Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 542, the ``Supporting Research and Development for First Responders Act of 2019.''

H.R. 542 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) within the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate.

The National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) is charged with testing and evaluating emerging technologies and conducting research and development (R&D) to assist emergency response providers in preparing for, and protecting against, threats of terrorism.

The National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) conducts nuclear and radiological R&D in support of response and recovery as well as providing technical advisory services to emergency response professionals.

It is critical that we better understand the technologies and research used to further develop and assist emergency response providers when dealing with threats of terrorism.

This bill will allow the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory to--

1. Conduct tests, evaluations, and assessments of current and emerging technologies.

2. Also, conduct tests regarding cybersecurity of such technologies that can connect to the internet, for emergency response providers;

3. conduct research and development on radiological and nuclear response and recovery;

4. carry out other such activities as the Secretary determines appropriate;

5. act as a technical advisor to emergency response providers.

When enacted, H.R. 542 will create a better understanding of the technical advisory services that are being used to help emergency response professionals.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 542 to further evaluate emerging technologies as well as research radiological and nuclear response and recovery for the emergency response providers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2590, the ``DHS Overseas Personnel Enhancement Act of 2019.''

H.R. 2590 is a continuation of an existing program that requires an overseas personal enhancement plan to be provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

Current law mandates that the Department of Homeland Security have a three-year strategic plan for overseas deployment of DHS personnel (P.L. 114-328 (authored by Chairman Thompson)).

The requirements currently state that DHS must provide Congress with a briefing regarding all DHS personnel with primary duties taking place overseas.

H.R. 2590 will build on the existing Federal DHS mandate by strengthening congressional oversight.

The resolution requires DHS to submit a plan to enhance the effectiveness of the overseas deployment of DHS personnel 90 days after their initial briefing.

The DHS plan will be required to include proposals on how to improve efforts to develop foreign partnership capacity and further the United States' counterterrorism mission.

The plan will also consider possible redeployment in response to evolving threats.

The DHS plan will result in enhanced collaboration and improved communication between DHS personnel at home and abroad.

A version of this bill passed the House 415-0 in the 115th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2590.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in support of H.R. 2609, the ``DHS Acquisition Review Board Act of 2019.'''

This bill would establish the Acquisition Review Board to--

1. strengthen accountability and uniformity within the Department acquisition review process;

2. review major acquisition programs; and

3. review the use of best practices.

The Acquisition Review Board also determines whether best practices are incorporated in proposed acquisition strategies and if the strategies are aligned with Department strategic initiatives.

Last, the Acquisition Review Board oversees the progression of major acquisition programs, confirming that the proposed acquisition has met key phases of the lifecycle framework, and conducting systematic reviews of the acquisition to ensure the program is progressing in compliance with approved documentation.

I stand in support of fairness and transparency through the Acquisition Review Board.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2609 to establish the Acquisition Review Board as chaired by the Under Secretary for Management.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, there is a document that I hold in my hand that covers the epidemic apparently that is taking siege over America. It contains the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

The Declaration of Independence paraphrases we are all created equal with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I am honored to serve in this body and, with honor, walk through the halls and look at the historical depictions of the early years.

Just coming back from D-Day in Normandy, I am reminded of the brave men and, certainly, women who served in the United States military, supporters in World War II, but, in particular, the men who stormed the Normandy beach.

I am reminded, I am sure, of the words of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said: The world is watching, and they will join you in marching to victory.

This Constitution has the Ninth Amendment, the right to privacy. It has the right to freedom of religion and freedom of access and freedom of speech. And all that is being done here today is to acknowledge not only the poor 15-year-old, 13-year-old, and 14-year-old that my good friend from Maryland talked about, but, all over the country, denying poor women access to health services that should really be based upon their faith, their God, their family, and their medical provider.

In some of the bills in Missouri and in some of the bills that are being proposed in Georgia, Alabama, and in my own State of Texas, it is litigation that would get you healthcare. It is no respect of the individual human being, the person, who may have to go back to the antics of yesteryear, dealing with the tactics of coat hangers of which many of us are aware.

Let me also say that underlying in this rule is the opportunity for the force of the authority of the Article I Congress to enforce individuals to come before congressional committees, such as the Committee on the Judiciary, which we will debate later.

It is invested in this Constitution, because of Article I authority and the collegial response that the Founding Fathers wanted us to have, that there are no unequal branches--there is a number one branch--and one branch should not ignore and disrespect the other branch.

Therefore, if Article I branch, which we are in, asks for witnesses and then is blocked by another branch that has no greater status--read the Constitution.

In this rule, we have tried to correct the imbalance and inappropriateness that is occurring in this body and in this process, and so I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation to restore the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to correct a number of statements that have been made on the floor.

First of all, this is not the end. Director Mueller made this the beginning. When he concluded the report, he left a very large direction to the United States Congress. He recognized that he could not follow up because of policies at the DOJ regarding indictment in the process of the administration.

So the Congress, in its due diligence, took the responsibility not to target anyone, but to simply uphold the rule of law. In upholding the rule of law, we had an empty seat by Attorney General Barr, an empty seat by Mr. McGahn, an empty seat by Ms. Hicks, Ms. Donaldson, and we hope not an empty seat of the author of the report.

So all this resolution does is authorize the committee to seek civil enforcement of its subpoenas against Attorney General Barr, requiring him to provide Congress with the key evidence underlying the Mueller report as well as the unredacted report itself, and former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn, requiring him to provide documents and appear for testimony.

He is not covered by executive privilege. In fact, executive privilege does not cover--his duty is to the White House Office of the General Counsel, or the White House counsel's office, not to the individual officeholder, the President. He has personal lawyers.

And we didn't break the law. 6(e), which is grand jury materials, our committee diligently said let's work with the Department of Justice, go to court, and decide what we can see.

We are simply following this little book that many have died for, and that is the Constitution of the United States, and those words in the Declaration of Independence that said we all are created equal, with certain unalienable rights of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The American people would not want a Congress that turned its back on, frankly, the rule of law.

For those of us who had the special privilege of going to Normandy this past week, we got a great sense of pride, of the courage of Americans, the bravery of those young men, and all I could think of is how important it is to all of us to adhere to those wonderful principles.

So, again, there is no targeting here. This is not a way to do policy or legislation. We can fight that battle on the floor of the House.

But if you read those volumes and end it in the last pages of Volume 2, you know that Director Mueller asked us to finish the task of looking into elements that he did not or could not and the underlying issues.

Let me also say, as we do that, we do it forthrightly because, in 2020, we want to make sure that every American has the right to vote and every American is not undermined by a foreign operative interfering and taking the election away from you.

I support the resolution. We must stand for the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 430, authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas and for other purposes.

It is an honor to serve in this body.

We are the successors and heirs to an august freedom earned centuries ago, expanded for successive groups and defended through the blood, sweat and tears of the nation's fighting forces.

It is this debt that took me to the beaches of Normandy to pay my respects on the 75th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion.

We are heirs to this legacy, and we are heirs to this ingenious system of separation of powers.

The system they laid down presumes equality of power among the branches.

As custodians of Article I, we have a duty to ensure the rigors of the Constitution are upheld.

This includes that when the Second Branch, Article II, flouts the investigative prerogatives of the Congress, there must be recourse and accountability.

As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have to say that it is regrettable that we are here.

This is because a hallmark of our constitutional republic is that no person is above the law.

Congressional oversight has been the tradition going back to the first years of our republic.

And the congressional prerogative of oversight has been a tool in the Article I arsenal as a way of asserting our power and protecting against the worst excesses of an executive.

This comports with the founding of our government, which sought to prevent the concentration of power in an autocratic executive, which was anathema to the Founders.

Which is why the events of the last many months have been so confounding.

The decision by this executive to flout all lawfully authorized subpoenas has been unprecedented.

This dispute between the political branches should work itself out, but because of this presidential obstinacy, we are in this predicament, which is why we must pass this H. Res 430, Authorizing Subpoena Enforcement Litigation.

This Resolution, H. Res. 430, builds on the House Judiciary Committee's contempt finding against Attorney General Barr.

The resolution authorizes the Committee to seek civil enforcement of its subpoenas against: (i) Attorney General Barr requiring him to provide Congress with the key evidence underlying the Mueller Report as well as the unredacted report itself; and (ii) former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn, II requiring him to provide documents and appear for testimony.

The resolution further affirms that all committee chairs, when authorized by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, retain the ability to seek civil enforcement of their own subpoenas.

The resolution adds that when committees proceed to court, they have any and all necessary authority under Article I of the Constitution, ensuring that they have the maximum range of legal authority available to them.

For example, on other key issues--such as the Department of Justice defying a subpoena to produce counter-intelligence documents relating to Russia's interference with the 2016 election, or the Commerce Department defying a subpoena to produce documents relating to the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census--the committees can enforce these subpoenas without a floor vote.

This resolution ensures the House can conduct meaningful oversight on issues critical to Americans' lives while continuing to deliver on pocketbook issues.

The President's disregard for congressional oversight allows the Administration to cover-up his many disastrous policy decisions such as: attacking affordable healthcare coverage for millions of Americans including those with pre-existing conditions, tearing apart vulnerable immigrant families, misappropriating military funds for his ill- conceived border wall, and rolling back landmark civil rights protections for minorities.

The information subpoenaed by various congressional committees, including documents and testimony, is information to which Congress is constitutionally entitled and that past Administrations have routinely provided.

President Trump has prevented fact witnesses referenced in the Mueller Report from testifying or providing documents to Congress.

This is despite the fact that the Report detailed the Russian government's sustained attacks on our elections; over 170 contacts between President Trump's campaign and associates and agents of the Russian government; as well as numerous efforts by President Trump to impede or thwart House investigations scrutinizing his own conduct and that of his Administration.

In keeping with the President's sweeping public refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas, the White House and the Administration are fighting to keep the truth from the American people.

This resolution ensures we can conduct oversight on issues that are critical to Americans' lives while continuing to deliver on pocketbook issues.

The information subpoenaed by various congressional committees, including documents and testimony, is information Congress is constitutionally entitled to and which past Administrations have routinely provided.

Congress not only is constitutionally entitled to the underlying evidence in the Special Counsel's Report and key fact witness testimony, it requires this information so that it can fulfill its legislative, oversight, and other constitutional responsibilities.

This resolution follows past precedent used by Democratic and Republican Majorities while reinforcing an important principle in the House Rules.

This Administration's disregard for the legislative and judicial branches has reached a tipping point.

Despite representing a coequal branch of government, this Administration is flagrantly disregarding the role Congress and the Judiciary must play in our democratic system.

Mr. Speaker, the foregoing has been the basis for this Resolution.

It was my hope that this was not needed.

But the President has proven me wrong, which is why this Resolution is needed.

I urge passage of the Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3151, the ``Taxpayer First Act of 2019.''

H.R. 3151 aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue Service, and for other provisions.

The bill would create an independent means for taxpayers to appeal actions of the IRS, limits the capacity of private debt collectors to target low-income citizens, allows taxpayers to request an identification protection PIN number to protect themselves from identity theft, and creates a single point of contact so that taxpayer conversations with IRS agents can be documented and tracked.

It is critical that we amend the Internal Revenue Code because we have a duty to our constituents to improve their contact with the Internal Revenue Service concerning appeals, identification protection, and financial inequity.

This legislation also codifies the popular Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program and authorizes $30 million in matching grants for the program.

When enacted, H.R. 3151 will create a better framework for the Internal Revenue Service which will in turn ensure that American taxpayers are at the forefront of our agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3151 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 bringing it into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2476, the ``Securing American Non-Profit Organizations Against Terrorism Act of 2019.''

H.R. 2476 reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security's Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP).

The bill would fund the NSGP at $75 million through fiscal year 2024; where $50 million would be reserved for nonprofit institutions located within UASI jurisdictions, and $25 million would be reserved for nonprofit institutions located outside of UASI jurisdictions.

This bill is caused by the recent increase in violence and threats of violence against nonprofit institutions.

Examples of such violence against nonprofit organizations include:

April 27--attack on the Poway synagogue that killed 11 April 21--a coordinated terrorist attack on churches and hotels in Sri Lanka that killed nearly 250 people and injured more than 500 people.

March 15--the deadly New Zealand mosque shootings, where 5o people were killed.

It is critical that we better understand the seriousness of such violent crimes as they impact not only the victims, but also their families, communities, and the generations of people to come.

This bill will allow the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to--Target activities, including physical security enhancement equipment, inspection and the screening systems.

Pay for security training relating to physical security and cybersecurity, target hardening, terrorism awareness, and employee awareness.

Along with, any other appropriate activity, including cybersecurity resilience activities, as determined by the Administrator.

When enacted, H.R. 2476 will create a better understanding on how we can manage and prevent terrorist acts towards non-profit organizations by targeting activities and increasing security training.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2476 to confront such violence against nonprofit institutions, which pose as a strong threat to the citizens of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1158, ``DHS Cyber Incident Response Teams Act of 2019.''

H.R. 1158 codifies DHS' National Cybersecurity and Communications Coordination Center (NCCIC) Hunt and Incident Response Teams which the Department currently deploys to provide intrusion analysis, identify malicious actors, analyze malicious tools, and provide mitigation assistance to entities requesting assistance after a cybersecurity incident.

H.R. 1158 also requires the NCCIC to submit information to Congress regarding metrics for the teams, at the end of the first four years after enactment.

In 2017, a malware named NotPetya was released from the hacked servers of a Ukrainian software firm servicing a management program used by some of world's largest corporations, causing an estimated $10 billion in damage.

When this bill passes, it will assess and mitigate situations of cyberterrorism that undermine our nation's security and civil liberties such as our national elections.

Cyber threats are becoming more sophisticated every day.

Due to the vulnerability of corporations' operations, we need extensive measures to identify, analyze, and alleviate threats of cyberattacks.

Affected asset owners and operators will receive critical information to improve their overall network and control systems security to lower cybersecurity risks, and other recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1158 to protect our nation from malicious attempts of cyberterrorism that strategically weaken our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2083, the ``Homeland Procurement Reform Act.''

H.R. 2083 would reform the . way the Department of Homeland Security procures uniforms and items related to national security interests.

This bill seeks to encourage the procurement of domestically sourced uniform items to ensure higher-quality uniforms and equipment are issued to the Department.

Specifically, this bill would allocate that no less than one-third of the funds obligated for uniforms and protective equipment are used for items that are manufactured in part or provided in the United States by entities that qualify as a U.S. small business.

Additionally, H.R. 2083 will ensure that uniforms and protective equipment are purchased at fair and reasonable prices, and that uniform allowances provided to Department frontline personnel are adequate.

Last, the bill mandates that suppliers--

store such covered item in a locked area;

report any pilferage or theft of such covered item occurring at any stage before delivery of such covered item; and

destroy any defective or unusable covered item bearing official DHS insignia not manufactured in the US.

I stand to support this bill that will bring more opportunities for American small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2083 to reform the way the Department of Homeland Security procures uniforms and items related to national security interests.

Madam Speaker, tomorrow, June 6, marks the 75th anniversary of Allied Forces' audacious amphibious landing at Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944.

This joint undertaking to liberate the continent of Europe from the clutches of an evil aggressor enemy was the first and most emphatic demonstration of the invincible strength of democratic nations when acting collectively.

For nearly seventy years, from April 4, 1949 to January 20, 2017, peace in Europe has been secured and no adversary, not the old Soviet Union or the contemporary Russian Federation, has dared to risk war by attacking a European ally of the United States because every American president has made clear that the United States is committed to Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty which holds that an attack on any NATO member is regarded as an attack on all of them.

Madam Speaker, ``Operation Overlord,'' as D-Day was formally known, was the largest single amphibious assault in the history of warfare.

The success of D-Day, which was far from certain at the outset, led to the liberation of Western Europe, signaled the death knell of the German Wehrmacht, and paved the way to unconditional victory by the Allied Forces over the evils of Nazism, fascism, and Japanese imperialism.

It is no exaggeration to say that D-Day changed the course of human history.

The aim of the meticulously planned D-Day operation was to open a second front in the European war theater from which the Allied Forces could attack the German army and push east to capture Berlin.

With the Russian Army advancing from the east, coupled with the southern front opened by the Allied invasion of Italy from North Africa in 1942, the opening of a western front would set in motion the pincer movement that would catch the German Army in a trap from which there would be no escape.

The formidable German Army expected that the Allied Forces would try to launch an invasion from the western beaches of France.

They just did not know when or where.

So, in anticipation of an Allied invasion, the Nazis constructed the infamous Atlantic Wall, an extensive system of coastal fortifications built along the western coast of Europe and Scandinavia.

Under the direction of Field Marshal Rommel, the Atlantic Wall was reinforced by the addition of concrete pillboxes built along the beaches to house machine guns, antitank guns and light artillery.

Mines and antitank obstacles were planted on the beaches themselves and underwater obstacles and mines were placed in waters just off shore.

By the time of the D-Day landing, the Nazis had laid almost six million mines in northern France.

And awaiting Allied soldiers who made their way onto and away from the beaches were gun emplacements and minefields extended inland.

``War is hell,'' said General William Tecumseh Sherman during the Civil War.

And that is an apt description of what awaited the brave Allied warriors who set sail from England to the beaches of Normandy in the early morning of June 6, 1944, at the beginning of what has rightly been called ``The Longest Day.''

But they were buoyed in their resolve by the millions of prayers from Americans and others back home, of all races, religions, and creeds, invoking the Lord's blessing, mercy, and grace.

With the outcome in doubt, President Franklin Roosevelt asked the nation to join him in this solemn prayer:

``Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day

have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our

Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free

a suffering humanity.

``Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms,

stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

``They will need Thy blessings.

``For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace.

``They fight not for the lust of conquest.

``They fight to end conquest.

``They fight to liberate.

``They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and

goodwill among all Thy people.

``They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to

the haven of home.''

The prayers were needed because the cost of D-Day was high; U.S. casualties on D-Day totaled more than 2,499 dead, 3,184 wounded, 1,928 missing, and 26 captured.

Our British and Canadian allies suffered terrible losses on D-Day as well: approximately 2,700 for the British and 946 for the Canadians.

German casualties are estimated at 4,000 to 9,000.

In total, the number of combatants killed, wounded or missing in the Battle of Normandy for both sides exceeded 425,000, not including the estimated 15,000 to 20,000 French civilians killed.

But the operation was a success .

More than 156,000 troops or paratroopers came ashore on D-Day, 73,000 from the U.S., 83,000 from Great Britain and Canada.

By the end of June 11, D-Day +5, 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies had come ashore.

And with them came the seeds for the victory in Europe that would come less than a year later, on May 8, 1945, with the fall of Berlin and the unconditional surrender of the Nazis.

On the eve of the Normandy invasion, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, addressed the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces and said to them that they were about to embark upon a ``Great Crusade,'' and that the ``eyes of the world'' were upon them.

He told them that their task would not be easy because the ``enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.''

But, General Eisenhower said, ``this is the year 1944. The tide has turned. The free men of the world are marching together to victory.''

And march to victory they did, fully justifying General Eisenhower's ``confidence in their courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle.''

Because of the heroism of these men who willingly risked their lives to be the tip of the spear of liberty, the war was won, and a world was saved for freedom.

Madam Speaker, D-Day was, and remains, a day like no other in the history of man's sojourn on earth.

We remember Gettysburg.

There, President Lincoln paid tribute to those ``who gave their lives so that the nation might live.''

It is equally fitting and proper that we never forget D-Day and that we continue to honor those who risked all and gave all so that the light of freedom would never be extinguished in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 988, the ``National Estuaries and Acidification Research Act of 2019.''

H.R. 988 provides a study by the Ocean Studies Board of the National Academies of Science examining the impact of ocean acidification and other stressors in estuarine environments.

The bill would authorize the appropriation of $1 million for a report, to be completed in two years, that examines the challenges to studying ocean acidification, provides recommendations for improving future research, and identifies ways to apply science while mitigating and managing ocean acidification in estuarine environments.

Ocean acidification occurs when there are changes in ocean water chemistry from the absorption of excess carbon dioxide, but the current understanding of ocean acidification impacts on estuarine ecosystems is inadequate to fully prepare and manage for changing environmental conditions in nearshore locations.

It is critical that we better understand the interaction of multiple stressors, including salinity, pH, temperature, sea level rise, and nutrient input, within estuarine ecosystems so that the health, economic, recreational, and environmental impacts driven by these interactions can be effectively managed.

This bill will allow the Ocean Studies Board of the National Academies to conduct a study that--examines the existing science of ocean acidification in estuarine environments; examines the challenges to studying ocean acidification and ocean acidification's interactions with other environment stressors in estuarine environments; provides recommendations for improving future research with respect to ocean acidification in estuarine environments; and identifies pathways for applying science in management and mitigation decisions relating to ocean acidification in estuarine environments.

Through transportation, recreation, tourism, and other port activities, healthy estuaries are critical to the economy of coastal communities and contribute $320 billion to our nation's GDP.

In addition, estuaries filter sediments and pollutants out before river water reaches the ocean and provide habitat for more than 75 percent of commercially caught fish in the United States.

When enacted, H.R. 988 will create a better understanding of coastal acidification, so we can better manage and mitigate its effects on our nation's estuaries and other natural treasures.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 988 to confront ocean acidification, which poses a strong threat to the estuaries that America's coastal residents depend on for nutrition, employment, and recreation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 393, a resolution ``Remembering the victims of Tiananmen Square.''

H. Res. 393 remembers the victims of the violent suppression of democracy protests in Tiananmen Square and elsewhere in China on June 3 and 4, 1989 and calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China to respect the universally recognized human rights of all people living in China and around the world.

On June 4, 1989, a violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrations held in and around Beijing's Tiananmen Square was carried out by the People's Liberation Army, following orders given by the Government of the People's Republic of China.

An estimated 1,000,000 people joined the protests in Tiananmen Square and citizens in over 400 Chinese cities staged similar protests calling for democratic reform, including not only students, but also government employees, journalists, workers, police officers, members of the armed forces, and other citizens.

These peaceful demonstrations of 1989 called upon the Government of the People's

Republic of China to eliminate corruption, accelerate economic and political reform, and protect human rights, particularly the freedoms of expression and assembly, issues that remain relevant in United States-China relations 30 years later.

Although these activists' reform efforts continue to inspire the Chinese people, the Government of the People's Republic of China takes active measures to deny its citizens the truth about the Tiananmen Square massacre, including the blocking of uncensored internet sites and social media commentary on microblog and other messaging services, and the placement of misleading information on the events of June 3 and 4, 1989, on internet sites available in China.

The Chinese government also continues to silence the voices and memory of these activists through gruesome attacks on demonstrators who recognize the false information being spread by the Chinese Government.

On May 20, 1989, martial law was declared in Beijing, China, after authorities had failed to persuade demonstrators to leave Tiananmen Square, sending thousands of armed troops, supported by tanks and other armor, moved into Beijing and the surrounding streets where the forces fired into crowds of unarmed civilians.

The ``Remembering the victims of Tiananmen Square'' Act promises to do this by expressing sympathy and solidarity to the families of those killed, tortured, and imprisoned for their participation in the pro- democracy demonstrations during the spring of 1989 in Beijing and in other cities across the People's Republic of China and verbally supporting the leaders of the Tiananmen demonstrations and all those who peacefully sought political reform, democratic transparency, the rule of law, and protections for universally recognized human rights in China.

The resolution also renounces the practices of the Chinese government's actions during and after the Tiananmen Square Protest and calls on the government to take responsibility for the number of deaths that occurred during the violent suppression of the spring 1989 Tiananmen demonstrations, rehabilitate the reputations of those who participated in the demonstrations and those detained for seeking to commemorate the anniversary of the demonstrations, and cease the censoring of information and discussion about the Tiananmen Square massacre, including at Confucius Institutes worldwide.

Through these actions, H.R. 393 promises to adequately relay the United States' disappointment with the violence towards Tiananmen demonstrators and aid the advocates and protestors in their quest for protected human rights.

The Government of the People's Republic of China continues to actively suppress universally recognized rights by imprisoning or restricting the activities of pro-democracy activists, human rights lawyers, citizen journalists, labor union leaders, religious believers, members of ethnic minorities, and individuals in the Xinjiang and Tibetan regions, among many others who seek to express their political or religious views or their ethnic identity in a peaceful manner.

Despite persistent, ongoing, and sometimes brutal repression, the desire of Chinese citizens to risk life, limb, and liberty to exercise universally recognized human rights, ensure the rule of law, and promote political reform cannot be extinguished, thus the legacy of Tiananmen Square lives on.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the underlying bill and the rule that is presently before us.

As I do so, let me thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee. We have served for any number of years, and Congresswoman Lofgren has been on the front lines of reason and trying to address the question of comprehensive immigration reform.

Together, respectively, and parallel to each other, we have introduced, over and over again, comprehensive immigration reform. We have watched it be refuted and rebutted by those who really could have helped us solve even the problem of the surge that we are seeing crossing the border today.

Let me, as well, thank Madam Speaker, who has been engaged in a very important way, and my friend and colleague Lucille Roybal-Allard, who has clearly been leading on this issue and many others. Let me thank the Judiciary Committee as well, where we came together as a team.

Let me reinforce what has been said over and over again, and that is that Dreamers are Americans. Those who

are beneficiaries of TPS, they have been here 20 to 30 years because of the difficulty of their home countries. They have, likewise, shown themselves to love this country.

There was a period of time when Dreamers had joined in and went to the Iraq war. They were not citizens, but they went there because they loved this country so much. They came as a child, and they realized the wonderment of this country.

It is important to convince those who believe that we are opening the doors and that we are reckless. Let me be very clear. Besides the Immigration and Nationality Act that is already in existence, there are very clear parameters on dealing with people who are felons or a threat to national security, individuals who have committed DUIs, those who have misdemeanors. There are clear parameters of ensuring that the Nation is protected. But, as well, there is dignity and human rights.

There is also the question of what investment in dollars you will lose, what you will throw away, $460 billion from the national GDP over the decade from 685,000 workers--in my own State, $8 billion annually in the State GDP.

Immigrants are in the fabric of our society. We are immigrant and nonimmigrant. All of us have come from that history. Mine is different, having been brought here by, meaning those who are of African American heritage, as slaves.

386,300 immigrants are eligible under the American Dream and Promise Act, and 120,000 live in Harris County.

But this is the story that I want to tell and dwell on. A Dreamer died trying to rescue Hurricane Harvey victims. That is Alonso Guillen, who came to help those in the darkest moments of our region, during Hurricane Harvey, the greatest and most significant disaster.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesy.

He came from Lufkin, Texas. He loved Texas football and country music. He had fundraisers for any manner of needs in his area.

When he saw the devastation and the people in water in Harris County, and we were in 51 trillion gallons of water, he came, with a little boat and a friend. He didn't ask whether they were immigrant or nonimmigrant, Dreamer or non-Dreamer, what their background was. As they were in the water, as they were on their rooftops, as they were desperate without food, he came.

Tragically, his family had come to, ultimately, find him floating in the water, when his boat had toppled and, we believe, had been impacted by the wires in the water.

This is the face of Dreamers. This is the face of those who would benefit from temporary protective status coming from Nepal, from El Salvador, and from countries that are under major devastation.

Many times, there is crime in America, and I understand that. But people don't imagine what it is to flee from the natural disasters that these individuals have fled from, to have no relief from the government, and to compound that with the violence that is going on, knowing so much violence.

I stand here today to ask for rational thought. With a multitude of organizations, I want to raise up one, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It doesn't come lightly to this question. I would argue that, had we passed comprehensive immigration reform 10 years ago, 15 years ago, the question of surging across the border would not be an issue.

Let me also be clear that we have built barriers across the border for more than a decade. I remember giving huge sums of money to ensure it, in certain spaces.

What we are saying now is that that is not a sole solution. The solution is regularizing individuals with the safeguards of this legislation.

I would hope my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, as Americans, understand that this Nation was built with the sweat and tears and love of immigrants. Every American, except Native Americans, can point to coming from somewhere else, no matter what condition they were in when they came.

I ask our colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 6, because it is the American thing to do.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, and a representative of a state on the southern border, I rise in strong support of the rule governing debate of H.R. 6, the ``American Dream and Promise Act of 2019,'' and the underlying legislation.

The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 establishes a roadmap to U.S. citizenship for (1) immigrant youth and (2) current or potential holders of (a) temporary protected status (TPS) or (b) deferred enforced departure (DED).

Ensuring a path to earned citizenship is a non-negotiable principle for me and the sine qua non of meaningful immigration reform legislation.

Indeed, providing a path to earned access to citizenship has been a central feature of every comprehensive immigration reform bill I have co-sponsored or sponsored in the Congress since 2007 when I became Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and introduced the ``Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, (H.R. 1525),'' which I have reintroduced in each succeeding Congress.

Like H.R. 6, Section 501 of my legislation provides a path to earned legalization status to those undocumented immigrants who have resided in the United States for 5 years and meet other eligibility requirements.

Madam Speaker, as we stand today on the precipice of passing the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, I am thinking of the hundreds of thousands of young immigrants whose lives will be changed for the better by keeping our promise to them, so they can realize their dreams and making America better, stronger, and more prosperous.

And at this moment, I am thinking of Alonso Guillen, an heroic DREAMER who lived in my congressional district, and who came to the United States from Mexico as a child and died when his boat capsized while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area.

That is the type of courage, honor, and commitment to service we are talking when we speak of DREAMERS.

Madam Speaker, Title I of H.R. 6, the Dream Act of 2019, contains provisions regarding relief for immigrant youth.

Title II of the bill, American Promise Act of 2019, contains provisions related to persons eligible Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or Deferred Enforcement Departure; the third and final title contains general provisions that apply to both Titles I & II).

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 6 because it keeps America's word to the more than 800,000 young people we asked to come out of the shadows and walk proudly and unashamedly as legitimate members of the American community.

The legislation does this by providing conditional permanent resident (CPR) status and a roadmap to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and, eventually, earned U.S. citizenship for immigrant youth who entered the U.S. before age 18, have four or more years of residency, and graduated from high school (or the equivalent).

H.R. 6 also provides an opportunity to apply for LPR status for people who currently have or who may be eligible for TPS or DED and who have three or more years of residency.

Madam Speaker, individuals who are eligible for protection under the bill have lived in the United States for much of their lives; the average Dreamer came to the United States at the age of 8, while the average TPS- or DED-eligible person arrived in 1997.

Without permanent protections such as those in H.R. 6, these immigrants' and their families' futures in the United States--as well as the fiscal and economic contributions they make--are at risk.

Passing this legislation is the right thing to do and now is the time to do it; in fact, it is long overdue.

I am mindful also Madam Speaker that in addition to helping restore America's reputation as the most welcoming nation on earth, the legislation the House will pass also positions America to better compete and win in the global economy of the 21st century.

According to expert studies, including one by the Center for American Progress, ending deferred action for childhood arrivals would result in a loss of $460.3 billion from the national GDP over the ensuing decade and would remove an estimated 685,000 workers from the nation's economy and workforce at a time when more, not fewer, workers are desperately needed.

And 10 states, including my home state of Texas, would stand to lose more than $8 billion annually in state GDP.

Madam Speaker, immigrants eligible for protection under H.R. 6 are part of Texas's social fabric.

Texas is home to 386,300 immigrants who are eligible for protection under the Dream

and Promise Act, 112,000 of whom reside in Harris County.

These individuals live with 845,300 family members and among those family members, 178,700 are U.S.-born citizen children.

Dreamers in Texas who are eligible for protection under the bill arrived in the United States at the average age of 8.

TPS- and DED-eligible immigrants in Texas who would be eligible for protection under H.R. 6 have on average lived in the United States since 1996.

Immigrants eligible for the Dream and Promise Act own 43,500 homes in Texas and pay $340,500,000 in annual mortgage payments.

Eligible immigrants in Texas and their households contribute $2,234,800,000 in federal taxes and $1,265,200,000 in state and local taxes each year.

Annually, these households generate $10,519,000,000 in spending power in Texas and help power the national economy.

Madam Speaker, during general debate on H.R. 6, I will have more to discuss about the salient features of this long overdue legislation that fulfills the American promise that all of its residents who share our values and respect for the Constitution and laws have an opportunity to realize their dreams.

But in the limited time I have now, let me highlight some of the more important provisions of the American Dream and Promise Act.

H.R. 6 helps young persons in the following ways:

1. Extends the length of conditional permanent resident (CPR) status from eight to ten years to give applicants more time to fulfill requirements;

2. Stays the removal of minors who are not yet eligible for relief but may become eligible in the future and who temporarily unenroll from school;

3. Permits people with CPR to obtain legal permanent resident (LPR) status without satisfying the employment, military, or educational tracks if their deportation would cause ``hardship'' to themselves or immediate family members (instead of ``extreme hardship'');

4. Includes apprenticeship programs as a qualifying education to obtain CPR status;

5. Eliminates the costly medical examination for applicants;

6. Establishes a fee ceiling of $495 for immigrant youth applying for CPR status;

7. Clarifies that people with CPR can access professional, commercial, and business licenses;

8. Permits people with CPR who obtain a certificate or credential from an area career and technical education school to obtain LPR status; and

9. Updates the criminal background bars and inadmissibility requirements.

Additionally, H.R. 6 provides LPR status to CPR holders who (1) serve in the uniformed services for two years; (2) complete two years at or obtain a degree from an institution of higher education; or (3) work 75 percent of the time in CPR.

Another important feature of this legislation is that makes it easier for states to provide in-state tuition to immigrant students and establishes that CPR-holders are eligible for federal loans, work study, services, and grants.

For persons with TPS or DED status, the American Dream and Promise Act provides much needed relief.

First, H.R. 6 provides LPR status for people with TPS or DED (and those who were eligible but did not apply) who apply within three years from the date of enactment if they (1) had at least three years of continuous residence (as well as residence since the date required the last time that the person's nation of origin was designated) and (2) were eligible for or had (a) TPS on September 25, 2016, or (b) DED on September 28, 2016.

This protection covers national of 13 countries: El Salvador, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

I believe similar protections should be extended to Guatemalan nationals in our country, which is why I will soon reintroduce the ``Continue American Safety Act,'' which extends TPS status to Guatemala and I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve this outcome.

Second, H.R. 6 classifies people with TPS or DED as inspected and admitted for the purposes of Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) section 245(a), making it easier to obtain LPR status through existing channels (e.g., a family-based petition).

Third, H.R. 6 stays the removal or deportation of an a individual while an application is pending.

Fourth, the American Dream and Promise Act establishes a fee ceiling of $1,140 for people with TPS or DED applying for LPR status.

Fifth, the legislation provides greater transparency by requiring the Secretary of the Homeland Security (DHS) to provide an explanation for and report within three days of publishing notice to terminate TPS designation for certain nationals.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 is exceptional legislation and a welcome development but is not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive reform and modernization of the nation's immigration laws supported by the American people.

Only Congress can do that and passage of H.R. 6 shows that this House has the will and is up to the challenge.

Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that secures our borders and protects our homeland.

Madam Speaker, let us build on the historic legislation that is the American Dream and Promise Act and seize the opportunity to pass legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth.

I urge all Members to support the rule governing debate of H.R. 6 and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1379, the ``Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2019'' (PAHPAI), which increases our essential efforts to ensure the United States is prepared to respond to national disasters and crises.

After the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the preceding anthrax attacks, Congress recognized that the United

States was underprepared to respond to public health emergencies and national disasters and passed the original Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, Pub. L. 109-417 to address this weakness.

PAHPAI was reauthorized in 2013, but in recent years, the threats to our country have changed, and PAHPAI must be updated to ensure that we are prepared to respond to increasing natural disasters, emerging infectious diseases, and chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks.

S. 1379 has been adapted to meet the mounting challenges that face us today and those that will face our children tomorrow.

As a biodefense bill, PAHPAI will further protect our country from internal and external terrorists.

As a health care response bill, PAHPAI creates and ensures coordinated healthcare efforts in the face of natural disasters such as hurricanes.

This bill also addresses the nation's need for pandemic preparedness.

Texas has experienced pandemics first hand--with the first diagnosed case of Ebola in the United States in 2014.

Thomas Eric Duncan after traveling from Africa to visit family members in Dallas, Texas became ill.

He went to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas for care but was not admitted after presenting with a 103-degree temperature, and Ebola symptoms.

At the time the CDC had alerted all doctors, hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies with alerts to screen all patients for Ebola symptoms.

Mr. Duncan's Ebola symptoms worsened over the days following his visit to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, and he returned by ambulance to the hospital and only then was he finally admitted for treatment.

By that time his condition had worsened, and Mr. Duncan died from Ebola.

His death was a tragedy and the two nurses who were infected while trying to care for him are heroes.

Two years later, in 2016, the Zika Virus pandemic reached Texas carried by mosquitoes.

This disease attacked babies while developing in their mother's womb, which destroyed brain tissue, resulting in severe brain and cranial deformities.

Houston, Texas, has a tropical climate with many climatic similarities with other states along the Gulf Coast, parts of Central and South America as well as the Caribbean. Tropical climates are hospitable to mosquitoes that carry the Zika Virus.

I have shared concerns among Federal, state, and local agency officials regarding a need to have a plan to address future pandemics our nation may face.

This bill will pave the way for much needed work in pandemic preparedness.

PAHPAI will ensure that more health care professionals can be hired and trained to prioritize vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

To incentivize and protect practitioners, this bill will also provide health care professionals who volunteer after natural disasters with liability coverage.

To support disaster workers and devastated communities, PAHPAI will also ensure the availability of health care supplies by stocking the Strategic National Stockpiles, located across the United States, with vaccines, gloves, masks, and more.

PAHPAI also renews and increases funding to the BioShield Special Reserve Fund and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which is invaluable to our response capabilities.

S. 1379 is essential to ensuring that the United States is prepared to provide quality care to those in need after devastating events.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 1379 to establish and strengthen the nation's emergency preparedness in the face of health crises and national disasters.

I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I acknowledge all the dynamic leadership that has generated where we are today, including all the sponsors whose names I recognized earlier and, of course, the magnificent persons who have met with us over and over again, who met with me. I remember the roundtable that I had of Dreamers in Houston, and their stories are powerful.

Let me say to my bipartisan friends, friends from Texas, let us work together. One gentleman was up speaking about the need for Border Patrol and CBP. As someone who has introduced comprehensive immigration reform, as a former ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's Immigration Subcommittee, I can tell you that we are ready to work. That work, of course, is done in the Homeland Security Committee.

Let's fund and write the legislation for our leader there, Chairman Thompson, to be able to provide the resources that CBP is asking for, which the administration is not giving to them, and that is more staff, more health facilities, better physical plants, and more judges to help with the asylum cases.

I am ready to work. Today, we have a job to do. We have a job to do for the 386,300 immigrants who are eligible in my State, the same State that my colleagues represent.

These individuals live with 845,300 family members. Interestingly, they provide some $340 million in mortgage payments, $2 trillion in Federal taxes, and $1 trillion in State and local taxes. We are looking at people who are working. Let me also indicate that the economic opportunities for these individuals are enormous.

One thing I want to indicate is that it is not DACA that is driving people. The surge is being driven by the violence in El Salvador and other places, not by DACA. It is also being driven by wrong-headed State legislators or State officials like the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, who threatened a lawsuit, which he did, if they didn't stop