Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on this past Saturday, Houstonians gathered together at the Living Water International Apostolic Ministries in Houston with Pastor Stearns and about 10 other churches. I convened the press conference in the warehouse of this church filled with goods and necessities to respond to the most objectionable national order that I have ever heard from any President of the United States: to manipulate law enforcement and calling for national predawn raids across America.

Now, no one in America wants open borders, and Democrats do not, but we do believe in due process, the Constitution, and the justness of the phraseology on the Statue of Liberty to bring our forlorn and worn to this country.

We are the greatest experiment, and people in my constituency were frightened. I came home to say we must do something about it.

And how powerful it was for the churches in our community to say: We will open our doors to those who are frightened about the fact that they will be separated from their children or their children separated from them.

What a horrible image, internationally; how the United Nations has condemned it.

And so on that day, we opened the churches of Houston for those migrants who were frightened by these predawn raids. One even occurred today.

I finish my remarks by saying the 16th President of the United States really said what America is all about: ``We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.''

That is Abraham Lincoln. That is who we are.

I thank Houston for opening its doors for those who are in fear.

Madam Chair, I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 423 to H.R. 2500, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2020, offered by the gentleman from California, Congressman Ro Khanna.

The Khanna Amendment is simple and straightforward in its prohibition against unauthorized military force in or against Iran.

Earlier this year, the Trump Administration sent an aircraft carrier and a nuclear-powered submarine to the region in a show of force.

The Khanna Amendment would make clear and explicit that nothing in the FY2020 NDAA can be construed as congressional authorization or acquiescence regarding the use of military force against Iran.

The Framers understood that while the military does the fighting, the entire nation goes to war.

That is why the Framers lodged the power to declare war in the Congress, the branch of government closest to the people.

They knew that the decision to go to war was too important to be left to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise or well-informed he or she might be.

The President must consult with Congress and to obtain an AUMF before undertaking any military offensive against Iran.

Over the last 18 years, we have seen 3 Presidents use the 2001 Afghanistan AUMF as a blank check to engage in serious military action.

In 2016, the Congressional Research Service issued a report detailing 37 unclassified uses of this authorization in 14 countries, including for operations at Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, and recent military action in Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen.

The overly broad 2001 AUMF represents a critical deterioration of Congressional oversight, which should be repealed, rather than repeated with respect to Iran.

As our brave service members are deployed around the world in combat zones, Congress is missing in action.

As provided under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, absent a Congressional declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force, the President as Commander-in-Chief has constitutional power to engage the U.S. armed forces in hostilities only in the case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

As a co-equal branch of government, it is Congress's right and responsibility to be fully consulted regarding any potential plans to conduct military operations in Iran, to assess whether such action is in the national security interest of the United States and its allies, and to withhold or grant authorization for the use of military force based on this assessment.

As we have learned from the painful and bitter experience of the past 18 years, at the initiation of hostilities, the costs in terms of blood and treasure of U.S. military interventions abroad are often underestimated and the benefits overstated.

For example, more than 6,800 American service members gave the last full measure of devotion to their country on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq, with hundreds of thousands more returning with physical, emotional, or psychological wounds that may never heal.

The direct economic cost of the war in Afghanistan exceeds $1.07 trillion, including $773 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds, an increase of $243 billion to the Department of Defense base budget, and an increase of $54.2 billion to the Veterans Administration budget to address the human costs of the military involvement in Afghanistan.

We should not repeat the mistakes of the past and my position on this issue is directly aligned with the will of the American people.

I commend my colleague, Congressman Khanna for offering this important amendment and urge all Members to join me in voting for the amendment and restoring Congress's preeminent constitutional role in the decision to take the nation to war.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I thank him for his unbelievable leadership, along with the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney, our dear friend, who wore the fireman's jacket for so long, and Peter King.

I am delighted to have been a member of the Homeland Security Committee in those early days, banging my fist and joining them in saying it must be done.

And I thank those who signed the authorization--President Obama, twice. And I say today, there should not be one single person who does not vote ``yes'' on this.

We have a beautiful rendition of the World Trade Center. We rebuilt that beautiful edifice. We must rebuild these lives.

I am reminded in an article by Luis Alvarez, in his final days, as he was talking to his family, he said, ``I am on the pile.'' They asked him what he is walking in walking on the pile, Ground Zero, where he went time and time again.

And along with him, there were individual family members who came before our committee, those who were desperately in need, and to hear the special master say: I may have to cut their benefits 50 to 70 percent.

Lila Norstrom, who was a student, and, as well, Anesta Maria St. Rose Henry, the widow of Candidus Henry.

Lila Norstrom was a student, and she said no one told them anything, but just go back to school.

Anesta Maria St. Rose Henry said she walks around missing her husband, along with her children.

And so they are not just statistics; they are broken lives and families. And 3,000 more will die as we go further into this time, as 3,000 died on that date.

And for those of us who were in this Congress on 9/11, we will never, never forget.

To the young people today, be reminded of the heroes, firefighters, police officers, volunteers. Let us never forget, and let us always remember this bill and these heroes who are here, and that is James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and, now, Luis Alvarez.

Madam Speaker, let us never forget, and let us vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Oklahoma for yielding, and I thank the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Smith, for his important leadership, collaboration, and cooperation with me on these amendments.

I also thank my colleague from Texas, Ranking Member Thornberry, for his support and work on these amendments and on the work of the NDAA.

I thank them both for their important work on behalf of the men and women of the United States military.

The Jackson Lee amendment No. 203 directs the Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations to ensure that candidates granted admission to attend a military academy undergo screening for speech disorders and be provided the results of the screening test and a list of warfare unrestricted line officer positions and occupation specialists that require successful performance on the speech test. Academy students shall have the option of undergoing speech therapy to reduce speech disorders or impediments.

Specifically, this amendment is intended to help military academy candidates who have stuttering-related speech disorders.

Madam Chair, 5 to 10 percent of all children stutter. Boys are two to three times more likely to stutter than girls. Approximately 75 percent of children recover from stuttering, but the remaining 25 percent will experience lifelong effects.

I learned about the issue of stuttering and its implications for a successful military career through the experiences of a legislative fellow currently serving in my Washington, D.C., office. He is a 2016 graduate from the United States Naval Academy with a degree in operations research and a veteran naval officer who was separated from the Navy in April 2019. His separation was not due to any fault of his own but because of the current processes of the United States Navy and the United States Naval Academy relating to speech fluency issues relating to stuttering.

Let me also say that there was an ad that we have seen on television about a young man who was confronting a doctor during World War I and World War II. It had to do with ancestry. He was insisting that he was in good health, and the doctor said no. The end of the story is they showed that he prevailed, and he went to World War I or II and even won a Purple Heart.

This Navy lieutenant's stuttering was not severe and undetectable to most individuals who engage him in conversation. He went on to secure a screening by the flight doctor. The flight doctor then administered a speech fluency test. During the test, his speech fluency did not meet naval standards, but he was an important contributor to the United States Navy.

At the time, he advised the doctor that he might not be able to do the surface war command officer that he had selected even though he wanted to be an aviator. He then went on to another discipline, surface warfare officer. Then after graduating from the United States Naval Academy with an operations research degree, he served aboard the USS Scout.

His captain said that he was able in every way. It was clear that he might not be able to be a surface warfare officer, but he was able.

What happened was a tragedy. He went on to seek extra care. His overall speech fluency improved. The captain decided that transferring to a different community would be the best option. That was the captain's decision.

Unfortunately, because of the speech impediment that could not be heard, he was sent to a Probationary Officer Continuation and Retention Board, the wrong board to be sent to, and a speech impediment was not considered a medical issue. Therefore, he could not go before the medical board.

This very fine African American graduate of the academy could not serve because we did not do him service. We did not do him the kind of service that he needed to have. Unfortunately, this board was not really meant for someone who was capable, qualified, and ready. This is one where you do not have a right to appeal, if you can imagine that, and no one ever notifies you why.

I am here today to say that my amendment will, hopefully, have an impact on the many different young soldiers who want to serve.

Madam Chair, can you believe a half million dollars was spent on his education?

Let me indicate that this amendment is supported by the National Stuttering Association. The National Stuttering Association says that we support the Jackson Lee amendment No. 203 that allows for military academy candidates to have access to, and options for, undergoing speech therapy to successfully manage speech disorders or impediments so that entry into officer or occupational specialist positions in the military is possible. Military personnel who stutter can be and are effective communicators, and stuttering does not limit military career aspirations.

Jimmy Stewart became an aviator in World War II and reached the rank of brigadier general on July 23, 1959, a little later than World War II. He retired from military service on May 31, 1968.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter from National Stuttering Association and the famous people who stutter.

National Stuttering Association,

New York, NY, July 11, 2019.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee,

Washington, DC.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee: The National Stuttering

Association (NSA) is the largest non-profit organization in

the world dedicated to bringing hope and empowerment to

children and adults who stutter, families and professionals,

through support, education, advocacy, and research. We have

long worked with individuals and communities to increase

understanding of stuttering and to improve outcomes for

people who stutter in all aspects of their lives.

Over the last several years, we have enhanced outreach

efforts to raise stuttering awareness to colleges and

universities, employers and the military. A recurrent theme

we hear from young people and adults who stutter are barriers

to employment and career success based on false assumptions

about stuttering. To that end, we have developed and enhanced

educational outreach programs for employers, which of course

includes the military. Just last year, a stuttering support

chapter was launched at Wright Patterson AFB, at the request

of personnel who stutter.

We support Jackson Lee Amendment #203 that allows for

military academy candidates to have access to, and options

for, undergoing speech therapy to successfully manage speech

disorders or impediments so that entry into Officer or

Occupational Specialists positions in the military is

possible. Military personnel who stutter can be, and are,

effective communicators and stuttering does not have to limit

military career aspiration.

Thank you for alerting us to this important act. Feel free

to contact us anytime for additional support or resources.

Respectfully,

Pamela Mertz,

National Stuttering Association, Board of Directors,

Employment Advocacy/Military Support.

Famous people who stutter:

Jimmy Stewart, Charlie Sheen, Tiger Woods, Marilyn Monroe,

James Earl Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Jack Paar, Elvis

Presley.

Actors, singers & entertainers:

Marc Anthony, Emily Blunt, Leon Botstein, Wayne Brady,

Garret Dillahunt, Robert Donat, Sheila Fraser, Noel

Gallagher, Gerald ``Gerry'' Goffin, Francois Goudreault,

Jason Gray, Ray Griff, Tim Gunn, Steve Harvey, John Lee

Hooker.

Scatman John, Harvey Keitel, Nicole Kidman, B.B. King,

Kendrick Lamar, Peggy Lipton, Doug MacLeod, Raymond Massey,

John Melendez, Robert Merrill, Sam Neill, Jack Paar, Elvis

Presley, Anthony Quinn, Eric Roberts.

Hrithik Roshan, Mike Rowe, Budd Schulberg, Ed

Sheeran, Carly Simon, Tom Sizemore, Mel Tillis, Megan

Washington, Michelle Williams, Ann Wilson, Bill Withers,

Shane Yellowbird.

Sports stars:

Michael Attardi, Alex Carter, Rubin ``Hurricane'' Carter,

Johnny Damon, Antonio Dixon, Perico Fernandez, Sophie

Gustafson, Lester Hayes, Ron Harper, Bo Jackson, Tommy John,

Juanfran (Juan Francisco Garcia Garcia), Ivo Karlovic,

Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Gordie Lane.

Greg Louganis, Bob Love, Kenyon Martin, Trumaine McBride,

Shaquille O'Neal, Adrian Peterson, Ellis Lankster, Boyd

Rankin, James Rodriguez, Mark Rubin, Bryan Rust, Bob Sanders,

Sigi Schmid, Matt Slauson, George Springer, Darren Sproles.

Dave Taylor, Jermain Taylor, Ken Venturi, Herschel Walker,

Bill Walton, Jeff Walz, Pat Williams, Damien Woody, Chris

Zorich.

Writers, authors, producers, composers, and artists:

Jeffrey Blitz, Jorge Luis Borges, Lewis Carroll, Calvert

Casey, Scott Damian, Jim Davis, Charles Darwin, Francine du

Plessix Gray, Margaret Drabble, Dominick Dunne, John Gregory

Dunne, Jack Eberts, Indiana Gregg, Robert A. Heinlein, Edward

Hoagland.

Philip Larkin, Ann McGovern, Somerset Maugham, David

Mitchell, Mike Peters, Budd Schulberg, Jane Seymour, Marc

Shell, Neville Shute, Alan Rabinowitz, John Updike, Andrew

Lloyd Webber.

Journalists and photographers:

P.F. Bentley, Henry Luce, Byron Pitts, John Stossel, Jeff

Zeleny.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record the actual resume of Michael Pender, a graduate of Annapolis and an excellent young man.

Michael Pender

Michael Pender is a 2016 United States Naval Academy

graduate and a veteran naval officer who was separated from

the Navy in April 2019. His separation was not due to any

fault of his own, but because of the current processes of the

United States Navy and the United States Naval Academy

relating to speech fluency issues related to stuttering.

Lieutenant Pender's stuttering was not severe, and

undetectable to most individuals who engage him in

conversation. However,

for certain career opportunities in the military it matters a

great deal if someone has even a slight almost imperceptible

stutter.

Michael Pender's story began with his enrollment at the

Naval Academy in 2012. Mr. Pender dreamed of becoming a naval

aviator from an early age. During the naval aviation

screening during his junior year at Annapolis, the USNA

flight doctor reviewing his medical records and USNA

application and noticed that Mr. Pender had a history of

speech disfluency. The flight doctor then administered a

speech fluency test to Mr. Pender. During the test, Mr.

Pender's speech fluency did not meet the Naval Aviation

community's standards, and he was told that he was

disqualified from serving as an aviator.

Mr. Pender was disappointed with the determination. At that

critical juncture Mr. Pender was not informed about what

careers he could qualify to fill that would not be impacted

by the determination regarding his speech. He was given an

opportunity to take speech therapy, which he did until his

graduation.

Mr. Pender selected the only unrestricted line option

left--the Surface Warfare community. At the time, Mr. Pender

advised the flight doctor that the demands for speech fluency

would be more of an issue as a Surface Warfare Officer. His

concerns were not satisfactorily addressed nor was he

provided with counseling to assist him in selecting an

appropriate career following his graduation.

After graduating from the United States Naval Academy, Mr.

Pender served onboard the USS Scout (MCM 8) in San Diego,

where he began his training as a Surface Warfare Officer.

After serving diligently for 18 months and qualifying in all

required Surface Warfare watch-stations except for the

position of Officer of the Deck, it was clear that his speech

impediment would keep him from earning his Surface Warfare

Officer qualification.

An Officer of the Deck is the captain's representative when

the captain is not on the bridge of the ship. Officer of the

Deck gives verbal orders to sailors who drive the ship. It

was difficult for Mr. Pender to give orders in a timely

manner without delay due to his speech impediment. Mr. Pender

wanted to address the issue and sought out a speech therapist

who would accept TRICare insurance to improve his speech as

he pursued his Officer of the Deck qualification. His overall

speech fluency improved, but not enough to give the Captain

confidence to qualify Mr. Pender as Officer of the Deck. Mr.

Pender and his Captain decided that transferring to a

different community would be the best option.

Since stuttering is not classified as a medical issue, a

Medical Board was not an option to review his case. Once he

completed his education at Annapolis the options for career

change within the branch was extremely limited. In 2018,

after consulting with other officers, Mr. Pender's Captain

and Executive Officer decided that the best course of action

was to submit a redesignation package to the Probationary

Officer Continuation and Retention Board (POCR), with the

intention that he would re-designate into a different

community. In order to start this process, Mr. Pender's

Captain submitted a Surface Warfare Officer non-attainment

letter to the POCR Board. In that letter, Mr. Pender's

captain stated that Mr. Pender would not be able to qualify

as Surface Warfare Officer, not because of a lack of aptitude

or work ethic, but because of his speech impediment.

The POCR Board has the authority to reassign a Naval

Officer to another Naval Community, which the Navy's method

of reassigning personnel to a new job. The POCR Board got

back to Mr. Pender in September 2018 stating that he would be

removed from the Active Duty List and he would be retained on

the Reserve Active Status list, effectively separating him

from the Navy without any due process or a right to appeal

the decision.

It is disappointing that he had to separate from the Navy

for two reasons. First, he was not put into a position to

succeed coming out of the Naval Academy. His speech

impediment was a known condition at the Naval Academy, and

their service selection process should have evaluated Mr.

Pender's speech impediment to see if he would be successful

as a Naval Aviator or a Surface Warfare Officer. Second, he

should have been given a chance to serve in a restricted line

community. Even if his speech impediment was not caught until

he ultimately started his service as a Naval Officer, there

should be a process in place where officers who cannot

qualify in their respective unrestricted line communities due

to conditions that are not covered for Medical Boards are

given a fair chance to serve in one of the many restricted

line communities. The POCR Board process should only be

reserved for officers that were not able to qualify due to a

lack of desire or aptitude. In conclusion, there were plenty

of other communities in the Navy where Mr. Pender would have

been able to serve, and it is a shame that he is separated

from the Navy.

Madam Chair, let me also indicate that I am very glad and grateful for amendment No. 201 that adds $10 million to research dealing with triple negative breast cancer.

Between 10 and 17 percent of female breast cancer patients have this condition, and I believe this is crucial to helping military women and others.

Amendment No. 202 deals with PTSD. We have added $2.5 million. I am grateful for this amendment. We are recognizing that more and more young people coming out have a continuation of PTSD. Currently, there are 31.3 million people in the United States being treated for PTSD.

Let me also say that I am grateful for the seven other amendments that have been added.

Jackson Lee amendment No. 195 creates housing for disaster survivors.

No. 145 has the DOD engage in efforts to stop Boko Haram.

No. 147 has to do with recruiting students who go to the Defense National Security Education Program. It prevents them from being recruited by foreign governments.

Also, No. 148 deals with stopping a report on maternity mortality rates.

Amendment No. 149 deals with the risk posed by debris in low Earth orbit.

No. 160 deals with the idea of training in cybersecurity, cyber defense, and cyber operations for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary students.

Then, No. 620 deals with artificial intelligence education strategic opportunities and risks.

Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chair, my remaining comments are to simply say the amendment that is close to my heart is the one dealing with this academy graduate, this Naval Academy graduate. We asked everyone to give him another chance because the only thing that he was deficient in is not in heart, soul, and willingness to serve, but it was because he had a speech impediment.

How shameful for us to deal with our young men and women like that.

I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Jackson Lee amendments and the Jackson Lee amendment that deals with the idea of making sure young people have the medical care, the service, and the ability to serve after graduating from an academy with $500,000 invested in this young man, and all my other underlying amendments.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support them.

Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry for their work on this bill and their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces.

I also thank them for including in this En Bloc ten Jackson Lee Amendments.

My remarks will focus on three of the Jackson Lee Amendments and the others are addressed in my statement for the record.

Jackson Lee Amendments No. 201, No. 202, and No. 203, make important contributions to the bill.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 201 authorizes and encourages increased collaboration between the DOD and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer;

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 202 authorizes $2.5 million in increased funding to combat and treat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; and

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 203 directs the Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations to ensure that candidates granted admission to attend a military academy undergo screening for speech disorders and be provided the results of the screening test and a list of warfare unrestricted line (URL) Officer positions and occupation specialists that require successful performance on the speech test. Academy students shall have the option of undergoing speech therapy to reduce speech disorders or impediments.

Specifically, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 203 is intended to help military academy candidates that have stuttering related speech disorders.

Five to ten percent of all children stutter as they develop language skills.

Boys are 2 to 3 times more likely to stutter than girls.

Approximately 75 percent of children recover from stuttering, but the remaining 25 percent will experience life-long effects of stuttering.

There are many famous and accomplished persons who stutter.

One well known person who stuttered was Jimmy Stewart a much beloved actor who also served in the Air Force during World War II.

Jimmy Stewart was a pilot during WWII and rose to the rank of Chief of Staff of the 2nd Combat Wing, 2nd Air Division of the 8th Air Force.

As a member of the Air Force Reserves Jimmy Stewart continued his military service.

On July 23, 1959, Jimmy Stewart achieved the rank of Brigadier General.

He retired from military service on May 31, 1968.

Stuttering can make it difficult to communicate with other people, which often affects a person's quality of life and interpersonal relationships.

Stuttering can also negatively influence job performance and opportunities, and treatment can come at a high financial cost.

I offer this amendment to help entrants into military academies, who may have a related stuttering speech disorder, find the right career fit for their military service after graduation.

I learned about the impact of stuttering may have on promising military careers through the experience of a remarkable young man who is currently serving as a Legislative Fellow in my Washington, D.C., office.

He is a 2016 graduate of the United States Naval Academy with a degree in Operations Research and a veteran naval officer who was separated from the Navy in April 2019.

His separation was not due to any fault of his own, but because of the current processes of the United States Navy and the United States Naval Academy relating to speech fluency issues related to stuttering.

This Navy Lieutenant's stuttering was not severe, and undetectable to most individuals who engage him in conversation.

However, for certain career opportunities in the military it matters a great deal if someone has even a slight, almost-imperceptible stutter.

His story began with his enrollment at the Naval Academy in 2012.

He dreamed of becoming a naval aviator from an early age.

During the naval aviation screening during his junior year at Annapolis, the Naval Academy flight doctor reviewing his medical records and USNA application, noticed that he had a history of speech disfluency.

The flight doctor then administered a speech fluency test to him.

During the test, his speech fluency did not meet the Naval Aviation community's standards, and he was told that he was disqualified from serving as an aviator.

He was disappointed with the determination.

At that critical juncture he was not informed regarding the career paths he was qualified to fill, notwithstanding his speech.

He was given an opportunity to take speech therapy, which he did until his graduation.

He selected another unrestricted line option left open to him-the Surface Warfare community.

At the time, he advised the flight doctor that the demands for speech fluency would be more of an issue as a Surface Warfare Officer.

After graduating from the United States Naval Academy with an Operations Research degree, he served onboard the USS Scout (MCM 8) in San Diego, where he began his training as a Surface Warfare Officer.

After serving diligently for 18 months and qualifying in all required Surface Warfare watch-stations except for the position of Officer of the Deck, it was clear that his speech impediment would keep him from earning his Surface Warfare Officer qualification.

An Officer of the Deck is the captain's representative when the captain is not on the bridge of the ship.

Officer of the Deck gives verbal orders to sailors who drive the ship.

It was difficult for him to give orders in a timely manner without delay due to his speech impediment.

He wanted to address the issue and sought out a speech therapist who would accept TRI-Care insurance to improve his speech as he pursued his Officer of the Deck qualification.

His overall speech fluency improved, but not enough to give the Captain confidence to qualify him as Officer of the Deck.

He and his Captain decided that transferring to a different community would be the best option.

Since stuttering is not classified as a medical issue, a Medical Board was not an option to review his case.

Once he completed his education at Annapolis, the options for career change within the branch were extremely limited.

In 2018, after consulting with other officers, his Captain and Executive Officer decided that the best course of action was to submit a re-designation package to the Probationary Officer Continuation and Retention Board (POCR), with the intention that he would re-designate into a different community.

To start this process, his Captain submitted a Surface Warfare Officer non-attainment letter to the POCR Board.

In that letter, his captain stated that the Lieutenant would not be able to qualify as Surface Warfare Officer, not because of a lack of aptitude or work-ethic, but because of his speech impediment.

The POCR Board has the authority to reassign a Naval Officer to another Naval Community, which is the Navy's method of reassigning personnel to a new job.

The POCR Board got back to him in September 2018, stating that he would be removed from the Active Duty List and he would be retained on the Reserve Active Status list, effectively separating him from the Navy without any due process or a right to appeal the decision.

The Medical Board findings returned in March 2019 and stated that it was the stuttering that caused the anxiety order, and stuttering is not an issue that is covered for Medical Boards.

It is disappointing that he had to separate from the Navy for two reasons.

First, he was not put into a position to succeed coming out of the Naval Academy.

His speech impediment was a known condition at the Naval Academy, and its service selection process should have evaluated his speech impediment to see if he would be successful as a Naval Aviator or a Surface Warfare Officer.

Second, he should have been given a chance to serve in a restricted line community.

Even if his speech impediment was not caught until he ultimately started his service as a Naval Officer, there should be a process in place where officers who cannot qualify in their respective unrestricted line communities due to conditions that are not covered for Medical Boards are given a fair chance to serve in one of the many restricted line communities.

The POCR Board process should only be reserved for officers that were not able to qualify due to a lack of desire or aptitude.

In conclusion, there were plenty of other communities in the Navy where he would have been able to serve, and it is a shame that he is separated from the Navy.

I, and my Staff have benefited greatly from his insights on improving the experience of military cadets as well as his commitment to public service as a Legislative Fellow in my office.

I am sure he will find success in his next endeavor and I thank him for his service to our nation.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 202 authorizes $2.5 million in increased funding to combat and treat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Today, 223.4 million people, which represents seventy percent of adults living in the United States, have experienced some type of traumatic event at least once in their lives.

As many as 20 percent of those who experience a traumatic event develop PTSD.

Currently, there are 31.3 million people in the United States being treated for PTSD.

An estimated 8 percent of Americans or 24.4 million people at any given time will be experiencing PTSD.

Nearly 50 percent of women and 60 percent of men will experience at least one trauma in their lifetime.

For Veterans, this may mean surviving an IED explosion or an accident during a training exercise or witnessing the death or injury of a buddy.

Among people who are victims of a severe traumatic experience like what may occur during military conflict, an estimated 60 to 80 percent will develop PTSD.

Ten to thirty percent of combat veteran's lifetime will experience PTSD at some point during their lives.

Studies estimate that 1 in every 5 military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan has PTSD.

20 percent of the soldiers who've been deployed in the past 6 years have PTSD. That's over 300,000 soldiers.

17 percent of combat troops are women; 71 percent of female military personnel develop PTSD due to sexual assault within the ranks.

I thank the Chair and Ranking Member for including this Jackson Lee Amendment to combat PTSD for consideration of H.R. 2500.

This Jackson Lee Amendment provides authorization for a $10 million increase in funding for increased collaboration with NIH to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer.

This Jackson Lee Amendment authorizes and encourages increased collaboration between the DOD and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer.

``Triple Negative Breast Cancer'' is a term used to describe breast cancers whose cells do not have estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors, and do not have an excess of the ``HER2'' protein on their cell membrane of tumor cells.

The lack of receptors in this form of breast cancer makes commonly used test and methods to detect the disease not as effective.

This is a serious illness that effects between 10-17 percent of female breast cancer patients and this condition is more likely to cause death than the most common form of breast cancer.

Seventy percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.

The Jackson Lee Amendment will help to save lives.

TNBC disproportionately impacts younger women, African American women, Hispanic/

Latina women, and women with a ``BRCA1'' genetic mutation, which is also prevalent in Jewish women.

TNBC usually affects women under 50 years of age and makes up more than 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American.

African American women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

The collaboration between the Department of Defense and NIH to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer can support the development of multiple targeted therapies for this devastating disease.

Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available.

The American Cancer Society calls this strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.''

In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control predicted that that year 26,840 black women would be diagnosed with TNBC.

The overall incidence rate of breast cancer is 10 percent lower in African American women than white women.

African American women have a five-year survival rate of 78 percent after diagnosis as compared to 90 percent for white women.

The incidence rate of breast cancer among women under 45 is higher for African American women compared to white women.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer cells account for between 13 percent and 25 percent of all breast cancer in the United States and are usually of a higher grade and size, are more aggressive and more likely to metastasize, and onset at a much younger age.

Currently, 70 percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.

African American women are 3 times more likely to develop triple- negative breast cancer than white women.

African-American women have prevalence for TNBC of 26 percent versus 16 percent in non-African-Americans women.

African-American women are more likely to be diagnosed with larger tumors and more advanced stages of breast cancer.

Currently there is no targeted treatment for TNBC exists.

For this reason, I appreciate the support that the Armed Services Committee has shown for this amendment by including it in En Bloc No. 8, and I ask my colleagues to support this Jackson Lee Amendment.

Madam Chair, the people of Iran do not want war.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from California for allowing us, no matter what time of night it is, to stand on the floor and declare that the people of Iran do not want war.

The people of the United States know that the Constitution says that Congress has the right to declare war.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment, because it speaks to the Constitution and our right to declare war and to stand against war and sending our young men and women without the authority of the United States Congress.

Madam Chairwoman, let me thank the gentlewoman from Texas, Congresswoman Garcia, for her leadership. It can be seen that we are intertwining on this issue, and I thank her for acknowledging the fact that these children are unaccompanied.

We are not saying adults. We are not saying criminals. What we are saying is they are children who are unaccompanied migrant children. Many of them are unaccompanied because of the zero-tolerance policy of this administration, the continued policy of separating children from their guardian, from their grandmother, from their aunt.

How do I know this? Because I saw this firsthand this past Monday, just 3 days ago, where unaccompanied children were held in a facility.

I asked the question: How are they unaccompanied? They are unaccompanied because we took the adults away from them.

This is simple to say that these children not be held in Department of Defense facilities. This does not undermine this bill. It simply says that children are precious and should be handled in a manner that provides them with the care, courtesy, and love of the right kind of facilities.

But, most importantly, I support this amendment because I join my colleague in saying that we do not accept zero tolerance in separating children.

I support the amendment. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership in taking these children out of the Department of Defense facilities.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman.

I think the process that the gentlewoman is advocating in this amendment, which I support, is not militarizing the immigration system, particularly since the immigration system is mostly civil.

Most of the migrants who are coming across the border are asking for asylum. If we would simply put in place a process to be able to process the asylum seekers and to increase the legal process for them, then we wouldn't have to militarize the border by a deployment of troops or by incarcerating individuals in military facilities.

That can be a bipartisan effort. If we join with my colleague to do comprehensive immigration reform, then we will not need to utilize these facilities. I agree that immigration does not equal defense or criminalization.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1044, the ``Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019.''

H.R. 1044 will help alleviate the massive immigrant visa backlog by eliminating the 7 percent ``per-country'' limit on employment-based visas and increasing the family-based per-country limit from 7 percent to 15 percent.

The bill will also ease backlogs for certain family-sponsored immigrants by modifying the per-country limits in the family-sponsored green card system.

Specifically, H.R. 1044 provides for the phased elimination over three years of the ``per country'' cap for employment-based immigrant visas so that all workers are treated fairly.

The legislation raises the ``per country'' cap from 7 percent to 15 percent for family-sponsored immigrant visas and restores 1,000 employment-based visas per fiscal year to the People's Republic of China, that have historically been set aside for green card applicants under the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992.

Mr. Speaker, the United States makes 140,000 green cards available every year to employment-based immigrants, including many who first come here on temporary H-1B or L visas.

Current law, however, provides that no more than 79 percent of these green cards can go to nationals of any one country--even though some countries are more populous than others.

This bipartisan bill alters the per-country limits for employment- based immigrants so that all are treated equally regardless of their country of birth.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong supporter of the H-1B program.

Without it, American employers would not be able to hire enough highly educated professionals for the ``specialty occupations.''

A ``specialty occupation'' is employment requiring the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge.

This includes doctors, engineers, professors and researchers in a wide variety of fields, accountants, medical personnel, and computer scientists.

An American employer who wants to bring an H-1B employee to the United States must, among other requirements, attest that it will pay the H-1B employee the greater of the actual compensation paid to other employees in the same job, or the prevailing compensation for that occupation.

Additionally, the employer must attest that it will provide working conditions for the H-1B visa holder that will not cause the working conditions of the other employees to adversely be affected; and that there is no applicable strike or lockout.

The employer also must provide a copy of the attestation to the representative of the employee bargaining unit or, if there is no bargaining representative, must post the attestation in conspicuous locations at the work site.

Mr. Speaker, as important as it is that the H-1B program enables our country to benefit from the services of foreign professionals who have skills and knowledge that are in short supply in this country, is the fact that American businesses use the program to alleviate temporary shortages of U.S. professionals in specific occupations and to acquire special expertise in overseas economic trends and issues.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1044 to help alleviate the immigrant visa backlogs and enhance the nation's economic competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding; and I thank the two cosponsors, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, for a very important initiative that not one of us have, unfortunately, not heard of one of our law enforcement officers in recent years, in recent times, or in recent months committing suicide. That incident has occurred in my own community.

It is clearly important to be able to provide this extra support, the Supporting and Treating Officers in Crisis Act of 2019, the STOIC Act. It is crucial because it also impacts these families. These officers every day deal with such catastrophic incidences. In my own community, we have seen six little children killed over the last couple of months.

The individuals who arrive first to the scene are law enforcement officers, and they are moms and dads with children. And I cannot imagine the impact that those scenes, those crime scenes, have day after day on these officers who have joined the force to do good and to help people.

We often say when we call 911, we are looking for the men and women in blue, and we are looking for them to strengthen those families who are broken or in crisis. This particular act would revitalize the DOJ's grant program for Law Enforcement Family Resources, in addition to allocating funds to establish suicide prevention, stress management, and mental health programs.

We know that just as our military men and women face the devastation of

PTSD, members of our various law enforcement agencies who work to protect us also experience post-traumatic stress disorder.

This program to enhance the grants that departments can secure will be able to fill in the gap and work with families and also deal with the question of those experiencing mental illness. Post-traumatic stress disorder can come in the form of depression, burnout, and other mental-health related issues and anxiety.

We know that over the years, suicides have increased, but in 2017, an estimated 140 officers died from suicide, which exceeds the 129 that were killed in the line of duty.

Mental illness is a silent, but lethal killer. We are working in the Judiciary Committee on the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act which will emphasize some of the protocols for improving, policing, working on professionalism, and working with the 18,000 police departments across America. I can't imagine waiting to pass this legislation to reignite the grant program to be able to help those who are now presently suffering.

I am glad that this is a bicameral initiative. I hope that this will move quickly to the President's desk to sign, and I hope those funds will get to the Houston Police Department, the Harris County Sheriff's Department, constables' offices, and various police departments across America.

A healthy police officer, physically and mentally, is the best community relations that you could ever have. A healthy officer who works with children, who works with communities, who works with families, and shows up when the civic club asks them to come and speak about safety and security in the neighborhood, that is who we hope will be the kind of officer who will come to work every day.

These grant programs will ensure that. Most of all, I would like to close by saying: for those law enforcement officers who are, many times, former military personnel and committed to the idea of service, go and get help. We are standing ready to help. These grant programs will allow police departments, cities, counties, and States to put out an effective and strong response to the needs of our law enforcement, and to thank them for their service

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and on Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of S. 998, the ``Supporting and Treating Officers in Crisis Act of 2019,'' known for short as the ``STOIC Act''.

The STOIC Act would reintroduce and revitalize the DOJ's grant program for Law Enforcement Family Services, in addition to allocating funds to establish, suicide prevention, stress management, and mental health programs.

Mr. Speaker, as late as 2017, there were more than 600,000 law enforcement officers employed in the United States, charged with protecting their communities.

Daily, the nation's law enforcement officers witness and experience all manner of trauma in the line of duty.

As these brave members of our nation's various law enforcement agencies work to protect the individuals of their communities, the difficulties they experience often leave them with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, burnout and other mental health conditions related to anxiety.

These anxiety-related illnesses can even result in suicide.

In 2017, an estimated 140 officers died from suicide, which exceeds the 129 that were killed in the line of duty, making mental illness the silent killer and most lethal threat to law enforcement professionals.

There is no doubt that these men and women suffering from mental health issues that occurred as a result of their efforts to protect and serve their communities, deserve our support throughout their recovery and treatment.

By passing S. 998, officers combating anxiety related mental health conditions, and their families, will receive improved support and care.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 998 to ensure that the nation's law enforcement officers, and their families, receive the mental health care and rehabilitation they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of S. 744 the ``Effective Prosecution of Biological Toxins and Agents,'' which amends 18 U.S.C. 175b to prohibit the possession, transport, or sale of biological agents and toxins by individuals.

S. 744 also prohibits the transport, possession, or shipment of any biological agent or toxin in interstate or foreign commerce.

Biological agents and toxins disseminate disease-causing organisms or toxins to harm or kill humans, animals or plants.

In addition to strategic or tactical military applications, biological weapons can be used to infect livestock or agricultural produce to cause food shortages and economic loss, create environmental catastrophes, and introduce pandemics.

Biological agents can also be deployed in missiles, bombs, hand grenades, and rockets to deliver death and destruction.

Mr. Speaker, there have also been documented efforts to develop delivery devices for assassinations or sabotage operations, including a variety of sprays, brushes, and injection systems as well as means for contaminating food and clothing.

It should concern us all that recent technological advances increase the likelihood that these weapons could be acquired or produced by non- state actors, including terrorist organizations and mentally unstable individuals.

This is a major threat to our national security as well as the safety of all American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 744.

In doing so we provide an added measure of security for our homeland by prohibiting the creation and proliferation of biological weapons as well as the sale of such weapons.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding and let me thank the sponsor of the legislation, the 21st Century President Act.

I wanted to affirm Congressman Pocan for the leadership that he has given to an issue that many might not pay attention to, and the term is appropriate, the 21st Century President Act, which deals with criminalizing threats against former Presidents and their families as well as providing security for those individuals who may be impacted.

For example, section 879 of title 18, enacted in 1982 after the assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan, makes it unlawful to threaten to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon a former President, President-elect, or Vice President-elect or major candidate for President or Vice President or an immediate family member. In the terminology, as has been indicated, the terms are defined as ``wife,'' ``her,'' and ``widow,'' which presumes that the President of the United States will always be a man and his spouse will always be a woman.

We are very fortunate to have any number of wonderful Americans running who will have the opportunity to serve. Many women are running. Certainly, individuals from our LGBTQ community will be in the future mix for President of the United States.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for bringing us into the 21st century, being enthusiastic about recognizing the importance of ensuring the safety and security of those who may be running as candidates, those who may be serving who come from the wide, vast diversity of America.

It is clear that the time has come for the language to change to a neutral term of ``spouse'' to refer to the partner of the President of the United States.

It is also important that we update our laws to welcome enthusiastically the idea that America, excitingly, will have an opportunity to elect a unique and different person to the Presidency of the United States, competent, qualified, and able to serve.

I rise to support the 21st Century President Act. The language speaks to the idea of the new and exciting opportunity for this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 677, the ``21st Century President Act,'' introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Congressman Mark Pocan.

I support this legislation, which updates the current statutory provision set forth in 18 U.S.C. 879 criminalizing threats against former presidents and their families.

It does this by removing the gendered terms from the statute.

Section 879 of title 18, enacted in 1982 after the assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan, makes it unlawful to threaten to kill, kidnap or inflict bodily harm upon a former President, President-elect, or Vice President-elect, or a major candidate for President or Vice President, or [an] ``immediate family'' member.

``Immediate family,'' however is defined with terms such as `wife,' `her,' and `widow'--which presumes the president will always be a man and his spouse will always be a woman.

H.R. 677, the 21st Century President Act makes an important contribution in recognition of the historic progress we have made in our country.

In 2016, the Democratic party, one of America's two major political parties, nominated a woman to be its standard bearer and nominee of President of the United States.

The change that will be made by enacting the 21st Century President Act is particularly appropriate at this moment.

Competing for the 2020 presidential nomination of their party are six women candidates and a member of the LGBTQ community.

It is clear that the time has come for the language to change to a neutral term of ``spouse'' to refer to the partner of the president.

Under current law, it is assumed that the President of the United States is male, and the spouse is female.

This accords with America's past, but does not reflect its future.

It is time for Congress to change the law.

Equality is a principle that we must always embrace and affirm, and a principle that we must always keep working to advance and secure for every American.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 677 to amend federal law to recognize that persons other than men

can and will be President, and presidential spouses will not always be female.

Mr. Speaker, I have known the men and women who have served in the Department of Homeland Security and have dealt with the border for many, many years. I have respected the work that they have done. It is tragic, however, that as we continue to serve under this administration, we now find the Department of Homeland Security in a major cover-up: the unaccompanied children who have been separated from their families, the disallowances of Members to visit and do their oversight work to see the conditions, and the rejection of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General who wrote a direct memo to the secretary that said there is an urgent crisis that you must deal with at the border, and for this secretary to go on national television and deny it.

You can applaud the men and women who work, but you cannot applaud bad acts. You cannot applaud what is happening in Mexico, which I just came back from. The migrants who are there are not being taken care of. They are in desperate need. Some of them will

not have a place to live, some of them will not have food, and it is because of the policies of this administration.

The Department of Homeland Security must serve the Nation, it must not serve one single President. I maintain that we are going to fight to fix this broken immigration system.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership.

There is not a time that I go home that they don't ask me how we will secure our elections. I am proudly supporting the Securing America's Federal Elections Act, the SAFE Act, and I am asking why our colleagues are fighting against Americans having the right to vote.

The SAFE Act authorizes a $600 million Election Assistance Commission grant program. It provides States with $175 million in biannual sustainment funding to help maintain election infrastructure.

Voting machines are required to be manufactured in the United States. States are mandated to conduct risk-limiting audits.

Another very important feature of the SAFE Act is that it requires accountability for election technology vendors and sets cybersecurity standards.

As a member of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, recognizing what happened in 2016, I want to make sure that the Russian adversaries, the Russian military, are not our poll watchers, are not our secretaries of states, are not the vendors for our machines.

I want to make sure for minorities, every vote counts, and for every American, every vote counts.

I want to end voter suppression. The way we do this is to have safe elections.

I am very proud of this legislation, and I am proud of this Speaker, proud of the leadership, to say that we are going to be first on the line to tell America we believe in safe, equal, and fair elections.

I ask my friends to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2722, the ``Securing America's Federal Elections Act'' or SAFE Act.

I strongly support this legislation because the linchpin of representative democracy is public confidence in the political system, regime, and community.

That confidence in turn rests upon the extent to which the public has faith that the system employed to select its leaders accurately reflects its preferences.

At bottom, this means that all citizens casting a vote have a fundamental right and reasonable expectation that their votes count and are counted.

This concern is particularly salient because of the unprecedented interference by a hostile foreign power to secure victory for its preferred candidate in the 2016 presidential election and the determination of that hostile power to repeat its success in future American elections.

That is why it is necessary to pass H.R. 2722, the SAFE Act, so comprehensive election security reform measures can be implemented.

Specifically, the SAFE Act authorizes a $600 million Election Assistance Commission (EAC) grant program to assist in securing election infrastructure and a $5 million grant program to study and report on accessible paper ballot voting systems.

The bill provides grants to State and local election officials to replace aging voting machines with voter-verified paper ballot voting systems and grants to support hiring IT staff, cybersecurity training, security and risk vulnerability assessments, and other activities to secure election infrastructure.

The bill also provides states with $175 million in biannual sustainment funding to help maintain election infrastructure and, to ensure States can maintain security gains, provides each State with no less than $1 per voter who participated in the most recent election to maintain election security.

Under the legislation, voting machines are required to be manufactured in the United States and states are mandated to conduct risk-limiting audits, a critical tool to ensuring the integrity of elections.

These audits, which involve hand counting a certain number of ballots and using statistical methods to determine the accuracy of the original vote tally, are effective at detecting any incorrect election outcomes, whether caused by a cyberattack or something more mundane like a programming error.

The SAFE Act also directs the National Science Foundation to administer a $5 million grant program to study and report on accessible paper ballot verification mechanisms, including for individuals with disabilities, voters with difficulties in literacy, and voters whose primary language is not English.

Madam Speaker, another salutary feature of the SAFE Act is that it requires accountability for election technology vendors and sets cybersecurity standards and prohibits wireless and internet connectivity on systems that count ballots or upon which voters mark their ballots or systems are configured.

The SAFE Act also limits state expenditures on goods and services with grant monies provided under this Act to purchases from ``qualified election infrastructure vendors.''

The EAC, in coordination with DHS, establishes the criteria for achieving the status of ``qualified election infrastructure vendor,'' which includes maintaining IT infrastructure in a manner consistent with the best practices provided by the EAC and agreeing to report any known or suspected security incidents involving election infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, there is compelling reason for the Congress to pass the SAFE Act by overwhelming margins in the House and Senate because to date the President and his Administration has shown little interest or inclination in taking effective action to deter and prevent interference by foreign powers in American elections.

Let us remember that the Intelligence Community Assessment (``ICA'') of January 2017 assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election in which Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Democratic presidential candidate and implacable foe of Vladimir Putin, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, facilitate the election of Vladimir Putin's preferred candidate, Donald J. Trump.

Russia's interference in the election processes of democratic countries is not new but a continuation of the ``Translator Project,'' an ongoing information warfare effort launched by Vladimir Putin in 2014 to use social media to manipulate public opinion and voters in western democracies.

Instead of supporting the unanimous assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the President attacked and sought to discredit and undermine the agencies and officials responsible for detecting and assessing Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election as well as those responsible for investigating and bringing to justice the conspirators who committed crimes against the United States our law enforcement.

And to add shame to insult and injury, at a meeting in Helsinki, Finland, rather than embracing the conclusions of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the President of the United States sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin in heaping scorn on the IC's assessment regarding Russian interference and called the U.S. Justice Department investigation into Russia's interference led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller ``the greatest political witch hunt in history.''

As the Mueller Report concluded, ``The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.''

In his only public remarks made since he was appointed Special Counsel, Robert Mueller reiterated at his farewell press conference held at the Department of Justice on May 29, 2017, the ``central allegation of our indictments--that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election'' and that ``allegation deserves the attention of every American.''

Madam Speaker, American elections are to be decided by American voters free from foreign interference or sabotage, and that is why I support and urge all my colleague to vote to pass H.R. 2722, the ``Securing America's Federal Elections Act'' or SAFE Act.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma, but I am an optimist.

More importantly, I stand here in the name of Mr. Ramirez and his little, baby girl who were found on the shores of the Rio Grande. The question is: How did they wind up there? They wound up there because of this administration's policies that rejected them as they stood on the Brownsville-Matamoros International Bridge.

There was no reason to say the bridge was closed. They had a legal right to claim asylum, fleeing from the horrible violence of El Salvador. Yet, they could not stand there, and so this is their end.

I am supporting this bill because I believe we should not settle for just anything. This bill particularly provides for the requirements that have additional resources for these children so that they don't die, so that they do have toothpaste, that they are clean, that they are living in clean places. It acknowledges that children cannot be held like cattle in one place beyond 90 days, that you must find their family members, and, yes, there are family members.

This is a process that has been the law of the land and the international law for decades. It is an asylum that can be sought so the Nation can address it. It takes no one's place. It does nothing to hurt this Nation.

I support the underlying legislation because, in the name of Mr. Ramirez and his child, we must do what is right.

Madam Speaker, this was a tough week for those of us who, as mothers, have a deep pain for the conditions of our children.

It was a difficult week because Mr. Ramirez and his toddler died trying to seek an opportunity in the United States.

It was a difficult week because this administration rejected Mr. Ramirez from the Matamoros bridge and forced him to cross the Rio Grande.

Today, I voted ``no'' for the $4.5 billion, moneys that I know are needed and that passed and were provided for those in need. If my vote was needed to pass the bill, I would have done so.

But I am saddened by the fact that we passed a bill that does not have the strengthened protocols for treating the difficulties of children and their health needs:

It does not have the provisions dealing with the quality of the treatment of the children, the sanitation and safety;

It does not have the idea that children can only remain in a place for 90 days;

It does not have the ability to have a program that talks about or puts in place how these children are treated as relates to their healthcare and other matters.

So, I will continue to fight because these children's lives are important at the border and around the Nation, and we will get to a point where we can pass legislation that will treat these children who are suffering and fleeing in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and let me also indicate to my good friends on the other side of the aisle how grateful I am to the Democratic leadership who put children first and have worked with the CHC, the CPC, the CBC, and the whole Democratic Caucus for the passionate views that Members have, many of the Members who have made repeated trips to the border.

As a Representative from a border State living with this on a very daily basis and interacting with my colleagues who live actually on the border but also seeing the results of it by many of those who have come to Houston, Texas, I understand that we have to get this right.

Let me also say to my good friend Chris Cuomo, who, night after night after night after night, would ask the question, ``What is Congress doing?'' I can assure him that the mess that we are in, unfortunately, goes right to the foot and the front door of the White House, for if it were not the overfocus on building a wall, or the insisting on maintaining individuals on the Mexican border when Mexico is not prepared, or the steering away of funds from the likes of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador and the rage of individuals who are fleeing in desperation to get away from persecution and having the right to claim the legal right of asylum, which is international law, maybe we would not be here.

The reason why I can say that is because, in the last couple of hours, the head of CBP, in good conscience, in their own moral compass, and in their own standard of what is right and what is indignity, could not stand by where almost 100 children were returned back to the filth that they had had to live in.

Now, I know the people in CBP. I know that there are good, hardworking people all over the border who work for the Federal Government, but there is the lack of resources because we are being held up by individuals who did not want to transfer or to focus on their needs over a wall or over mass deportation, policies that were distracting from helping these children.

I also know that when there is a will, there is a way. So the question of whether or not they could find toothpaste, toothbrushes, and soap appalls me, that the administration could not readily have those resources for those border personnel. It is a disgrace.

I know it because I was there holding little Roger, 9 months old, who had been separated from his family. Roger couldn't speak, so if he didn't have a clean diaper, he could not speak.

But in this bill that we are dealing with--and we are still making sure that we are dealing with the administration, telling them that they have to provide aid to Central American countries--we are doing something that is not done: $200 million omitted from the Senate bill for processing a Senate pilot program.

This program would provide medical treatment, food, clothing, telephone access, legal representation, asylum interviews, and other services to migrant families and unaccompanied children, the same children who were down there; and we wonder why this wealthy country and the executive who has the ability to move dollars around could not get the minimal, bare needs of those people. $92 million for medical care, which is what I begged for; $90.6 million for temporary duty and overtime; $90 million for transport; preventing spending money for any purpose that isn't specifically described in the measure, such as expanding border barriers.

More people are coming because they are desperate, from countries, Haiti and African countries. We are going to get enhanced translators to help people understand, and if they are determined to be able to be in this country through the asylum process, they would be allowed.

We are acknowledging the fact that there is desperation. We are acknowledging the fact that our CBP and others need to do their job, but we are acknowledging the fact that this is our responsibility. We are going to help these children. We are going to hold them to us like they are ours, and we are going to make sure that there are not these kinds of horrible descriptions and conditions that our little babies have to suffer through. We are going to do that today.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security, I rise in support of the rule governing debate on H.R. 3401, the ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act of 2019,'' and the underlying legislation.

I support this legislation because it provides the humanitarian assistance needed to address the inhumane conditions and treatment of immigrants, especially immigrant children, that this administration has created and allowed to persist.

The scenes emanating from the Southern border are heartbreaking, and they have been for a very long time.

I remember when I was at the border, visiting with children separated from the border.

I remember young baby Roger, a very young child, who should not have been subject to these conditions.

We are learning of other children living in squalid conditions.

A chaotic scene of sickness and filth is unfolding in an overcrowded border station in Clint, Texas, my homestate, where hundreds of young people who have recently crossed the border are being held, according to lawyers who visited the facility this week.

Some of the children have been there for nearly a month.

Children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with human excrement and tears, are caring for infants they've just met, the lawyers said.

Toddlers without diapers are relieving themselves in their pants.

Teenage mothers are wearing clothes stained with breast milk.

Most of the young detainees have not been able to shower or wash their clothes since they arrived at the facility, those who visited said.

They have no access to toothbrushes, toothpaste or soap.

The arrival of thousands of migrants at a time, overflowing the border patrol facilities of the Customs and Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Health and Human Services, has created a humanitarian crisis that has resulted in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and tragic deaths.

All sides need to come together immediately and commit the necessary resources and capabilities to manage this situation and provide for the basic human rights of everyone involved.

If Congress and the administration fail to come to an agreement, the situation at the border will only deteriorate. Cutting funding to these agencies now will not punish the agencies or the administration: it will punish the migrants. Congress has an urgent moral responsibility to protect children and families, and defend the health, dignity and lives of those in need.

Conditions at Customs and Border Protection facilities along the border have been an issue of increasing concern as officials warn that the recent large influx of migrant families has driven many of the facilities well past their capacities.

In May, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security warned of ``dangerous overcrowding'' among adult migrants housed at the border processing center in El Paso, with up to 900 migrants being held at a facility designed for 125. In some cases, cells designed for 35 people were holding 155 people.

This is why it is imperative to support this supplemental funding bill, which:

Provides $4.5 billion in emergency spending to address the humanitarian crisis at the border--securing robust funding for priorities including legal assistance, food, water, sanitary items, blankets and medical services, support services for unaccompanied children, and refugee services, which will relieve the horrific situation of over-crowding and help prevent additional deaths.

Protects families and does not fund the administration's failed mass detention policy--funding effective, humane alternatives to detention with a proven track record of success, placing strict limits on influx shelters, protecting sponsors from DHS immigration enforcement based on information collected by HHS during the vetting process and creating strong oversight by Congress including to protect unaccompanied children.

Helps address the roots causes of the crisis--reversing the administration's senseless decision to block the U.S. assistance that Congress has already appropriated for the Northern Triangle countries, and ensuring funding is used responsibly to improve border security, stop human smuggling and drug trafficking, combat corruption and reduce poverty and promote growth in Central America.

And the bill is sure to guarantee that it does not use the emergency that is this crisis, for the purpose of advancing any other policy objectives.

Specifically, the supplemental also contains important oversight provisions to hold the administration accountable and to protect the rights and dignity of migrants, including:

No funding for a border wall or barriers, or for ICE detention beds;

Prohibits the use of funds for any purpose not specifically described;

Places strict conditions on influx shelters to house children by mandating compliance with requirements set forth in the Flores settlement;

Protects sponsors and potential sponsors from DHS immigration enforcement based on information collected by HHS during the sponsor vetting process;

Ensures congressional oversight visits to facilities caring for unaccompanied children without a requirement for prior notice;

Requires monthly reporting on unaccompanied children separated from their families;

Requires additional reporting about the deaths of children in government custody; and

Ensures CBP facilities funded in the bill comply with the National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search.

I urge all members to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3401, the ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act of 2019.''

I support this legislation because it provides the humanitarian assistance needed to address the inhumane conditions and treatment of immigrants, especially immigrant children, that this Administration has created and allowed to persist.

The scenes emanating from the Southern border are heartbreaking, and they have been for a very long time.

I remember when I was at the border, visiting with children separated from their families.

I remember young baby Roger, a very young child, who was separated from his family.

We are learning of children living in squalid conditions.

A chaotic scene of sickness and filth is unfolding in an overcrowded border station in Clint, Texas, my homestate, where hundreds of young people who have recently crossed the border are being held, according to lawyers who visited the facility this week.

Some of the children have been there for nearly a month.

Children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with human excrement and tears, are caring for infants they've just met.

Toddlers without diapers are relieving themselves in their pants.

Teenage mothers are wearing clothes stained with breast milk.

Most of the young detainees have not been able to shower or wash ( their clothes since they arrived at the facility, those who visited said.

And it is inexplicable, indefensible, and inhumane that they are not even being provided toothbrushes, toothpaste or soap.

Just reflect on that for a moment; innocent children and toddlers are being denied soap and toothpaste at the very same time that similar treatment to a prisoner of war would violate Article 26 of the 1949 Geneva Convention:

The Detaining Power shall be bound to take all sanitary

measures necessary to ensure the cleanliness and

healthfulness of camps and to prevent epidemics . . . . Also,

apart from the baths and showers with which the camps shall

be furnished, prisoners of war shall be provided with

sufficient water and soap for their personal toilet and for

washing their personal laundry; the necessary installations,

facilities and time shall be granted them for that purpose.

The arrival of thousands of migrants at a time, overflowing the border patrol facilities of the Customs and Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Health and Human Services, has created a humanitarian crisis that has resulted in unsafe, unsanitary conditions and tragic deaths.

It is imperative that this House take decisive action to provide the necessary resources and capabilities to mitigate the humanitarian crisis created by this Administration and provide for the basic human rights of everyone involved.

If Congress and the Administration fail to come to an agreement, the situation at the border will only deteriorate.

Cutting funding to these agencies now will not punish the agencies or the Administration: it will punish the migrants.

Congress has an urgent moral responsibility to protect children and families, and defend the health, dignity and lives of those in need.

Conditions at Customs and Border Protection facilities along the border have been an issue of increasing concern as officials warn that the recent large influx of migrant families has driven many of the facilities well past their capacities.

In May, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security warned of ``dangerous overcrowding'' among adult migrants housed at the border processing center in El Paso, with up to 900 migrants being held at a facility designed for 125.

In some cases, cells designed for 35 people were holding 155 people.

This shameful episode in American history is capped by the resignation announced today of John Sanders, the Acting Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection whose tenure at CBP included children being kept at border stations with deplorable conditions, including a facility that one of the independent inspectors, a medical doctor, compared to ``torture facilities.''

This is why it is I strongly support this supplemental funding bill, which provides:

1. $934.5 million for processing facilities, food, water, sanitary items, blankets, medical services, and safe transportation;

2. $866 million to reduce reliance on influx shelters to house children;

3. $200 million for an integrated, multi-agency processing center pilot program for families and unaccompanied children, with participation by non-profit organizations;

4. $100 million for legal services for unaccompanied children, child advocates, and post-release services;

5. $60 million to assist jurisdictions experiencing a significant influx of migrants and non-profit organizations serving those communities;

6. $20 million for Alternatives to Detention;

7. $15 million for the Legal Orientation Program to educate migrants about their rights and legal proceedings; and

8. $9 million to speed up placement of children with sponsors and manage their cases.

In total, Madam Speaker, this legislation provides $4.5 billion in emergency spending to address the humanitarian crisis at the border-- securing robust funding for priorities including legal assistance, food, water, sanitary

items, blankets and medical services, support services for unaccompanied children, and refugee services, which will relieve the horrific situation of over-crowding and help prevent additional deaths.

Equally important, this supplemental protects families and does not fund the Administration's failed mass detention policy.

Instead, the bill smartly provides funding for effective, humane alternatives to detention which has a proven track record of success; places strict limits on influx shelters; protects sponsors from DHS immigration enforcement based on information collected by HHS during the vetting process; and creates strong oversight by Congress.

Madam Speaker, the bill before addresses the roots causes of the crisis by reversing the Administration's senseless decision to block economic assistance that Congress has already appropriated for the Northern Triangle countries.

It is significant that this legislation clarifies the intent of prior year appropriations for Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador which specifically required these governments to take steps to curb migration, improve border security, including preventing human smuggling and trafficking, and trafficking of illicit drugs and other contraband; combat corruption; and support programs to reduce poverty and promote equitable growth, particularly in areas contributing to large number of migrants, among many other conditions.

The bill provides, however, that not less than 75 percent of any funds that cannot be provided to the central governments of such countries due to their failure to meet the certification requirements shall be reprogrammed through nongovernmental organizations or local entities in such countries and that the balance of such reprogramming must be to countries within Latin America and the Caribbean.

Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased that the Manager's Amendment to this humanitarian emergency supplemental appropriations bill includes a provision that I worked very hard to have included and which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit to the Congress a plan for ensuring access to appropriate translation services for all individuals encountered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

It is simply unconscionable to subject refugee child from Honduras or El Salvador or Guatemala to legal proceedings conducted in a language foreign to him or her without the assistance of a translator conversant in that child's native tongue. Also to be able to translate for new desperate migrants from Africa and other nations.

Another reason to support this legislation is that it contains important oversight provisions to hold the administration accountable and to protect the rights and dignity of migrants, including:

No funding for a border wall or barriers, or for ICE detention beds;

Prohibits the use of funds for any purpose not specifically described;

Places strict conditions on influx shelters to house children by mandating compliance with requirements set forth in the Flores settlement;

Protects sponsors and potential sponsors from DHS immigration enforcement based on information collected by HHS during the sponsor vetting process;

Ensures congressional oversight visits to facilities caring for unaccompanied children without a requirement for prior notice;

Requires monthly reporting on unaccompanied children separated from their families;

Requires additional reporting about the deaths of children in government custody; and

Ensures CBP facilities funded in the bill comply with the National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search.

Madam Speaker, since December 2018, six minor children have died in custody after being apprehended by U.S. border agents since December.

We cannot wait any longer to resolve the humanitarian crisis on the southern border exacerbated by this Administration.

That is why I support H.R. 3401, and urge all members to join me in voting to pass this critically needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was very pleased to have had one of my amendments passed in the Financial Services appropriations legislation that really many people are not aware of. That is the utilization of deceased children's Social Security numbers.

Fraudulent individuals add more insult and hurt to those families who have lost their precious children by stealing their Social Security numbers and utilizing them in the public arena. It is important to note that these Social Security numbers are very valuable because, obviously, children have no long record of any credit improprieties or bad credit, and, therefore, it seems as if you have a perfect number to do all manner of havoc and to create a trail of responsibility for these mourning parents and guardians.

So we have asked for an investigation into the use of these Social Security numbers and a method in which to stop these fraudulent individuals from using the Social Security numbers of deceased children, but more importantly, adding to the absolute devastation of these families that their little, precious loved one is now being abused and misused in their death.

I thank my colleague, the Honorable Barbara Lee, who offered the amendment on my behalf on the floor, but I am grateful to the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee appropriations chair, ranking member, and the full committee chair and ranking member. This is an important amendment that will stop these tragic incidences from impacting these mourning families on the loss of their little ones