess, he joined the U.S. Department of Justice Attorney General's Honors Program. He was assigned to the public integrity section, was tasked to investigate and prosecute official corruption, local, State and Federal levels.

Some might say, when you saw Eric coming, you wanted to get out of the way. That was his sense of justice, balanced and fair, attacking those who were doing wrong to our system of justice and fairness, and yes, going after corruption in local, State and Federal government.

Those were many years since 1976, and if I would take a guess, if he were going to falter in the practice of law, or in the upholding of justice, he would have faltered a long time ago.

Sorry, Mr. Attorney General, but you have been around for a long time; 1976 is a long time. In fact, if I recall correctly, 1976 was in the midst of when President Carter was coming in and after President Ford had served. So he has seen both Republican and Democratic administrations, and he has passed muster by his superiors. He's climbed up the ladder. He served in private business and private practice. He's not a new kid on the block.

I had the chance to be with his wife, Dr. Sharon Malone, one of the premier physicians in this community, who has her own legacy, as well as the legacy of her sister, who was one of those who integrated the universities in Alabama during the segregated South. But the interesting thing about Eric is that he does not come with a sense of entitlement, which I don't like even using that word, because if you fix something that is broken, if you try to integrate because it is segregated, that is not entitlement. If you try to ensure someone has an opportunity, it is not negative when you say affirmatively you want to make sure that there is diversity. But Eric takes life as he sees it. And so it baffled me when we were proceeding through this process.

Somebody said bad things come in threes. I don't want to start that because I'm hoping we don't have any threes coming along. I've got to get on an airplane in a couple of minutes.

But I would say to you that I would like the answer to some of the questions. Obviously, Benghazi falls in the State Department. But we've certainly had the misfortunes of the IRS. I want to clarify that the IRS falls independently. The Commissioners are appointed on a 6-year term so that they do not have the political influence of a Presidential appointment. But their ultimate oversight is through the Secretary of the Treasury under the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Certainly, that investigation is going forward at this time. But it seems like all of that was piling on someone who was not directly involved: Benghazi and the IRS.

But let's get to the one that has drawn the most ire, rightly so. Let me

temper that because I know that the IRS is drawing a great deal of ire. I've come to the floor and indicated that there are a lot of good, hardworking employees. Maybe you know some of them. Our colleagues see these people in our districts. They're working every day to ensure that the American people, who pay them, who own all of this in the United States Government, are treated fairly. I know there are people like that. But certainly, we are absolutely outraged about any prosecuting in a biased way for political beliefs. That is an absolute, unpardonable sin, if you will, under the First Amendment. We've all agreed to that. We want a full investigation. And I can assure you if any parts of the Department of Justice are involved in a criminal investigation, if it is discovered--and we have an Inspector General under the IRS--you can be assured that the Department of Justice will be involved in determining whether any criminal activities have gone on as relates to the IRS.

But what has drawn the most ire--and it should--is the precious press and the right to be told what is going on. Again, with a little bit of humor, I will tell you that those of us in the public eye really like that press story that says that we're cutting a ribbon for something that has been given from the Federal Government or making the grand speech that someone will quote that was most erudite and astute.

But the press should be unfettered because it is the right of the American people to know what is going on in their government, no matter what level it is, from the school board to the county clerk to the statehouse to the city government and to your Federal Government. Maybe, to the chagrin of many who are found out in the press, we understand.

So when it is suggested that the Department of Justice would violate that sacred trust of blocking information to the American public, then obviously there is an enormous amount of concern. And I understand that. And I think it is enormously important to lay out this whole question of the Fox reporter, the gentleman who has been working on a number of projects, and the whole idea of the release of the emails of the Associated Press, or the targeting of them, and the targeting of one particular individual, Mr. Rosen of Fox News, and the May 15 hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, at which I was present.

I wanted to speak of what I know. One of the questions I raised, just a yes-or-no answer, was whether Mr. Holder had been a supporter of what we call the Shield Act in his professional career, a bill that had been supported by many of us in the last session, or before, and that is to block or protect reporters and their proprietary information under the First Amendment. And for some reason, my good friends on the other side of the aisle, Republicans, did not see fit for that legislation to pass.

So here we are in a set of circumstances that speaks ill of anyone that would target a reporter or this enormous leak of emails. All of this is being reviewed. But I want to focus on Attorney General Holder and the very excellent Attorney General that he had in charge. He did not participate in the ultimate investigation and the determination for the ultimate subpoenas regarding the AP. It was done after some 15,000 pages of documents were issued, and they still could not determine how the leak, where the leak, or who would be the culprit of the leak. This is pertaining to issues that would have a detrimental impact on the security of the American people.

So let me be very clear: it was not the reporters. It was to find out who was, for lack of a better term, the leaker. And, yes, those are sources. That's the angst of the people; the lawyers entrusted with your protection in the Department of Justice. There is no doubt Congress has a right to restrain it, for you elect us in the people's House to make sure that you are protected from that kind of intrusion. But let it be very clear that the intrusion was not to entrap reporters. It was to ensure us that we were protecting the American people.

So all of a sudden the Attorney General is in the hot seat. He recused himself from further investigation. A number of questions were posed in that May 15 hearing. And one of the questions posed was seeking a clarification about different laws but also asking the question about allowing for reporters to be prosecuted. I have a paraphrasing but a fair handle on the answer of the Attorney General. In fact, if you can pay attention to newspaper accounts to precisely see if this is correct:

With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure material, that is not something I have ever been involved in--heard of--or think would be a wise policy.

The active word is ``potential'' prosecution--prosecution.

Yes, there was an FBI affidavit used to obtain the warrant for Rosen's emails, and there was probable cause--and this was in 2010--to determine whether any law had been broken. Yes, that was done. The affidavit did describe this reporter, by way of reports, as an aider and abettor and/or coconspirator. But the Justice Department did not prosecute Mr. Rosen, did not even file charges against him while he was listed as a coconspirator. No charges were ever raised against him. No charges were pulled back. No acquittal. No prosecution.

So the answer of the Attorney General was accurate. To the extent that anyone would suggest that he perjured himself is absolutely without context, without substance, without basis, without intent, without proof, and it serves no purpose. It serves no purpose.

From all of that, and of course some time back the tragedy of Fast and Furious--and whenever I come to the floor I offer my deepest sympathy for the lost and for the family who suffered an enormous loss of their great and wonderful son. There is nothing that one can say to bring back their son.

I have no quarrel with getting to the facts. But again, in Fast and Furious, none of it pointed back, by independent arbiters. This had to do with the misdirected--probably with good intentions--but misdirected and cruel results of putting guns in the hands of thieves and crooks to be able to track guns and gun trafficking between the United States and Mexico. I will not defend it. I am not here to defend that. I was appalled. But I think we must have a reasonable discussion of truth. And the reasonable discussion of truth is: Did Mr. Holder have anything to do with the mishaps of Fast and Furious? I can assure you that they have yet to point to him on that basis.

Eric Holder came to the Department and he took up the challenge, in these words, of his mission, that his challenge would be protecting the security, rights, and interests of the American people. More than 4 years later, together with the extraordinary men and women who serve at the Department of Justice, that promise has been fulfilled for many of the accomplishments that this Department has achieved.

Now, my good friend was on the floor, my good friend--and he is, Mr. Smith of New Jersey. He has a passion for preventing, among other things, human trafficking. We work together on these issues.

Eric Holder has been a crusader to fight against the viciousness of human trafficking. He has, in fact, set up a task force in my own city of Houston, which, to our dismay, has been known as the epicenter of human trafficking of young people, prostitution, individuals coming up to the southern border. One of the most debasing parts of an existence is to be taken hostage--bondage--by someone else to be abused and mistreated. So he has been enormously committed, passionately committed to the idea of preventing human trafficking, and we look forward to working with him.

He wanted to save you money. And they've had a very successful reach on financial fraud, setting up a Consumer Protection Working Group consisting of Federal law enforcement regulatory agencies, making sure that those who attack the vulnerable with payday loans and the elderly know that the Justice Department is standing on their side. And the very ones that go after Active Duty military--how sad, young people coming home from faraway places and all of a sudden they are victimized, the resources that they have that are limited.

The lawsuit that was filed against mortgage fraud that took this country down, took homes away from those who deserved them, the billion dollar

lawsuit against Countrywide led by this Department of Justice.

Banking houses, various inappropriate behavior by some on Wall Street, General Holder was not afraid, on behalf of the American people. And countless banking officers who took money, such as some of those whose names include Carollo and Goldberg and Grimm, all former executives of General Electric, were sentenced related to bidding for contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other municipal finance contracts, which would undermine not only the public trust--remember, that's how it started--but it would also diminish the assets.

It was this Justice Department that continued the prosecution of the Madoff brothers, Peter Madoff, on June 29, 2012, one of the most--oh, my God, I would use the word ``sad,'' but that is certainly not a strong enough word, but I did use the word ``tsunami''--one of the most catastrophic attacks on people who innocently invested with someone who they thought would maximize their savings for the good ol' days of their sunset years.

He continued to secure justice for victims of mortgage fraud. He worked on a number of issues regarding servicemembers. And, what I think was particularly important, what you wanted him to do, is he went after international cartels, domestic collusion conspiracies, price fixing, bid rigging, market and customer allocation. He was, along with his team, committed to serving the American people.

I see my colleague is here, and I just want to mention a few others before I yield to her. Because, as I mentioned, his passion for people's lives is so moving that I need to get this on the record.

The Department has charged a record number of human trafficking cases. I gave you the story, but I didn't give you the facts. Over the past 4 years, the Department has increased the number of human trafficking prosecutions by more than 30 percent in forced labor and adult sex trafficking cases, while also getting a number of convictions in the Innocence Lost National Initiative dealing with our children. So the Department has dismantled trafficking with Ukrainian victims held in Philadelphia in false labor; Central American women, convicting the traffickers who threatened and violently abused them to compel them into forced labor and forced prostitution in restaurants and bars on Long Island. Or, we restored the rights and freedom of the undocumented--I like to say ``we'' because this is close to my heart-- of Eastern European victims, convicting the trafficker of brutally exploiting them in massage parlors in Chicago; a Florida man, his wife and a codefendant for actions involving sex trafficking of seven minor victims in a house in Fort Lauderdale; and secured a life sentence against a gang member in the Eastern District of Virginia for sex trafficking of victims as young as 12 years old.

Eric Holder has not been sitting around trying to construct when he would come to Congress and perjure himself. That has not been his task and his challenge.

Let me just say this, as there is a lot that I want to engage in. I'll just throw this out before I yield. Our violent crime rates have yielded, maybe because we see someone like the old movies about the FBI G-Men, maybe we see the ``H-Man'' coming in Eric Holder, for he has prosecuted thousands of criminals with illegal gun possessions. That does you harm. That does your children harm.

I want to just say this to my distinguished colleague--as I yield to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton--when the American people needed to have an unfettered voting system, yes, many disagreed. But Eric Holder and his team in the Civil Rights Division have not been overturned. They were following the law.

We do expect a Supreme Court decision in a matter of days on section 5. I cannot predict what that decision will be. But there were a number of decisions that had to do with ensuring that there was one person, one vote.

Remember I started by saying, whether we agree or disagree, there should be something called trust. Many people would say to me, one person's trust is another person's poison. But it's all about the law. This Justice Department has been following the law. It is crucial that when we use a litmus test to be able to determine whether someone should resign--and by the way, General Holder, do not resign, America needs a top law enforcement officer of integrity--then the standard should be the law, the standard should be the Constitution, the standard should be the facts, the standard should be case law on the Voting Rights Act and redistricting cases and election law. The majority of the cases--the infrastructure of the cases that have been upheld--have been led by Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States of America.

I would be privileged to yield some time to the distinguished scholar--and she happens to be a Congressperson of the great District of Columbia--Eleanor Holmes Norton. Thank you for your leadership and scholarship on constitutional issues.

I am so glad that you raised that point, because we do not want to suggest that a layman's ears are different from a lawyer's ears, but that is a very important point which you have made.

The frustration is that, on your committee, there are many lawyers. You have lawyers who are investigators, particularly on the majority side. They understand what that concept is, which is that, when you have an indictment, you list names, and those names may be listed as coconspirators. To take that and then translate it into a layman's interpretation--oh, this person is going to be prosecuted--and to then suggest that the Attorney General perjured himself in front of the Judiciary Committee, where he said outright, I have no thought of prosecuting a reporter, and that wouldn't even come to mind, and to take the FBI affidavit which listed--in 2010, by the way, and I think this is 2013--the gentleman, Mr. Rosen, as a coconspirator and that nothing has happened since then, it is almost, I believe, an unfair treatment, an unfair misrepresentation, an unfair mischaracterization for the American people. The Attorney General made it clear in his testimony before our committee, I have no interest, no desire, no knowledge of prosecuting a reporter.

I just want to add, in addition, that we've just introduced a House bill that is similar to the Senate bill that has judicial intervention now, a sort of ramped-up SHIELD Act, which indicates that you would have to go to the courts in certain circumstances to secure some of the information of the press; but there is this distortion as he was questioned on May 15, 2013, and in 3 years, Mr. Rosen has never been indicted, and he has never been prosecuted.

Of perjury.

I am so grateful for your leadership.

I am going to conclude, and have some further comments; but before you yield, I just want to pose a question to you, Congresswoman, because, if nothing else, we can both agree together so it won't look like one person is saying it.

For an officer of the court, for the highest ranking law officer of the United States, the American people need to understand that the charge of perjury is one of the most devastating charges. Forget about your career, because all of us who are barred, who are members of the bar, are officers of the court--of all courts. Some are able to practice in the Supreme Court, in various Federal courts and otherwise, and as an officer of the court, even in the representation of your client, perjury is the ultimate charge.

That is why I'm so baffled and felt compelled to come to the floor to raise the question of why lawyers on the Oversight Committee and lawyers on the Judiciary Committee would even offer a charge of perjury under the circumstances of what I have just defined.

Let me just say this. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General said:

The Attorney General takes the disclosure of classified

information by those who have committed to protecting it very

seriously, especially as such disclosures can cause grave

damage to our national security.

The Attorney General also has the utmost respect for the

vital role the media plays in an open society.

Then it goes on to talk about his commitment to protecting these vital sources. Then it goes on to again restate this whole question of investigation versus prosecution. It says:

At the outset, it is important to note the difference

between an investigation and a prosecution.

And it goes on to lay out probable cause again. That's lawyer talk.

But it is very clear that the General wants to lay out for the Members of Congress in an open way--by the way, I don't know if we could both stand up here and count how many side meetings and staff meetings that they had with the Attorney General on the gun walkings, what we call Fast and Furious, and now the meetings and letters that are going back, the ongoing contempt charge issue that is going on. This Attorney General has made himself available.

The real question I just want to pose to you, as I yield for your answer, is what it means to be charged with perjury as an officer of the court. What General, what lawyer would take it lightly--though some generals have gone to jail for perjury--that has been proven in a court of law?

And some evidence.

In this instance, we have one line that was stated that, No, I will not prosecute, versus the fact of the signing of an affidavit that did not result in a prosecution.

Congresswoman?

I thank the gentlelady for her knowledge, and I thank the gentlelady for laying out something that, as you said, non- lawyers would say, We're going too much. But I think they understand when you have a role as given to you by the bar license and a role that you would not play with lightly--but I think the other point is, as I told you, I didn't want to highlight Mr. Holder's tenure. But he's been around since 1976. Let me just say that he's had many times to disabuse this officer role, and he has not done so because of his integrity.

I'm glad you mentioned now National Security Adviser Rice and use that as an example. Let me congratulate her and use that as an example of a very fine public servant and outstanding diplomat. In this instance, there is not a morsel of evidence that she would manipulate the Benghazi talking points. What an enormous tragedy. Who would want to see our fallen diplomats lose their lives and their families? Let me just say this: We want the truth, but we also juxtapose that as something to suggest that let us hold our words until we know what the facts are.

I just want to say very quickly that all of what you've heard us discuss is what has been absorbing the time of a place that should be talking about making right on the Affordable Care Act.

Now, I know that thousands in California are just getting rebates back because of the Affordable Care Act. I know that small businesses are getting dollars back because of the Affordable Care Act. I know that seniors are now getting preventive care because of the Affordable Care Act, children are getting preventive care, women are getting preventive care; but you're only hearing the bad news. Why? Because we're too busy making charges about perjury. I would rather you have the testimony. Let's have hearings to get people to come forward to tell America how the Affordable Care Act is making it better for them.

Let me tell you what else we're not taking any time to do because we're suggesting that the Attorney General--with no evidence whatsoever--is perjuring himself. In a couple of days, the parents of America, the children of America will be facing a 6.8 percent increase in the interest rates that our children will have to pay who are now coming out as 2013 graduates. But we're talking about General Holder, about whom I've given you a list. He has been a fighter against consumer fraud, human trafficking and crime, and there's been no evidence of perjury.

Instead of us meeting to have a compromise, to prevent the clock from ticking on July 1 and kicking up the interest rates--this is a nightmare. If you want to see a nightmare, go from $4,174 to $10,109. That was the bill that was passed by our Republican friends, and then the automatic increase is $8,000. This is what our young people are going to be feeling the brunt of as they're trying to pay for college loans. Could we get together and work on that? I think we could.

Then, of course, we have heard dead silence about what we're going to do about reasonable gun legislation. I hope the lights of the Chamber don't turn off or the sound go out because it looks as if we're trying to take away guns. No. Every one of us holds up the banner of the Second Amendment. What we're saying is can we at least know who has them.

There are some who are putting forth mental health laws. I am a strong supporter of it. Let us help individuals who are suffering; but at the same time with regards to automatic weapons of any kind, there needs to be, minimally, closing the gun show loophole. And then those who are far more sophisticated than what these pictures may show, from my perspective, the kind that was used in Sandy Hook, we can do better as the American people.

Maybe we can also do something that we can all come together on. What

about a simple gun storage law, you know? We don't have it. And there is a series of children that have killed their siblings or their grandparents or their parents by having a gun lying around not locked, because there's no law, no requirement. Some States have it. We've done it and done a good job in bringing down that loss of life in Texas.

I'll be introducing legislation. I've been working with the General and the Department of Justice to ensure that we find a good balance. But there's a lot of work.

Sequestration is literally closing down teachers and child care units and cutting off civilians at military bases and stopping ICE enforcement officers and Customs and Border Protection and numbers of others are put on furlough because of sequestration.

Couldn't we get rid of H.R. 19? It says eliminate sequestration, go back to the budget or at least go to conference and treat the American people with respect so the services that you need are not shut down because of sequestration.

Why are we talking about perjury from the top legal officer where there has been no proven evidence that anything that he said in the Judiciary Committee was contradictory to what happened to Mr. Rosen? There's no proof. He recused himself. He's not involved. There's no indictment, no intention of indictment on the premise of what this particular issue was about, the leakage of national security matters.

And so my plea today is that we can do better. We can do better by our youngsters. In essence, we can stop the bleeding. We can do better by our children for health care. We can do better by better gun laws. We can do better by getting a better budget. We can do better by serving the American people. We can do better by building you new roads and bridges and infrastructure, fixings the dams, stopping the flooding.

All I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as I close, and I thank you, is to thank you, Mr. Holder, for your service. Do not resign. And to my colleagues, let's get to work to help the American people. I believe that will in fact be our finest hour.

I yield back the balance of my time.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland

Security, and Investigations,

Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Sensenbrenner: This

responds to your letter to the Attorney General, dated May

29, 2013, requesting information about the Department's

policies with respect to investigations involving members of

the media and the Attorney General's knowledge of an

investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified

information that was then published in a news article in June

2009.

The Attorney General takes the unauthorized disclosure of

classified information by those who have committed to

protecting it very seriously, especially as such disclosures

can cause grave damage to our national security. The Attorney

General also has the utmost respect for the vital role the

media plays in an open society. To ensure the proper balance

of these important interests, the President has directed the

Attorney General to conduct a review of Department policies

regarding investigations involving the media, and as part of

that process, the Attorney General has initiated a dialogue

with news media representatives and other interested parties.

Furthermore, as the Attorney General explained in the hearing

before you on May 15, 2013, he supports the media shield

legislation currently under consideration by the Senate,

which provides robust judicial protection for journalists'

confidential sources while also enabling the Department to

continue to protect national security and enforce criminal

laws. We look forward to working with Congress on this

measure.

The Department's current policies provide separate

processes for subpoenas and search warrants in the course of

investigations involving members of the news media. As you

know, 28 C.F.R Sec. 50.10 governs the issuance of subpoenas

to members of the news media, including subpoenas seeking

their telephone toll records. This regulation requires the

Department in every case to consider the balance between the

public's interest in the flow of information and the public's

interest in effective law enforcement and the fair

administration of justice. Thus, the regulation requires the

government to take all reasonable alternative investigative

steps before considering issuing a subpoena to a member of

the news media or for the telephone toll records of a member

of the news media. The regulation also requires the

authorization of the Attorney General before issuing a

subpoena to a member of the news media or for telephone toll

records of a member of the news media. This regulation has

not been substantively amended in more than 30 years, and is

a subject of the review process currently being undertaken by

the Attorney General at the President's direction. Search

warrants for materials in the possession of a journalist

whose purpose is to disseminate information to the public are

governed by the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 2000aa, et seq. That law outlines the limited

circumstances under which the Department may seek Court

approval for a search warrant. Specifically, under the

Privacy Protection Act, the government may seek work product

materials or documents in the possession of a journalist only

where there is probable cause to believe that the journalist

has committed or is committing a criminal offense to which

the materials relate, including the crime of unlawfully

disclosing national defense or classified information.

Your letter also asks for additional information about the

investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of classified

information to a reporter in 2009. At the outset, it is

important to note the difference between an investigation and

a prosecution. When the Department has initiated a criminal

investigation in the unauthorized disclosure of classified

information, the Department must, as it does in all criminal

investigations, conduct a thorough investigation and follow

the facts where they lead. Seeking a search warrant is part

of an investigation of potential criminal activity, which

typically comes before any final decision about prosecution.

Probable cause sufficient to justify a search warrant for

evidence of a crime is far different from a decision to bring

charges for that crime; probable cause is a significantly

lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt, which

is required to obtain a conviction on criminal charges. Prior

to seeking charges in a matter, prosecutors evaluate the

facts and the law and make decisions about who should be

prosecuted. The regulation governing the issuance of

subpoenas to the news media described above, which provides

for consideration of the public's various interests, also

requires that the Attorney General must approve any charges

against a member of the news media. We are unaware of an

instance when the Department has prosecuted a journalist for

the mere publication of classified information.

The unauthorized disclosure of classified information that

appeared in a June 2009 news article was a serious breach

that compromised national security. The Federal Bureau of

Investigation conducted a comprehensive inquiry into that

unauthorized disclosure, and after exhausting all other

reasonable options, the government applied for a search

warrant for information in the reporter's email account

believed to be related to the source of the unauthorized

disclosure. The affidavit in support of the search warrant

satisfied the requirements of the Privacy Protection Act,

based on the facts alleged, and a federal judge granted that

warrant. The Attorney General was consulted and approved the

application for the search warrant during the course of the

investigation. Ultimately, as you know, although a Grand Jury

has charged a government employee with the unauthorized

disclosure of classified information, prosecutors have not

pursued charges against the reporter. At no time during the

pendency of this matter--before or after seeking the search

warrant--have prosecutors sought approval to bring criminal

charges against the reporter. The Attorney General's

testimony before the Committee on May 15, 2013, with respect

to the Department's prosecutions of the unauthorized

disclosure of classified information was accurate and

consistent with these facts. As the Attorney General

explained, these prosecutions focus on those who ``break

their oath and put the American people at risk, not reporters

who gather this information.''

We hope that this information is helpful. Please do not

hesitate to contact this office if we may be of additional

assistance in this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Kadzik

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. Chair, before us is H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY 2014. Although this legislation is far from perfect, I rise in reluctant support of the bill because ensuring that our first responders and those who work on the frontline protecting our borders have adequate resources to protect our homeland and keep our citizens safe.

I strongly disapprove of the method employed by the House Republican to discharge the House's fundamental responsibility to reach a budget agreement with the Senate establishing the framework governing the appropriations process. The Republican majority brought to the floor and passed a rule that ``deems'' adopted the draconian spending limits imposed by the Ryan Budget resolution rather than a resolution that realistic and responsible limits that is to be negotiated and agreed to by House and Senate budget conferees.

Indeed, the Republican House leadership has refused for months to appoint conferees empowered to reach a budget agreement that is fair, balanced and would end sequestration.

I agree with President Obama that prior to consideration of appropriations bills the House and Senate should first reach agreement on an appropriate framework for all appropriations bills and one does not harm our economy or require draconian cuts to middle-class priorities.

Without such an agreement, House Republican appropriation bills will result in: hundreds of thousands of low-income children losing access to Head Start programs, tens of thousands of children with disabilities losing federal funding for their special education teachers and aides, thousands of federal agents who will not be able to secure the border, enforce drug laws, combat violent crime or apprehend fugitives; and thousands of scientists without medical grants to conduct research to find new treatments and cures for diseases like breast cancer and Alzheimer's.

The Ryan Budget that the House majority deemed adopted and incorporated in the rule governing consideration of this legislation assumes that the draconian funding levels established under sequestration will remain in place for the next several years.

Sequestration has been an unmitigated disaster for the American people, especially for Texas and the people I represent in Houston. Let me identify just a few of the ways my constituents are being adversely affected by sequestration:

Teachers and Schools: Texas will lose approximately $67.8 million for primary and secondary education, putting around 930 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 172,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 280 fewer schools would receive funding.

Education for Children with Disabilities: Texas will lose approximately $51 million for about 620 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 4,800 children in Texas, reducing access to critical early education.

Military Readiness: In Texas, approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $274.8 million in total.

Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds: Texas will lose about $1,103,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

Job Search Assistance: Around 83,750 fewer Texans will get the help and skills they need to find employment as Texas will lose about $2,263,000 for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning.

Child Care: Up to 2,300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

Vaccines for Children: In Texas around 9,730 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations.

Violence Against Women Grants: Texas could lose up to $543,000 to provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 2,100 fewer victims being served.

Public Health: Texas will lose approximately $2,402,000 to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Texas will lose about $6,750,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2,800 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Texas State Department of Public Health will lose about $1,146,000 resulting in around 28,600 fewer HIV tests.

Regarding the merits of the legislation before us, let me say that there is much in the bill that should command bipartisan support. For example, the bill includes $1.5 billion for FEMA State and Local Grants, which is $35.4 million above the FY 2013 enacted level. These grants fund critical programs such as the Homeland Security Grant Program, which primarily fund first responders, and the Urban Area Security Initiative.

The bill also provides $10.6 billion for Customs and Border Protection and includes funding for the additional 1,600 Customs and Border Protection Officers requested by the President.

The bill also makes needed investments in cybersecurity, providing $786 million to help protect federal networks from foreign espionage and cyber attacks. The bill also provides a total of $6.2 billion for disaster relief, as requested by the President.

A major improvement to the bill was the adoption by the House of the Jackson Lee-Markey-Grimm-Reed Amendment which prohibits the Transportation Security Agency from changing its Prohibited Items List (PIL) to permit knives on planes. Adoption of my amendment enhances the security of air travel and protects TSA workers, flight attendants, pilots, and federal air marshals.

I am also pleased that H.R. 2217 incorporates several program funding recommendations I made to the Committee, especially the funding provided for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant and the Staffing for Adequate Emergency Response Grant (SAFER) programs. The tragic loss of four firefighters last week in Houston reminds us again of the dangers faced daily by first responders and the necessity of providing them the resources and support required to keep them safe. Specifically, the bill funds in full or substantial part the following programmatic requests I submitted to the Appropriations Committee:

1. $337,500,000, which is 100% of the amount requested, for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. This program is critical to ensuring that our nation's first responders are adequately trained and equipped to safely and effectively respond to emergencies in their communities.

2. $337,000,000 for the SAFER Program, which is 100% of the amount requested. The SAFER Grant Program provides much-needed funding for career and volunteer fire departments to hire new firefighters and recruit and

retain volunteer firefighters. This program is critical to the thousands of fire stations across the country that are currently operating short of staff and to those seeking to retain current first responders in the face of the economic downturn and recovery.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

To the managers of this important legislation, to Judge Carter and to Mr. Price, thank you for working on what is an enormously important message and mission of our Nation, and that is to secure America.

I'm grateful to have the opportunity to work with the authorizers, Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson, and to work with the ranking member and chairperson of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security, Mr. Hudson and Mr. Richmond.

Having just flown in from a memorial, and as Members often do, and as we interact with our constituents, we know a lot about flying. So it is very important that this amendment be taken as it has been offered.

I congratulate my cosponsors--Mr. Grimm, Mr. Markey, Mr. Reed, Mr. Swalwell and Mr. Cook--all of whom we have worked together with.

For it is interesting that this has come to a point where today we can thank Administrator Pistole for his thoughtfulness in this process and the deliberations that took place, that the announcement comes that he too understands that allowing knives on planes is not the right decision.

But in addition to the important statement of knives, we now know that other accessories, such as baseball bats and billiard cues and ski poles and hockey sticks and la crosse sticks, among others, and golf clubs, likewise have been included in his statement.

This amendment deals with knives. The reason why this is very important is because we should reaffirm the fact, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee--and for many of us who started on this committee after the heinous tragedy of 9/11, many of us who went to Ground Zero during the recovery period because of the horrific tragedy, smoke was still billowing from those terrible tragic issues--we too know what homeland security is. It is a promise to America to do everything we can to ensure the security of the homeland.

And so it is important to take note of Administrator Pistole's very thoughtful concern, and that concern, of course, was the idea of security. This amendment will give comfort to the issue of security.

We know there are issues of safety. We want to make sure that seatbelts are on, and we want to make sure that seats work and bathroom doors work on a plane in flight. We want to make sure that passengers remain in seats during difficult weather.

But security is an important question. And today, this amendment takes a stand for security. I am glad that after 9/11 we did have reinforced doors for the cockpit, we did have the ability of pilots to be trained and to be able to have weapons on board behind that cockpit--all in the name of security. Well, let me tell you, that a knife that has been measured by the eye, that then is allowed to get on the plane, it can be a weapon against security.

And today, we are saying that we need to codify in law the idea that knives will never be allowed to be on planes. Human beings are in the cockpit, our very able pilots. And flight attendants and passengers, grandmas and family vacationers and college students and business persons and our warriors, both wounded and not, and many others travel on airplanes, going home to loved ones, traveling to funerals, and going to joyful occasions.

It is very clear that a knife can be a threat to security. It can be a threat to security because, in fact, even as our valiant flight attendants who have been given required flight attendant training, which we are continuing to work on, they will be the first to stand up against an individual attempting to take a plane or to be able to threaten all of the passengers, to create an insecure atmosphere. And who knows what pilots will be thinking of, will be required to do? Who knows what an unmanned, un-air marshaled plane, or even one with an air marshal, will do when there are a number of those who are on the flight with knives.

So I ask my colleagues to vote for security and vote for the Grimm- Markey-Jackson Lee-Reed-Swalwell-Cook amendment to keep knives off of planes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Congressman Markey, Grimm, Wasserman Schultz, Ros-Lehtinen, Reed, Swalwell, and Cook, my co-sponsors on this important and bipartisan amendment.

This simple, commonsense amendment, which will keep knives off commercial airplanes, will save lives and increase air transportation security by making it the law of the land.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is needed because on March 5, 2013, the Transportation Security Administration publicly announced its intention to permit passengers, effective April

25, 2013, to bring previously banned items in their carry-on baggage when boarding flights.

Under the new policy proposed by TSA, prohibited items that would be permitted effective that date include items that are potentially dangerous, even lethal, to passengers, flight attendants, pilots, and Federal air marshals, including hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks, golf clubs, and, alarmingly, some knives.

Those of us who were in the Capitol that day remembered with shock and horror how the terrorists who attacked the United States of America on September 11, 2001, used box cutters, small knives, and razor blades to threaten and overpower crew members and pilots on commercial airplanes in order to gain access to the cockpits.

After learning of the action contemplated by TSA, me and more that 135 of my House colleagues wrote the TSA Administrator and urged him unsuccessfully to reconsider changing the PIL to permit knives on planes.

In light of this unhelpful response, I introduced H. Res. 156, a bipartisan resolution with my colleague, Congressman Grimm of New York, which expresses the House's disapproval of the Transportation Security Administration's decision to modify the prohibited items list, set to take effect on April 25, 2013, that would allow passengers to bring small knives in their carry-on baggage.

More importantly, the resolution strongly expressed the sense of the House that TSA delay any changes to the Prohibited Items List indefinitely and should conduct a formal engagement process involving all of the affected stakeholders and has meaningful consultations with affected air travel industry stakeholders, including flight attendants.

After engaging in the process called for in my resolution, TSA today announced that it was abandoning its efforts to change the PIL to permit knives on planes.

Mr. Chair, allowing passengers to carry knives on planes could be fatal to flight attendants.

Beyond the terrorist threat posed by knives on planes, knives can become deadly threats in the hands of unruly passengers.

Changing TSA policy to allow knives on planes is not efficient.

Instead of the simple rule of ``No Knives,'' TSA screeners will be required to check for all of the parameters set by the TSA as acceptable. This will increase waiting times, not shorten them.

Mr. Chair, on April 9, 2013, the nation was reminded of the terrible harm that small knives can inflict on victims when a mass stabbing occurred on the campus of Lone Star College in Houston, Texas, which is in my congressional district, during which the suspect used a razor utility knife and severely injured 14 people.

The American public, air travel industry stakeholders, and Federal air marshals strongly disapprove of allowing knives on planes because it puts their lives at risk.

This amendment enhances security and will save lives. That is why it is necessary and supported by:

Coalition of Flight Attendants Unions

Association of Professional Flight Attendants

Association of Flight Attendants-CWA

IAMAW (Machinists and Aerospace Workers)

Transport Workers Union Local 556, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Coalition of Airline Pilots Association

American Federation of Government Employees.

I urge all Members to join us in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I'm not sure of the full intent of the gentleman's amendment, but I will say that I'm concerned if we are going to deny funding to cities that have established rules that may be determined that they are sanctuary cities and, in fact, they are not.

Many cities have a process in their own jurisdiction where law enforcement wants to ensure that, in the enforcement of their local laws, that all communities be considered engaged in the law enforcement process.

I don't know whether the gentleman determines that that is a sanctuary city, where chiefs of police wish to hear from communities that are bilingual and, therefore, do not want to have a structure that intimidates them and, therefore, inhibits the prosecution of laws or inhibits the elimination of crime.

So I would only make the argument that I know that the Association of Chiefs of Police have argued that it is important to ensure that immigrant communities feel free enough to communicate with their law enforcement officers.

I don't know if that is the interpretation of the gentleman's sanctuary cities. I know that he is going under the law. But I certainly hope those cities will not be biased or discriminated against with respect to Federal funding on homeland security.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the committee for its leadership and acknowledge to my friends that this amendment was adopted in the last appropriations for Homeland Security. I believe it's an important amendment to continue to keep before this committee, but also to continue to provide codification of it.

I have served on the Homeland Security Committee for a very honorable period of time. When I say that, it is a time that I have enjoyed being able to address the questions of homeland security or domestic security under the Homeland Security Department. Through that time, I have had the privilege on one of my committees to have oversight over the U.S. air marshals.

I would offer to say to my colleagues that often U.S. Air Marshals don't get the thanks and appreciation that they deserve. It is not an easy task, even as they are on domestic flights. International flights are quite difficult in terms of the time, but also the intensity of the work because their astuteness and awareness of what's going on in a small compact area is very important to the safety of those passengers.

So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. What it does is it asks that no funds be used to limit the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance the use of Federal air marshals on inbound international flights considered to be high risk by the Department of Homeland Security.

There's little that I need to say to my colleagues that we live in a different atmosphere and certainly a different neighborhood. We're all well aware of our eyes being focused on the Christmas Day bomber just a few years ago, or the fact of the shoe bomber that was headed to Boston, or the fact of the various training that is going on with individuals even from the United States in Yemen. We're also aware that one of the Boston Marathon bombers flew from the United States overseas and back. So we realize that individuals are using the international air skies, if you will, to travel back and forth to the United States.

My amendment ensures that the Federal air marshals are effectively using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high risk by the Department of Homeland Security and that there is no limitation to that ability.

I believe the Federal air marshals are the last line of defense in many instances in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attacks, those who have obviously been able to transcend other barriers and getting on planes in international ports.

As a former chair and a member of the Homeland Security Transportation Security Committee, I worked over the years and sponsored legislation to ensure that we have enough air marshals and that they receive all the requisite training to effectively secure the aircraft. Again, many times their work goes unnoticed, but it is vital work to best protect our Nation from terroristic threat. It is of extreme importance that we use the necessary funds to support the use of Federal air marshals on inbound international flights.

Make no mistake, the threat to our aviation system from aircraft inbound to the United States from foreign airports continues to be a serious and dangerous threat. It is often recited by those who are engaged in intelligence matters that aviation assets still are the asset of choice for many of these franchise terrorists. To best protect our Nation from terroristic threat, it is important that we take note of our international flights.

Following the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, intelligence was gathered that suggested al Qaeda still has an interest in attacking the United States, likely through transportation modes, whether it is to airplanes, trains, and other modes. This fact, coupled with the numerous suspicious activities even on domestic aircraft where passengers are attempting to open cabin doors in flight or otherwise disrupt, is of concern. Certainly, our air marshals play a very important role.

While my amendment deals with the threat of inbound aircraft to the United States, its ultimate impact would be to ensure that air marshals are assigned to the highest risk flights. It simply prohibits funds from being used to limit the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance air marshal coverage on inbound, high-risk flights. And it reinforces the importance of the job that air marshals do, but also the importance of assessing this high-risk threat in many instances, which is the aviation vehicle.

The terroristic threats are ever-changing. We must allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to make the necessary adjustments to protect the American people. This is not a funding issue or a people issue, rather, a security issue.

This amendment is budget neutral, and I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment that really speaks to the idea of security for the American people.

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

Thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment, which simply prohibits any funds in the Homeland Appropriations Act from being used to limit the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance the use of Federal air marshals on inbound international flights considered to be high risk by the Department of Homeland Security.

My amendment ensures that the Federal Air Marshals are effectively using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high risk by the Department of Homeland Security and that there is no limitation on that ability.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that Federal Air Marshals are the last line of defense in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attack.

As the former Chair and a current member of Homeland Security Transportation Security Subcommittee, I have worked over the years and sponsored legislation to ensure that we have enough air marshals and that they receive all the requisite training to effectively secure aircraft.

To best protect our Nation from terroristic threat it is of extreme importance that we use the necessary funds to support the use of Federal Air Marshalls on inbound international flights.

Make no mistake--the threat to our aviation system from aircraft inbound to the United States from foreign airports is serious and dangerous.

Following the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden, intelligence was gathered that suggests that Al Qaeda still has an interest in attacking the U.S., likely through transportation modes. This fact, coupled with the numerous suspicious activities even on domestic aircraft where passengers were attempting to open cabin doors in flight or otherwise disrupt flights, is of concern.

While my amendment deals with the threat on inbound aircraft to the U.S., its ultimate impact will be to ensure that air marshals are assigned to the highest-risk flights.

It simply prohibits funds from being used to limit the discretion Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance air marshal coverage on inbound high-risk flights in accordance with the Department's risk model.

The terroristic threats are ever changing and we must allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to make the necessary adjustments to protect the American people.

This is not a funding issue or people issue, rather a security issue and this amendment is budget neutral.

Let me thank those under Homeland Security for their service, including my friends at the Transportation Security Administration. Let me thank the Federal Air Marshals as well for their service.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support amendment 153 to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2014.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I was intending on offering an amendment dealing with Border Security Centers of Excellence. I will not offer that amendment, and I would like to just indicate that I look forward to working with the ranking member and the chairman.

As we move to a comprehensive immigration reform, Border Security Centers of Excellence are universities that look to the highest technology of how we can secure America. They undertake research and education initiatives designed to meet the needs of the Department of Homeland Security, border security, and immigration in a global context. They develop and use cutting-edge research methodologies focused on unique science and technology policy issues, and they develop educational programs in order to educate current and future practitioners, which is really crucial, and researchers in the relevant disciplines.

If we want to secure America, we need the technology and the expertise. As a ranking member on the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, I can assure you that as we look to the new metrics of border security in the northern and southern border, we need personnel. And my amendment was going to ensure that we allow Congress to gather the information needed by Congress to establish more universities, or opportunities for more universities and colleges to participate as Border Security Centers of Excellence.

In my own community, Houston Community College, Texas Southern University, University of Houston, a number of campuses could be engaged as Border Security Centers of Excellence. Texas Southern University, for example, received from my initiative a Transportation Security Center of Excellence that was established under that particular legislation, the Transportation Security Administration legislation.

So I would like to make sure that we look forward to doing that.

I do want to indicate, as we pass the amendment dealing with no knives on planes, that I had introduced legislation with Mr. Grimm that allowed Administrator Pistole an indefinite amount of time to consult with stakeholders. I, frankly, believe that legislation helped turn the corner for the thoughtful position that Mr. Pistole has now taken. I think the amendment that we passed today was by voice and was common sense and makes a good, important statement.

I also think the idea of emphasizing the importance of U.S. air marshals in my previous amendment that was accepted is important and to reemphasize the importance of the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for the traveling public in order to ensure that it assesses high-risk places of departure so that air marshals can be used effectively, efficiently, and with funding.

With all of that, I believe the amendments that have been put upon the floor today and that I have discussed and offered contribute positively to the ultimate direction of security in this country. As I conclude, I hope that we will be able to have more Border Security Centers of Excellence, and I look forward to working with this committee and the authorizing committee to ensure that in comprehensive immigration reform we have the technology, the personnel, the training, the research, and the education to make it work as it should.

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

Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain my proposed amendment, which simply gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the flexibility to conduct the study on the feasibility of expanding the membership of university-based Homeland Security Centers of Excellence.

The mission of the Department of Homeland Security Centers of Excellence is to:

Undertake research and education initiatives designed to meet the needs of the Department of Homeland Security, border security and immigration in a global context.

Develop and use cutting-edge research methodologies focused on the unique science, technology, and policy issues within this domain.

Develop educational programs in order to educate current and/or future practitioners and researchers in the relevant disciplines, and to help define emerging education areas.

Under current law composition of membership of Homeland Security Centers, the number of centers is limited by law and can only be enlarged by Congress.

This amendment allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study to gather information needed by Congress in determining eligibility of more universities.

In my congressional district, 18th Congressional District of Houston, TX, there are a number of institutions that have the expertise in research and staffing that would be in addition to this consortium involved in the Border Security Center of Excellence, such as the University of Houston and Texas Southern University.

My amendment would just simply allow the United States to benefit from the expertise from new Homeland Security Centers of Excellence. I look forward to working toward adding more Border Security Centers of Excellence.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I have a number of good friends on the floor, Madam Chair. My good friend, Mr. King, serves with me on the Judiciary Committee, good friend, Mr. Price, who is the ranking member, has just given an eloquent expose of the contents of Mr. King's amendment. And I've worked with Judge Carter, Congressman Carter, Chairman Carter, as we look to ensuring the security of the border and protecting the homeland.

I think it is important, first of all, that we should thank ICE officers across America because most ICE officers, in spite of the judicial decision that Mr. King offers, have followed the executive order or the directions of their Director, Mr. Morton, who is an established public servant and law enforcement officer.

His credentials are without question. The Judiciary Committee has heard from Mr. Morton on several occasions to articulate the premise of the provisions that are being attacked in this amendment. Each time he has been able to document the value of what this prosecutorial discretion series of orders represents. In fact, Mr. Morton went out on the road. He came to Houston, Texas, and met at our immigration services office to explain to an array of community service persons what this actually meant.

There was no offering of amnesty. There was no utilization of that language. There was no suggestion that this would be an open-door policy. This was a suggestion that thoughtful ICE agents, law enforcement officers, entrusted to uphold the law, would have the authority to use prosecutorial discretion so that, as my colleague from North Carolina said, we would go after the terrorists, go after those who are here to do us harm, but allow hardworking families to stay together.

In the remarks of my good friend from Iowa, he does not make mention of the fact that the Obama administration has deported more individuals than any administration preceding it. Many of us have advocated against that. But what we did advocate for is a fair assessment of how you make that determination.

Now, maybe my good friend and the friends on the floor are not aware that we're under sequester, that we're operating under a budget line that is not even a trillion dollars. It's $970-plus billion. That's way below what I'd like to see to fund this government that we have. If that is the question, then why would my good friend, Mr. King, suggest that we are not doing our job?

So we want to split up hardworking families and fathers who are supporting their families because it may be an overstay or they came in undocumented? But most of all, the pains of the eons and eons of young people that have come into my office that are in the academic institutions of Houston, or Texas, who want to stay here and contribute to America's dream--the Dream children--and we're now telling them, after receiving a prosecutorial deferral, using prosecutorial discretion, a case-by-case determination that there's no credible criminal background, nothing they have done wrong, and by that decision, that simple, evenhanded decision, that nothing has been done wrong by them and they're allowed to stay.

I just want to know if my friend will support me on comprehensive immigration reform. Then we'll be able to get it fixed. And maybe he will answer that. But I will ask my colleagues to please look at this as a law enforcement tool. This is not willy-nilly. This has been a thoughtful process that ICE has articulated for its agents throughout the country for them to thoughtfully look at those individuals that would pose a danger. Deport them. But to those families who need to be united that are surviving and working and supporting four and five children and going to work and going to houses of worship, or those children that are in the sophomore year or third year or graduating or graduate school, or the mother who came and fell on the ground in my office prostrate and crying when it was acknowledged that her graduate school daughter could stay here and finish her degree. It was through no fault of her own. She had come here to the United States not knowing that she did not have status.

So I'm hoping, like Mr. Price, that we will not have a divisive amendment. And I'm praying that my good friend will join me on comprehensive immigration reform, Madam Chair, and that he will withdraw this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a very sad duty and, as well, an appreciation to my colleagues from Texas who joined me yesterday with a 1-minute request of silence, commemoration of the four fallen firefighters in Houston, Texas.

First responders belong to all of us, no matter where they live. When a devastating incident occurs that causes them to lose their lives, we all feel the pain and sadness for them and the families that mourn them.

We in Texas recently lost a number of firefighters in West, Texas. Now, sadly, I come today to acknowledge the loss of four firefighters in the Houston Fire Department in the city of Houston: Matthew Renaud, Robert Bebee, Robert Garner, and Anne Sullivan. Unfortunately, these wonderful people lost their lives in a fire where they were fighting to save the lives of others.

The mission of firefighters is constantly with courage and commitment and compassion, and today I recount the history of the Houston firefighters and fire department.

March 14, 2012, was the last time the city of Houston lost a firefighter in the line of duty when Senior Captain Thomas Dillon died. 1929 marked the last time more than two firefighters lost their lives in the line of duty, when Edgar Grant and Harry Oxford and John Little were killed when their engine was struck by a train.

But on May 31, just a few days ago, 2013, a 5-alarm fire, just after noon, at the location of a motel and restaurant, is now the most deadly fire in the history of the 118 years of the Houston City Fire Department.

Sadly, Captain EMT Matthew Renaud of Station 51, Engineer Operator EMT Robert Bebee of Station 51, Firefighter EMT Robert Garner of Station 68, and Probationary Firefighter Anne Sullivan of Station 68 died in the line of duty.

All we can see as we look to the heavens is that we hope that they will rest in peace. But they were our brothers and our sisters.

Anne Sullivan of Station 68 was a gifted athlete who played soccer and was a cross-country runner, focused her life's ambition upon graduating from high school to become a firefighter and began her quest by joining the Wharton County Junior College Fire Academy. After graduation, she became a student at the Houston Fire Department Academy, while also previously doing work in another jurisdiction.

Whereas, Firefighter EMT Robert Garner of Station 68 was proud to call himself a Houston firefighter who sought out this honor after leaving the United States Air Force, where he honorably served his country and completed two tours of duty in Iraq and his fire department career at the Val Jahnke Fire Academy.

Captain Matthew Renaud, who served the Houston Fire Department for 11\1/2\ years, joined the Houston Fire Department in October of 2001 and was assigned to Station 51 upon graduation from the academy and awarded the Unit Meritorious Medal for saving a female who had been trapped in an apartment.

And Engineer Operator EMT Robert Bebee of Station 51 graduated from Dobie High School in southwest Houston in 1990 and began his fire department career at the fire academy on August 6, 2001, but served the majority of his career at Station 51.

Over the last couple of days, I've visited the command station, logistics, and the firemen's union, and then went to Fire Station 51.

To Fire Stations 51 and 68, we offer our deepest sympathy in understanding that your brothers and sister have been lost. But today we also pay tribute, because the members of the Texas delegation will be introducing a resolution in honor of these heroes. And we're reminded of their words and the words in the Fireman's Creed, that their work is to save lives, the lives of men, the lives of women, but it is God's work.

Those fallen heroes were engaged in God's work, for they were looking for lost souls that might have been in that building, that horrific, horrible fire that has seen thousands of Houstonians go by to pay tribute; and thousands more to go by and pay tribute at Fire Stations 51 and 68 and also to acknowledge Local 341.

Tomorrow, Houston will grieve together and, as well, I want them to know that the Members of the United States Congress grieve with them as we introduce this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong advocate for the First Amendment and for the freedom of the press. I believe that there is no question of the sanctity of that provision, even to the extent of being a strong supporter of the SHIELD Act so many years ago, and now joining my colleagues, Congressmen Ted Poe and John Conyers and others, on legislation to provide that armor.

But I will not stand by while malicious and unsubstantiated attacks go against a very fine and outstanding public servant, and that is the Attorney General of the United States of America, Eric Holder. I was in the Judiciary Committee when he was asked a question about whether or not he had prosecuted or intended to prosecute anyone in the press. And his words were very clear:

We have a long way to go to prosecute the press. You've got

to go a long way. With regard to the potential prosecution of

the press for the disclosure of material, that is not

something I have been involved in or heard of or would think

would be wise to do.

That is what Holder said in the hearing. Holder did not have anything to do with prosecuting anyone, and that particular affidavit or subpoena was in 2010. The Justice Department has not charged or prosecuted anybody in the press. Stop the malicious attacks on Eric Holder and the President of the United States of America. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 2216, Military Construction/VA Appropriations act for Fy 2014.

I oppose the rule because it adheres to the draconian spending limits imposed by the Ryan Budget resolution rather than more realistic and responsible limits to be negotiated and agreed to by House and Senate budget conferees.

Indeed, the Republican House leadership has refused for months to appoint conferees empowered to reach a budget agreement that is fair, balanced and would end sequestration.

I agree with President Obama that prior to consideration of appropriations bills the House and Senate should first reach agreement on an appropriate framework for all appropriations bills and one does not harm our economy or require draconian cuts to middle-class priorities.

Without such an agreement, House Republican appropriation bills will result in: hundreds of thousands of low-income children losing access to Head Start programs; tens of thousands of children with disabilities losing federal funding for their special education teachers and aides; thousands of federal agents who will not be able to secure the border, enforce drug laws, combat violent crime or apprehend fugitives; and thousands of scientists without medical grants to conduct research to find new treatments and cures for diseases like breast cancer and Alzheimer's.

As Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, I will continue working with my colleagues across the aisle and in the Senate to ensure that our firefighters and other first responders have the resources needed to keep the American people safe.

But I oppose this rule and urge all Members to join me in voting against it.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 243 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

Strike Section 3, and insert the following new sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the resolution

(H. Res. 174) expressing the sense of the House of

Representatives that the Speaker should immediately request a

conference and appoint conferees to complete work on a fiscal

year 2014 budget resolution with the Senate. The first

reading of the resolution shall be dispensed with. General

debate shall be confined to the resolution and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

After general debate the resolution shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of

consideration of the resolution for amendment the Committee

shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble

to adoption without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of

the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution

on the resolution, then on the next legislative day the House

shall, immediately after the third daily order of business

under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the

Whole for further consideration of the resolution.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the resolution specified in section 3 of

this resolution.

I thank the distinguished ranking member and distinguished chairman, and I know that they have worked collaboratively together on behalf of our veterans, so I rise in recognition of the important work that they have done and to compliment them for the work that involves fully funding the military construction and certainly something that rises every moment that I'm amongst veterans. Just recently, as I was in a town hall meeting and had the Veterans Affairs Department represented, the question came up about benefits. I was glad that the initiative that has been offered, all of us embraced it. All of us have been fighting to stop this backlog and to move this backlog forward. And now we see the funding of this initiative, and it is most important.

I am also glad that there's a focus on jobs for veterans. I will say that we need to do more, because when you talk to our veterans of various wars, particularly the Vietnam War, there's always the sense of lack of employment, along with those who come in from Iraq and Afghanistan.

But I do want to raise the point of what we have deemed ourselves into. We've deemed ourselves into a Ryan budget that causes a great deal of suffering: a cap of $967 billion versus the mark of $1.58 billion that would be more helpful that was produced by the consensus during the Budget Control Act. Basically, we are ignoring the suffering of the middle class, and we're allowing the sequestration to run rampant over those who are in need.

I can particularly say to you that teachers and schools in Texas are losing $67.8 million in education for children with disabilities; $51 million for 620 teachers. Head Start is going kaput with 4,800 children losing their seat. Military readiness is being challenged in Texas with 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees furloughed. In law enforcement and public safety funds, Texas will lose $1.103 million.

And then when we look at the United States, we go far and beyond that. We're looking at the fires in the West, the devastation of what happened in West, Texas, and the tornadoes. And we see, for the Coast Guard, there's a 25 percent reduction. This is a crisis.

This is a crisis not only in the making, Madam Chair, but it is a crisis that is going forward. Whether we're talking about the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control, my main concern is that the middle class is suffering from the sequestration.

The Ryan budget cannot be deemed the appropriations cap as we go through this process of appropriations. There is a desperate need of responding to the middle class, allowing for the continuation of job creation, making

sure that we do not lose 125,000 in section 8 vouchers, rural rental assistance, or the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.

NEGATIVE IMPaCT OF SEQUESTration

The middle class are suffering and they need help. We need to stop the sequestration--now.

In Texas--

The state of Texas will greatly be affected by sequestration in the following ways:

Teachers and Schools: Texas will lose approximately $67.8 million for primary and secondary education, putting around 930 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 172,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 280 fewer schools would receive funding.

Education for Children With Disabilities: Texas will lose approximately $51 million for about 620 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 4,800 children in Texas, reducing access to critical early education.

Military Readiness: In Texas, approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $274.8 million in total.

Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds: Texas will lose about $1,103,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

Job Search Assistance: Around 83,750 fewer Texans will get the help and skills they need to find employment as Texas will lose about $2,263,000 for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning.

Child Care: Up to 2300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

Vaccines for Children: In Texas around 9,730 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations.

Violence Against Women Grants: Texas could lose up to $543,000 to provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 2,100 fewer victims being served.

Public Health: Texas will lose approximately $2,402,000 to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Texas will lose about $6,750,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2,800 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Texas State Department of Public Health will lose about $1,146,000 resulting in around 28,600 fewer HIV tests.

In the U.S.A.--

Across-the-board cuts from sequestration began in March, and the detrimental effects are gradually coming into focus. These cuts are diminishing the effectiveness of federal initiatives, with a direct impact on the lives of virtually every American. Highlights of specific cuts to vital services and investments that have been documented to date are outlined below.

Public Safety

1. Wildland Fire: U.S. Forest Service understaffed and under-equipped for fire season with 500 fewer firefighters, 50-70 fewer fire engines, and 2 fewer aircraft.

2. U.S. Coast Guard: 25 percent reduction in training, maintenance and drug interdiction patrols.

3. Extreme Weather: A 3-6 month delay in NOAA's weather satellite launch will increase costs and risk of inaccurate forecasts.

4. U.S. Park Police: Up to 10,640 combined furlough days for officers leave national landmarks understaffed and increase response time for emergencies.

5. Food Safety: Fewer FDA inspections, increasing risk of food-borne illness, even as Congress demands stricter food safety standards.

Health

1. National Institutes of Health:

$1.5 billion cut from life-saving research projects,

Estimated loss of more than 20,000 jobs and $3 billion in economic activity.

2. Centers for Disease Control: $285 million cut from research to detect and combat disease outbreaks, facilitate immunizations, plan for public health emergencies, conduct HIV/AIDS tests, and more.

3. Environmental Health: More than 3,200 furloughs and layoffs delay cleanup from nuclear weapons development in Washington, New Mexico, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Housing

1. Section 8 Vouchers:

a. 125,000 fewer vouchers.

b. 750 Public Housing Authorities terminating tenants within 3 months.

2. Rural rental assistance: 15,000 aid recipients affected, usually elderly, disabled, or single mothers.

3. Community Development Financial Institutions Fund: Up to thousands fewer units of affordable housing built.

Education and Science

1. Head Start and Early Head Start:

70,000 children will lose access,

Thousands of layoffs of teachers and aides.

2. Impact Aid: $68 million cut from schools that educate 950,000 children of military members, or who are otherwise federally connected, resulting in layoffs and larger class sizes.

3. Research: 1,000 fewer National Science Foundation grants and thousands fewer jobs.

National Security

1. Defense: $37 billion in FY13, largest drag on broader economic growth, includes:

a. Cancelled deployment of aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman,

b. Cancelled Army training rotations,

c. Grounded Air Force squadrons,

d. 800,000 civilian employees facing furloughs of 11 days, and

e. Reduced equipment and facilities maintenance.

2. Defense Health Program (DHP): $2.6 billion reduction will result in TRICARE funding being exhausted by August and delayed payments of TRICARE contracts.

The Judiciary and Legal Representation for Low-Income

Americans

1. Public defenders: Up to 15 furlough days per public defender will delay trials and force courts to hire private attorneys for defendants at $125 per hour.

2. Judiciary: 20 percent reduction in electronic monitoring & drug testing of offenders.

3. Violence Against Women Grants: $20 million cut from grants for prevention and prosecution of violence against women.

Senior Citizens

1. Senior nutrition: 4 million fewer meals for low-income seniors.

2. Social Security Administration:

3,300 additional staff lost, increasing backlog of disability claims by nearly 100,000 and increasing processing time of claims to more than one year.

82,000 fewer continuing disability reviews, which save $9 for every $1 spent.

3. Medicare: Thousands of cancer patients turned away by cancer clinics due to cuts in provider payments.

Commerce and Economic Security

Small Business: lending guarantees drastically reduced.

Oil and gas drilling permits: 300-400 fewer oil & gas drilling permits processed, 150 fewer leases issued, resulting in $150 million loss to taxpayers.

Customs Border Protection: Wait times at land border ports of entry up to 6x longer.

National Parks and public lands: Reductions in 900 permanent and 1,000 seasonal positions will reduce public access and result in hundreds fewer trained firefighters.

Unemployment compensation: 10.7 percent cut in weekly benefits.

Fiscal Malpractice Results in Job Loss and Stunted Economic Growth-- The Federal Reserve announced, ``Fiscal policy is restraining economic growth.'' The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and independent economists forecast sequestration costing 750,000 jobs and a 0.6 percent reduction in growth in 2013. While many agree we can find additional spending cuts in the long-term, such large cuts now--instead of phasing them in responsibly when the economy is stronger--amounts to fiscal malpractice.

Squeaky Wheel ``Fixes'' Exacerbate Long-Term Problems--Congress acted to prevent furloughs of food inspectors and air traffic controllers, and departments and agencies are using limited transfer and reprogramming authority to mitigate other immediate problems caused by cuts. These gimmicks merely kick the can down the road, sparing short- term pain through one-time savings that delay long-term needs like construction, maintenance, and training.

These expenses will have to be repaid in future years even as the sequester cuts deeper into the overall budgets for these agencies. While industries' bottom lines were protected from flight delays and fewer meat inspections, infrastructure at airports will suffer this year, increasing needs in the future, and this year's fixes do nothing to address the cuts required of these same programs in the coming years.

Responsible Fix is Needed--In just two short months of sequester cuts, the impacts are hurting our economy, increasing financial burdens on families, and forcing the federal government to make false choices between essential services. We simply cannot afford 10 years of job loss and stunted economic growth. Congress must replace these mindless cuts with a sensible and balanced plan to promote growth and reduce the long-term deficit and debt.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday afternoon, June 4, 2013, I was required to return to my congressional district in Houston, Texas, in order to attend a memorial service for four members of the Houston Fire Department who lost their lives in the line of duty on Friday, May 31, 2013. This tragedy was the deadliest incident in terms of the numbers of firefighters lost in the history of the Houston Fire Department. As the senior Member of the Houston congressional delegation and a senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, attending the memorial service was directly related to my representational, legislative, and committee responsibilities.

Because of this excused absence I was not present for rollcall votes 188 through 193.

Had I been present I would have voted as follows:

1. On rollcall No. 188, I would have voted ``no.''

Broun Amendment, which eliminates funding for an on-going NATO headquarters project (a cut of $38,513,000) and applies the savings to the spending reduction account.

2. On rollcall No. 189, I would have voted ``no.''

Amodei Amendment, which takes overtime funding from 41 VA regional offices and concentrates it in the 15 offices with the worst backlog.

3. On rollcall No. 190, I would have voted ``aye.''

Moran Amendment, which language prohibiting the use of funds to construct, renovate or expand any facility in the United States to house any individual detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of detention or imprisonment.

4. On rollcall No. 191, I would have voted ``no.''

King (IA) Amendment, which prohibits the use of funds to implement, administer, or enforce the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires federal contractors to pay locally prevailing wages

5. On rollcall No. 192, I would have voted ``aye.''

Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 2216.

6. On rollcall No. 193, I would have voted ``aye.''

Final Passage of H.R. 2216, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014.