Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, my amendment preserves the trust and integrity between probation officers and supervisees while ensuring public safety. While I understand the intended goal in the underlying bill, there are some unique concerns that it raises, and my amendment addresses and will, I believe, provide additional information. My amendment calls for a comprehensive study by the GAO of the newly granted authority to determine the impact on probationers, supervisees, third parties, and the overall probation practice, if that authority is so granted by the vote of this body. This study shall sunset at 30 months after the effective date of this act. These are concerns that we should all have if we want to ensure that this bill works and reaches its intended purpose, if it is voted on by my colleagues and passes. In allowing the study, we will ascertain information that we otherwise would not have but would have learned had we proceeded with a hearing on this bill. This amendment will focus on the bill's impact in application. The study will first review instances of abuse of power in the exercise of such arrest authority. Second, it will document any complaints made and/or filed regarding the exercise of the probationer's arrest authority of third parties. Third, it will study any harm resulting from the exercise of such arrest authority, including any civil action alleging the violation of a civil right in the exercise of this expanded authority. I am confident that my colleagues would agree that public safety is paramount, the safety of the probation officer is paramount, the safety of those who are in the immediate custody of the probationer, and, of course, those other individuals. We want this to be a sound policy, so implementing sound policies will foster trust and, thereby, public safety. I want to thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Jackson Lee amendment. While I understand the intended goal in the underline bill, there are some unique concerns that it raises and my amendment addresses and will fix those concerns. My amendment calls for a comprehensive study by GAO of the newly granted authority, to determine its impact on probationers, supervisees, third parties and the overall probation practice. This study shall sunset at 30 months after the effective date of this act. These are concerns we should all have if we want to ensure that this bill works and reaches its intended purpose effectively. In allowing the study, we will ascertain information that we otherwise, do not have but would have learned had we proceeded with a hearing on this bill. This amendment will focus on the bill's impact in application. The study will first review instances of any abuse of power in the exercise of such arrest authority. Second, it will document any complaints made and/or filed regarding the exercise of probation officer arrest authority of third parties. Third, it will study any harm resulting from the exercise of such arrest authority, including any civil action alleging the violation of a civil right in the exercise of this expanded authority. I am confident that my colleagues would agree that public safety is paramount and that we should do everything we can to ensure that we are implementing sound policies that will foster trust and thereby, public safety. The Rules Committee saw it fitting to rule my amendment in order, and now I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I believe this amendment is a very important amendment, and I believe that it provides the kind of guidance that is necessary because it is a clear ascertaining of the impact. Remember, we are talking about possible constitutional ramifications. Unreasonable search and seizure. We are talking about not having assaults against police officers. There is a law that will already provide for that protection, as well as the fact that probation officers who are not police officers can, in fact, have the ability of law enforcement backup or support. In addition, we realize that there is a greater burden on law enforcement officers in an arrest situation. That burden is not on the probation officer because they are not a law enforcement officer. It is important for this study to be enacted so that we have the facts. Do we not, as legislators, want to have the facts regarding the Constitution and the impact it may have? So I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. It is, in fact, not an amendment that negates, if this bill passes, the acts of the probation officer. But what it does do is study whether there is an enhanced impact and whether grandmother, mother, a little child, an aunt, or an uncle, in the sanctity of their home, are unreasonably detained or arrested. We as Americans should at least be concerned about the rights of our fellow citizens and be able to respect them in their home. A probation officer has the right to call in a law enforcement officer if the actions of the home, or wherever that individual happens to be, gets in a way that interferes with his or her ability to arrest his probationer. Let me remind everyone that the relationship between a probation officer and a probationer is a constructive one, one of rehabilitation. And, sadly, if on one incident, or 39 incidents, or 3 percent of the incidents, if something occurs, that probation officer has the right to be able to call a law enforcement officer to assist. This study is a constructive, forthright study to help us better protect the rights of citizens and of the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the Federal Defenders of New York, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the ACLU opposing the underlying bill. Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY, March 30, 2017. Re Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 1039) Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chair, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC. Hon. Trey Gowdy, Chair, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, Washington, DC. Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Gowdy and Ms. Jackson Lee: We write on behalf of the Federal Public and Community Defenders in response to inquiries for our views on H.R. 1039, which would amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3606 to give probation officers the authority to arrest, without a warrant, persons not subject to court supervision if there is probable cause to believe that the person has impeded or interfered with a probation officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111. The bill was introduced last Congress, and we understand that there has been discussion of it being introduced again. We oppose the bill because it would violate the Separation of Powers, would invite Fourth Amendment violations, is unnecessary for purposes of supervision or safety, and would instead escalate the risk of harm to all concerned and undermine effective supervision. The arrest or detention (to any degree) of persons not subject to court supervision should be left to law enforcement officers. Summary The bill would violate the Separation of Powers. Probation officers serve as administrative units employed by Article III courts. Congress may not assign to them the executive function of enforcing a criminal statute against private citizens not subject to court supervision. The bill would also undermine the integrity of the Judicial Branch by putting courts in the position of ruling on the constitutionality of arrests by their own agents, who are also interested arresting officers and alleged victims of an offense. The bill would create serious Fourth Amendment problems. Assuming probation officers would use the bill's arrest authority only to formally arrest persons believed to have violated Sec. 111, the bill would result in Fourth Amendment violations. Because Sec. 111 is notoriously unclear, probation officers would inevitably arrest persons who are merely ``uncooperative'' but have not actually violated the statute. To allay concerns about giving probation officers the equivalent of police power over private citizens, the Judicial Conference assures Congress that probation officers would rarely make formal arrests but would instead exercise a ``lesser included'' power to control or temporarily restrain third parties short of formal arrest. But the Fourth Amendment would not permit probation officers to exercise such ``lesser included'' power. In holding that the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to temporarily restrain third parties during a search, the Supreme Court deemed it ``of prime importance'' that the officer had a warrant based on probable cause to search the premises. The bill would not change the fact that probation officers conduct searches without a warrant based on probable cause. Thus, any restraint of a third party by a probation officer absent probable cause to arrest would violate the Fourth Amendment. The bill is unnecessary. Probation officers have authority under current law to search the homes of people they supervise (without a warrant or probable cause) and to arrest them for violating conditions of supervision (with probable cause). Pursuant to Judiciary Policy, probation officers have long relied on trained law enforcement officers to provide support during searches, including by managing third parties not under probation officers' supervision. No evidence has been presented, and we have found none, of any instance in which law enforcement officers have not assisted when asked, or in which anyone has been hurt by a third party during a search. Allowing probation officers to restrain and arrest third parties would likely increase, not diminish, any risk of harm. The bill would undermine effective supervision. The bill represents a retreat from the current constructive role of probation officers in reintegrating offenders into society. If probation officers assumed the role of police, directing and restraining, or arresting, family and friends, progress in individual cases and the system as a whole would be undermined. Background Under current law, probation officers have limited special authority to conduct searches and seizures of persons on probation or supervised release for the sole purpose of assisting the district courts in supervising those persons. They are permitted, with or without a warrant, to conduct a search of a supervisee's home based only on ``reasonable suspicion'' that there is evidence on the premises that the supervisee has violated a condition of his or her supervision, and to arrest a supervisee whom they have ``probable cause to believe has violated a condition'' of his or her supervision. Judiciary Policy directs probation officers, in planning a search, to ``strongly consider requesting assistance from law enforcement officers for protection, instruction, and taking possession of contraband during a search,'' and to terminate any search ``if it is unsafe for the [probation] officer to continue.'' Probation officers are further directed that they ``may not restrain third parties during a search.'' This is so because there is no authority for probation officers to detain third parties. The Supreme Court's decisions holding that the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to detain third parties during a search do not apply to probation officers, who both lack general law enforcement authority, and conduct searches in the absence of a finding by a neutral magistrate of probable cause to search the premises. Instead, probation officers rely on law enforcement officers to manage third parties if needed, thereby avoiding Fourth Amendment violations and reducing any risk of harm. A. The bill would violate the Separation of Powers H.R. 1039 would authorize probation officers to arrest, without a warrant, a person not subject to supervision if there is probable cause to believe the person has interfered with or impeded a probation officer ``while in the performance of his or her official duties'' in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111. By its terms, the statute would authorize probation officers to make such arrests at any time or place--during a search of a supervisee's home, on the street or at a place of business, or during a meeting at the probation officer's office. By authorizing probation officers to enforce Sec. 111 against private citizens not subject to court supervision, H.R. 1039 would violate the Separation of Powers. Probation officers are employed by the Judicial Branch to serve as administrative units of the district court, appointed by the court and removable by the court. A probation officer performs no Article III function, but serves a statutory duty to assist the court in supervising offenders. Detecting crimes and enforcing criminal laws, in contrast, are ``quintessential law enforcement functions vested in the Executive Branch.'' Just as Congress may not confer executive duties ``of a nonjudicial nature'' on Article III judges, Congress may not enlist an administrative arm of the Judicial Branch to perform an executive function. This is not only a formalistic concern. A probation officer who has arrested a private citizen for impeding the probation officer in his duties would naturally have a direct, personal interest in both the legality of the arrest and the outcome of any resulting criminal case. The court, in turn, is the probation officer's employer. When ruling on a challenge to the constitutionality of an arrest by a probation officer, the court would thus review the actions of its own agent, who is also the interested arresting officer and alleged victim of an offense. By putting the court in the triple position of judge, vicarious victim, and arresting agent of ordinary citizens, H.R. 1039 would undermine the integrity of the Judicial Branch. B. The bill would create serious Fourth Amendment problems Subject to ``only a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions,'' the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from detaining persons (to any degree) absent probable cause or ``prior approval by judge or magistrate.'' Even assuming probation officers used the bill's arrest authority for no other purpose but to make formal arrests based on probable cause that a person has violated Sec. 111, the bill would result in unconstitutional detentions. Section 111 prohibits ``forcibly'' assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with an officer ``while engaged in'' the performance of official duties. While one would think that ``forcible'' conduct is easy to recognize in this context, the term is notoriously ambiguous, involving a ``troublesome question of degree.'' No physical contact is required even for assault, and ``forcibly'' has been held to cover such conduct as a ``fighting stance'' with an ``uncooperative attitude,'' but not to cover running away and struggling when tackled by police. The statute is ``not a model of clarity,'' ``inartfully drafted,'' and leaving ``major ambiguities,'' often requiring many pages of legal analysis to decipher. If even the courts find the statute unclear, a probation officer surely cannot be expected to make an accurate on-the- scene assessment of probable cause that a person has violated it. Some probation officers would inevitably use their new authority to arrest persons who are merely ``uncooperative''--such as by refusing to identify themselves, declining to open a door, or attempting to leave the scene of a search--but who have not violated Sec. 111. The bill would thus invite Fourth Amendment violations. To allay potential concerns about giving probation officers the equivalent of police power over private citizens, the Judicial Conference assures Congress that probation officers would rarely make formal arrests for violations of Sec. 111. Instead, they would use a purported ``lesser included'' authority, during ``searches and other work-related contacts (e.g., home visits),'' to ``verbally or if necessary by temporarily restraining'' (i.e., with handcuffs) ``uncooperative or hostile'' third parties short of arrest. Probation officers would not need probable cause to believe that a third party had violated Sec. 111 in order to exercise this ``lesser-included'' authority; instead, they would direct, control and temporarily detain third parties whom they merely suspect have violated or will violate Sec. 111, or believe to present a ``potential safety risk.'' But the Fourth Amendment does not permit probation officers to exercise this ``lesser included'' power. Under an exception to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, police officers, when executing a search warrant, are permitted to temporarily restrain third parties absent probable cause for arrest, including by using handcuffs. In holding such detentions to be ``reasonable,'' the Supreme Court emphasized the fact--``of prime importance''--that the search was authorized by a neutral magistrate's finding of probable cause to search the premises. Probation officers, however, conduct searches without a warrant based on a finding of probable cause by a neutral magistrate, and they conduct home visits with no suspicion at all. For these reasons, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in 2007 reaffirmed its policy that probation officers ``may not restrain'' ``restrict[] the movement of third parties'' present during a search. Under established Fourth Amendment law, third parties are ``under no obligation to cooperate and must be free to leave.'' The AO's General Counsel correctly noted that ``increas[ing] [probation] officers' statutory arrest authority under Sec. 3606'' would not solve the Fourth Amendment problem because probation officers would still conduct searches without a warrant based on probable cause. Likewise, H.R. 1039 would not change the fact that probation officers conduct searches without a warrant based on a finding of probable cause, the factor ``of prime importance'' to the constitutionality of police officers restraining third parties during a search. As a result, any restraint or control of third parties by probation officers absent grounds for arrest would be an unconstitutional detention. The bill does not obviate this fundamental Fourth Amendment problem. C. The bill is unnecessary U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services reported that in both 2014 and 2015, probation officers encountered third patties described as ``uncooperative'' (defined to include refusal to identify themselves, to come out of a closed room, or to remain in a designated area) in only 3 percent of reported searches. Only two incidents of any significance were reported. In one, the supervisee's mother drove her car toward two officers ``in an apparent attempt to hit them,'' but law enforcement officers were present and able to take any action needed. In the other, a third party ``refused to come out'' of a closed room, but law enforcement officers were present, forced the door open, and found the person swallowing marijuana cigarettes. Nonetheless, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (``FLEOA'') claims that there is, a new ``heightened danger in field and office contacts'' and that giving probation officers third-party arrest authority is the ``only [] solution.'' It claims that probation officers' ability to enlist law enforcement officers ``provides little, if any, help'' because sometimes only one police officer is available. It gives three anecdotal examples, but they do not support the FLEOA's argument, and in fact demonstrate that the bill is not the ``only solution,'' much less a safe solution. In the Northern District of Alabama, probation officers came to see their supervisee, but he was not at home. They were leaving the premises when they encountered his father, who was intoxicated, made threats, and threw an empty liquor bottle at their car. The probation officers drew their weapons, called 911, got behind their vehicle, then drove away. The FLEOA states that with arrest authority, the probation officers ``would have taken the third party into custody for assaulting them and for damaging government property.'' But the FLEOA does not explain why this would have been necessary for the purpose of supervising the son, who was not there, or to ensure anyone's safety. The police were fully capable of subduing or arresting the father, and most likely did, though that detail is omitted. Had the probation officers confronted the father, with guns drawn, they, the father, or innocent bystanders, including the offender's cooperative mother, may well have been hurt. In the District of Utah, probation officers knocked on the door of their supervisee's residence and were told by his girlfriend that he was not at home and that no one else was there. The probation officers ``ultimately encountered two third party felons hiding in separate locations,'' one of whom was suspected of homicide. The officers ``issued their verbal commands,'' and the man became confrontational and challenged the officers to ``shoot him.'' The officers retreated, and ``local police ultimately subdued the third party and took him into custody.'' Again, the FLEOA does not explain how arrest authority would have increased the probation officers' or public safety any better than the police in fact accomplished. In the Southern District of New York, probation officers looking to confirm that their supervisee did not live at his reported residence were ``confronted'' outside the residence, where the supervisee apparently did not live, with ``a belligerent, unknown, third party.'' A physical altercation ensued, when ``another third party charged forward swinging a pipe wrench.'' The officers used pepper spray and left. The FLEOA asserts that the probation officers ``did not have the option to control the third parties,'' but instead were ``forced to retreat.'' But the FLEOA does not explain how controlling the third parties, which would likely have escalated a potentially dangerous confrontation, was safer than retreat, much less the ``only solution.'' The probation officers' mission was not urgent, and they were free to return with police support. The Judicial Conference provides no empirical evidence or even anecdotal examples illustrating the purported need for H.R. 1039. It says that, ``in the absence of other law enforcement officers acting in a supporting role,'' a supervisee can work with a ``hostile or uncooperative'' third party ``to conceal violations of the terms of supervision, or even new criminal activity.'' But the solution is the very one suggested and that has been directed by Judiciary Policy and followed by probation officers all along: obtain support from law enforcement officers. There is not a single instance cited in the U.S. Probation Search-and-Seizure reports, in the FLEOA's proposal or recent letter, or in the Judicial Conference's proposal or recent letter, in which probation officers requested law enforcement assistance in advance, or called for assistance from the scene, and law enforcement declined to assist or failed to show up. One of the dangers of the bill is that probation officers would not request law enforcement support, thinking they can handle any problems with their arrest authority. But potential problems are best averted by law enforcement officers, who not only have arrest authority, but ``provide perimeter security, manage third parties, provide special services such as K9 support, and conduct initial security sweeps.'' D. The bill would undermine effective supervision H.R. 1039 represents an unfortunate retreat from the current role of probation officers, which has evolved from an oppositional focus on enforcement and punishment to a constructive collaboration aimed at addressing clients' criminogenic needs, reducing their risk of recidivism, and reintegrating them into society. These ``concerted efforts to bring to life state-of-the-art evidence-based supervision practices into the federal system'' coincide with ``[m]easurable decreases in federal recidivism.'' As the Judicial Conference has recognized, supporting the offender ``in efforts to turn away from criminal conduct . . . will necessarily . . . promote public safety.'' And it has cautioned that searches ``may undermine the rapport that an officer has developed with an offender and may hinder the progress that an offender has made.'' We fear that the progress that has been made in individual cases and in the system as a whole would be undermined if probation officers assumed the role of police, directing, restraining and arresting family and friends, and potentially escalating the risk of confrontation and danger to all concerned. Thank you for considering our views, and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours, David Patton, Executive Director, Federal Defenders of New York, Co- Chair, Federal Defender Legislative Committee. Jon Sands, Federal Defender, District of Arizona, Co-Chair, Federal Defender Legislative Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan for his yielding and for his leadership and for the pleasure that I have in working on the Judiciary Committee. Let me thank the chairman and Members as well, particularly working on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, of which this underlying bill comes to the floor on. This is a very important week, Mr. Speaker. It is National Police Week. A number of our constituents have been here, and we have had the opportunity to hear from a number of outstanding leaders: a sheriff from Los Angeles County; the sheriff from South Carolina; the police department leader from Houston, Texas; and the head of the FOP. So I think that we have had a good week in terms of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and certainly this past Monday we honored those who tragically ascended to the memorial wall where we honor police from across the Nation. So I think it is important to put on the record that none of us, I would hope--I certainly don't--take a back seat to the respect, admiration, and the work that we do to keep our law enforcement and first responders safe. We commend them for their service as we continue to work on police and community working together. We also are grateful for those who are engaged in enhanced community relations as well as working with diverse communities. So let me acknowledge individuals from Houston that we have lost: Assistant Deputy Chief Clint Greenwood; Officer Richard K. Martin; Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Darren Goforth. We lost Jerry Ronald Walker of Little Elm Police Department. Then officers who died in Dallas: Officer Brent Thompson, Sergeant Michael Smith, Senior Corporal Lorne Ahrens, Officer Patricio Zamarripa, and Officer Michael Krol. I have had the chance to work with a number of chiefs of police, including Chief Lee P. Brown, one of the first police chiefs in Houston that I was able to work with as I began to engage publicly; Chief McClelland; now Chief Acevedo; and chiefs in-between. I particularly thank them for working with the community during stressful times, during times when violence was evidenced out in the community; not against police, but against communities--keeping the peace, if you will, as we tried to work together. So I support policies that are necessary, and I certainly support the idea of protecting our law enforcement. Of course, the underlying bill has that provision and indicates a protection of law enforcement officers. In actuality, it provides the opportunity for the protection as well as the utilization of the death penalty. This particular legislation continues to want to add aggravating factors, making it 17. If we had a hearing and if we were able to determine that this would actually have an impact, there would be reason to at least have a vigorous debate over whether there is an impact or not. But H.R. 115 is a duplicative bill and unnecessary because under 18 U.S.C. 3592(c), there already exists mechanisms that achieve the goal of punishing by death a defendant who kills a law enforcement officer or first responder. First of all, it should be stated that the bill is based upon underlying offenses, drug offenses. There is a whole myriad of actual laws that are Federal criminal offenses, and if a death occurs under that Federal criminal offense, then you are eligible for the death penalty. Let me cite as an example the Boston Marathon terrorists act and the killing of the MIT officer who was killed. The Federal prosecutor was able to take that case to the Federal court and to pursue a death penalty because it was pursuant to a terrorist act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The most heinous tragedy of those who were lost in 9/11, the mourning of firefighters, first responders, and law enforcement who lost their lives, certainly there is no doubt that that was a heinous terrorist act. If those terrorists had lived--there would have been firefighters and first responders included, and their deaths would have been, in essence, tried under the Federal death penalty; and those heinous perpetrators would have been tried, given capital punishment, if the jury had convicted them--there probably was no doubt--and ultimately might have seen their end through the exercise of the death penalty. That is, I think, clearing up that we are standing here adding any measure of difference to this particular legislation. If the act falls under Federal criminal laws, you can be, or the murderer of you can be, in fact, charged with a Federal death penalty. On the other hand, if you go into a burning building and, unfortunately, the owner of the building--or there is some unfortunate incident and you are shot as a firefighter, you do not fall under this statute. That is not a Federal offense, but you can fall under your State death penalty cases. Why would we be concerned about this idea of additional death penalties? Let me cite for you the case of Buck v. Davis, where the death penalty verdict was based merely on whether the defendant is likely to commit acts of violence in the future, and a psychologist opined that being Black did increase the probability. The trial court reasoned that: ``introduction of any mention of race was de minimis.'' In other words, insignificant, completely ignoring that the largest number of individuals that go to their death are African Americans. Thank goodness for the Supreme Court and the reasoning of Chief Justice Roberts.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Justice Roberts stated for the court in reversing the lower court: ``Some toxins can be deadly in small doses.'' Likewise, in the Gregg v. Georgia case, decided after Furman, the court held that if death penalty is mandatory, such that no permission for mercy is granted, and where capital punishment is based on characteristics of the offender, then it is unconstitutional and ``arbitrary and capricious.'' The underlying bill has mandatory death penalties. It will cover first responders if they are killed pursuant to Federal crimes. We are standing here, not adding anything to the underlying bill. First responders are protected. Law enforcement are protected. I would hate to see any of them lose their life, but under a Federal crime, their case will be tried as a death penalty case. In other instances, it will be tried by State law. We respect these heroes and sheroes. It is shameful if we use that to add another aggravating element to the death penalty, and continue to discriminate based on race. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to first acknowledge and commend the law enforcement community throughout our country that work tirelessly to help protect and serve our communities. I especially want to thank Chief Acevedo for his leadership, commitment to Houston, and for his vision on unifying communities through police relations with the people they take an oath to serve and protect. As we celebrate police week, I would like to take a moment to thank and honor all the officers that served selflessly and died in the line of duty. Especially, Assistant Deputy Chief Clinton Greenwood of Harris County Constable's Office-Precinct 3, TX, died on 4/3/17; Officer Richard K. Martin of Houston Police Dept., died on 5/18/15; Deputy Sheriff of Harris County Sheriff office, Darren Goforth, 8/28/ 15; And Detective Jerry Ronald Walker of Little Elm Police Dept., TX, died 1/17/17 and the five officers killed in Dallas, TX on 7/7/16-- Brent Thompson, Sgt. Michael Smith, Sr. Corporal Lorne Ahrens, Officer Patrick Zamarripa, and Officer Michael Krol. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Houston's former Chief, Lee P. Brown who laid the strong foundation for HPD's strong community liaison practices with all communities; Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez; Alan Rosen, Harris County Constable, Precinct 1 and all of our other men and women in uniform. I know personally the level of stress and challenges posed, because I have many friends that have and are currently serving my Congressional district in Houston and our country very well and with great distinction. I support our policies that are necessary, so long as we are doing so with fairness, in accordance with our Constitution, and in a manner that is not duplicative of statutory measures already in place. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 imposes the death penalty for the killing or targeting of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first responders as a 17th aggravated factor for homicide. Although this bill is presented as a proposal to protect police officers and first responders, it does much more. H.R. 115 is duplicative and unnecessary because under 18 U.S.C. 3592(c), there already exists mechanisms that achieve the goal of punishing by death, a defendant who kills a law enforcement officer or first responders. Prosecutors are already armed with prosecutorial discretion to seek capital punishment in death penalty cases as demonstrated in the cases below: U.S. v. Ronell Wilson--2 NY City detectives were killed during a gun sting operation. Defendant was sentenced to death. U.S. v. Donzell McCauley--a Washington, DC police officer was killed and defendant received a sentence of life without parole. U.S. v. Kenneth Wilk--a deputy sheriff was killed while attempting to serve a search warrant; defendant was sentenced to life without parole. U.S. v. Kenneth Barrett--a state law enforcement officer was killed during a drug raid, defendant was sentenced to death. LaShawn Casey, an undercover police officer was killed in a carjacking related to a drug transaction; a capital jury sentenced the defendant to life without the possibility of parole. These cases illustrate that prosecutors have the discretion under the current law to seek the death penalty. By adding a 17th aggravated factor under the vague, arbitrary and capricious language of H.R. 115, we are heading down a dangerous path. Please take note that the death toll of firefighters/first responders reported by the National Fire Protection Association illustrates a drastic decline in deaths overall, most of which were fire and accident related. The statistics available do not support the need for this duplicative measure in H.R. 115. This bill does nothing to protect our law enforcement or to ensure public safety; instead, it raises constitutional questions as to its validity because ``targeting law enforcement'' is substantially vague language that will subject many innocent lives to death, based purely on their desire to exercise their First Amendment rights about the well-documented racial disparity in treatment throughout our communities. We must ensure that we do not create legislation of broad scope and vagueness that will have a chilling effect on an insular group. H.R. 115 is laced with a discriminatory effect that will trigger strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment, and open the gateway for draconian habeas laws. This bill will create a slippery slope, further adding to recent turbulence caused by Attorney General Jeff Session's memo and destroying whatever trust remains between law enforcement and communities. This bill sends troubling messages around the world about how we view and measure life in America in this 21st century. It is time to get serious about this epidemic and not hide behind vague language because `all' lives matter, blue, black, brown, white. Mr. Speaker, while some may say that any adverse effects of the bill before us are de minimis, and thus, will not severely impact the racial disparity found in the use of the death penalty, it is neither the amount of words in this bill nor the amount of time used to utter them that is significant; rather, it is the discriminatory effect that will result in communities disproportionately impacted by the death penalty. Let us take for example, the case of Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. __ (2017) where the death penalty verdict was based merely on `whether defendant is likely to commit acts of violence in the future' and a psychologist opined that being black did increase the probability. The trial court reasoned that ``introduction of any mention of race was de minimis,'' in other words, insignificant. As Chief Justice John Roberts stated for the Court in reversing the lower court; ``Some toxins can be deadly in small doses.'' Likewise, in Gregg v. GA, which was decided after Furman (invalidated death penalty across the country), the court held if death penalty is mandatory, such that no permission for mercy is granted, and where capital punishment is based on characteristics of the offender, then it is unconstitutional and ``arbitrary and capricious.'' Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 is extremely deadly because it is arbitrary and capricious, imposing the death penalty based solely on the status of the victim. The death penalty is already available both at the state and federal level and is reserved for matters of extraordinary circumstances. While we want to ensure that law enforcement officers, firefighters and first responders received protection as they protect our communities, we cannot and should not attempt to do so by weighing the worth of lives and arbitrarily impose the death penalty based on our measuring sticks of who should live and who should die. H.R. 115 will undoubtedly contribute to the continuation of well- documented and pervasive racial disparities in the imposition of the death penalty. Since 1976 only 20 white prisoners have been executed for the murder of an African American victim, while an alarming 286 African American prisoners have been executed for the death of white victims, and 42% of African Americans currently remain on death row. Death penalty generally, has been criticized over the years by legal scholars and by Supreme Court Justices who have opined in several instances, that `the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.' Even in 1958, when the Court first explicitly spoke about the death penalty as having constitutional challenges, it said in Trop v. Dulles, ``the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause must draw its meaning from the `evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' rather than from its original meaning.'' Mr. Speaker, there is no argument that we have evolved and matured significantly since we first implemented the death penalty in the 1600s and thus, we must evaluate cautiously, laws that seek to further advance this flawed, astronomically costly and unjust practice. Tax payers currently spend $740,000 for cases without the death penalty, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. Capital punishment does not work; it is discriminatory and is used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities. Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 82% of all executions have occurred in the South (37% in Texas alone), which contributed to the United States status as one of five countries in the world to account for the most executions in 2012. FBI data has shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent and in fact, 14 states without capital punishment in 2008, had homicide rates at or below the national rate. Taking another life does not stop violence. Like mandatory minimums, public opinion for the death penalty is currently at its lowest with a 42% opposition, evidenced in a 2016 Pew Research report, which found that the U.S. now dropped to number seven worldwide in countries accountable for the most executions. Mr. Speaker, over two-thirds of the world's countries have abolished the death penalty either in law or practice, and the U.S. is the only Western country that still uses the death penalty. Even family members of murder victims and other individuals who have witnessed live executions of death row inmates, particularly, in the recent botched and questionable executions, have called for a repeal of this practice and ask instead for alternative sentencing. In fact the death penalty solves nothing, and may even perpetuate the suffering of the parents, children, or siblings left behind. We do not need to expand the use of the death penalty where public opinion is at its lowest, but instead, implement sound and practical legislation that will save lives of our officers and the people they serve. This measure is what public opinion suggests.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that we are all in support of the protection of our officers. I think that there is no competition on sympathy or wanting to appropriately assure that those who go up against our officers in a vile and violent manner would be brought to justice. I think the point on race disparity as relates to the death penalty is relevant. It is about life. But I want to make it very clear: Under this underlying bill, our officers who are State police officers are protected already, including the example that I used about the MIT officer in the Boston Marathon terrorist act. It is if you are in the furtherance of a Federal crime. The bill itself is all Federal. You have to be engaged in an act that is a Federal crime. Clearly, if the terrorists on 9/11 had lived, the cases of the firefighters who lost their lives certainly would have been tried-- those cases of the tragic, heinous deaths of firefighters who are our friends, and certainly are my friends--under the Federal death penalty law. In the case of U.S. v. Kenneth Barrett, a State law enforcement officer was killed during a drug raid. That is one of the underlying offenses. The defendant was sentenced to death. In the case of Lashaun Casey, an undercover police officer was killed in a carjacking related to a drug transaction. A capital jury decided to sentence the defendant to life without the possibility of parole, but it was a capital jury.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so I want to honor them, too, but I also want to show the disparities. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the very valuable point that Chief Justice Roberts made in the particular case of Buck v. Davis and the statistical documentation of the disparities in the death penalty cases. We cannot ignore it. Chief Justice Roberts stated before the Court, in reversing the lower court, ``some toxins can be deadly in small doses,'' when the district court wanted to ignore or diminish the fact that race was involved in this case. A psychologist had the audacity to say that being Black did increase the probability that you would commit an act of violence prospectively. How sad is that? We are saddened by the death of our officers, but we are already protecting them and the first responders. Pursuant to a Federal criminal act, the prosecutor, at their discretion, can charge the defendant with a death penalty case. I just hope my colleagues will recognize that we are not divided in our love, affection, and respect for the men and women that serve as first responders and law enforcement throughout this Nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland and the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington. Just by coincidence, Mr. Speaker, all three of us are members of the Judiciary Committee and had a very vigorous constitutional discussion this morning in a hearing on the responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee and, as well, the responsibilities of this Congress to the American people. I think many of us offered our comments in the context that we did not speak as a Democrat or a Republican, though we are here on this floor as members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. We really spoke to our views and commitment as Americans. Having served in this House for a period of time where I have seen the Judiciary Committee engage vigorously in impeachment proceedings for judges and Presidents, I know that the role of the Judiciary Committee is to be assured that the government--the executive, the legislature, the judiciary--works within the context of the Constitution. So that is the spirit and the position in which I rise this evening: to share a few thoughts and to recount for our Members why this is a week that requires further oversight and insight and further assessment of whether the actions of the Oval Office, the executive--in this instance, the White House--have really complied with the Constitution of the United States. I would, first of all, indicate that much of what I will say I will qualify and say that the President, or a President, or any President, would have the authority to do. So although, for example, the FBI Director is given a 10-year term, the individual serves at the will of the President of the United States of America. That means that President Trump, President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, and others would have the authority to fire this particular individual as they would have the right to fire Cabinet officers and others. They have the right to fire the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, which may be one of the concerns we now have as we proceed to try to get to the facts of just a whole litany of issues. Let me recount for you, as I discuss the firing of Director Comey, that in the last couple of days we have discerned that the Trump campaign operatives spoke to Russian operatives, Russian Government officials, 18 times in the last 7 months of the campaign. We are well aware that the former NSA Director, something I think we, as Members of Congress--I will speak for myself--have never heard of in the tenure that I have been privileged to serve in the United States Congress, that an individual who was advising the President of the United States not in the form of a lobbyist, but in the form of an adviser in national security issues, was being paid by a foreign country. So the advice that was given, two different recommendations: one, to drag out and throw to an unknowing future a Turkish citizen who is here, who has been involved in a number of schools and good charitable work, who lives in Pennsylvania; one of his recommendations was to throw this individual who is statused, not undocumented, out into the hands of the present President of Turkey, who has been known over the years, recently, to deny political and religious rights and human rights. That was one recommendation. The second recommendation, whether you liked it or disliked it, was to not arm the Kurds to help with the fight in Syria. That advice was given, both of those proposals as advice were given while General Flynn was on the payroll of a foreign government. So you would have to wonder in the series of incidents how we have come to the point where the FBI Director, who was actively engaged in investigating--or the FBI, investigating General Flynn, as were congressional committees--General Flynn is now under a subpoena by, I believe, the Senate Intelligence Committee. All of that, all of those elements certainly respond that the Congress and the FBI were engaged in active investigations. I think the American people understand that. The American people understand that if their chief of police was engaged in an active investigation of murder, one that the whole community was just outraged about, as any murder, as all the homicides that take place in a community that you desire to be safe, and one local elected official indicated that you are investigating my neighbor or you are investigating me and had the authority to fire the chief of police with the reason of one thing and then it became very clear that you were firing the chief of police who was actively engaged in a murder investigation that was going to help the whole community find the truth and bring the perpetrator to justice, you fired that police chief because it was either you that was being investigated, local elected official, or it was your neighbor that was being investigated, you just took it upon yourself to cease and desist of that investigation, and that is a simple explanation of what has happened here in Washington. Because Washington is big, because this government is huge, because it is the leader of the free world, because all the nations look up to it gives it no greater authority to stop an active investigation that is based upon the duties of the FBI, but also the laws of this land, and that is just what happened. Director Comey was unceremoniously fired; a man who has had great tenure in law enforcement as an attorney and prosecutor and, now, over the FBI. Of course, the so-called explanation--which, by the way, has just been repeated in the last 45 minutes on international television, saying the same thing, that his firing was based upon Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein's representation in a memorandum that many of us question that gave a whole explanation of the incidents regarding former Secretary Clinton, which, of course, she was not found to have warranted any further review or investigation or prosecution. But that was what was used by President Trump just in the last, as I said, 30 to 45 minutes, when we know that the Deputy Attorney General has already denied that he was the cause and center of the firing of FBI Director Comey, yet it is still being repeated over and over and over and over again. You would also know that not only did he deny--and we look forward to hearing him tomorrow, the House Members, as the Senate has already heard him. What he also indicated, or what was also said to vindicate him, is that the President came out on last Thursday with interviews with Lester Holt on NBC News that it wasn't anybody but him, and it was connected to this fake Russian thing. I am paraphrasing. I may not have all of the words. So you have an executive that, one could analyze in a number of court decisions, may have been credited with an abuse of power. There was no legitimate failing in the work of Director Comey on this Russian investigation. Just 30 to 45 minutes ago, another comment that was made is that he was unpopular, and that he did very, very poorly in the hearings last week. None of those are elements of dismissal. Maybe reprimand, maybe study a little bit more before you go to Senatorial hearings or House hearings, but that has nothing to do with being fired. I don't know whether any of us want, every single day, as we make very tough decisions in this House, that we are assessed on whether or not we are very popular. What we want to do is do what is right for the American people. And whatever you might say, I assume Director Comey felt that he was doing what is right for the American people. Many disagreed with his handling and assessment of the issues dealing with former Secretary Clinton, particularly in the October surprise. That is legitimate. But it is not legitimate to say, way past that incident and when this individual is actively engaged--and there is no question or no guarantee that, in spite of our displeasure as Democrats, if the Office of the Presidency had gone the other way that Director Comey would be fired. There was no suggestion of that, none whatsoever, even with disagreeing with actions. But here we have not only the misrepresentation of the reason, but the declaration that the reason was because of this Russian thing. Let me share with you the comments of Professor Tribe in a Washington Post article on May 13, 2017, as he recounts the whole issue of this action bearing upon the actions that are in the Constitution, such as impeachment, that relate to the questions of whether or not the Presidency or the President has acted appropriately: ``The question of Russian interference in the Presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign go to the heart of our system and ability to conduct free and fair elections.'' Therefore, it was free. It was what we do. ``Consider, too, how Trump embroiled Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, despite Sessions' recusal from involvement in the Russia investigation, in preparing admittedly phony justifications for the firing on which Trump had already decided. Consider how Trump used the Vice President and White House staff to propagate a set of blatant untruths--before giving an interview to NBC's Lester Holt that exposed his true motivation. ``Trump accompanied that confession with self-serving--and manifestly false--assertions about having been assured by Comey that Trump himself was not under investigation. By Trump's own account, he asked Comey about his investigative status even as he was conducting the equivalent of a job interview in which Comey sought to retain his position as a Director.'' So I believe that what we have here is a reasonable basis, those of us who have come to the floor tonight, to raise these questions and to be able to make sure that we do have a system of laws and that we do adhere to the rule of law. We know that, subsequently, the Deputy Attorney General has appointed a special counsel under the provisions of the Attorney General. Of course, that individual could be fired. The regulation could be dismantled. But we hope that former Director Mueller of the FBI, who has impeccable credentials, will go forward and ensure that the American people know the truth. That will be one part of it. I repeat, that will be one part of it. But, as I look at my closing remarks here, I want to ensure that we know that this is not something that is made up; that it continues to shock us, and it shocks the American people. It is not a made-up entity. It just continues with a long list of incidents, starting from the firing and then going up. A comment Bill Moyers said: ``The ensuing White House cover-up tries to pin the blame on a newly confirmed Deputy Attorney General whose hastily prepared memo criticizes Comey's 2016 statements. . . .'' But the late summer of 2015, a member of Trump's campaign staff called Lieutenant General Mike Flynn to ask if he is willing to meet with Trump. Trump agrees. Later Flynn says, four other Presidential candidates also reached out to him. There is a long list of items that may be true, may not be true, but clearly set a pattern, a pattern of the achilles heels of this Oval Office. And so I would say to my colleagues that we should not turn a blind eye on this. I believe it is important to follow the facts. I have no quarrel with that. But neither am I afraid to use the term appropriately, an impeachment inquiry, but at least to find the facts of whether or not any of the actions that swirled around Director Comey, that swirled around General Flynn's and Director Comey's or the FBI's investigation of this particular series of incidents are in keeping with the responsibilities of the Congress, the Judiciary, in any elements there, or the Oval Office, the Presidency of the United States of America. I think that the special prosecutor, for Americans to understand, deals specifically with pursuing or possible criminal acts. On the other hand, it is well known that the Congress can address how we fix this; how we make sure it doesn't happen again; how we work on behalf of the American people. And so I hope that, as we conclude this Special Order, no one will point to any of the Members on this floor as taking this up as a personal cause against the President of the United States, or any President, and that we will respect the office, as we have always done. But it is our duty to shed light on these issues and shed light on these potential failures. It is our responsibility to take up the cause of curing, responding, fixing, and serving the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the rule for H.R. 115, ``Thin Blue Line Act of 2017.'' I would like to acknowledge and commend our law enforcement officers in the room today and across this country who have worked tirelessly on our behalf. I know personally the level of stress and challenges posed, because I have many friends that have and are currently serving my Congressional district in Houston and our country very well and with great distinction. I support our policies that are necessary so long as we are doing so with fairness, in accordance with our Constitution, and in a manner that is not duplicative of statutory measures already in place. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 imposes the death penalty for the killing or targeting of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first responders as a 17th aggravated factor for homicide. H.R. 115 is duplicative and unnecessary because under 18 U.S.C. 3592(c), there already exists an aggravated factor that achieves the goal of punishing by death, a defendant who kills a law enforcement officer, thereby, making. This bill does nothing to protect our law enforcement; instead, it raises constitutional questions as to its validity because ``targeting law enforcement'' is substantially vague language that will subject many innocent lives to death, based purely on their desire to exercise their First Amendment rights about the well-documented racial disparity in treatment throughout our communities. We must ensure that we do not create legislation of broad scope and vagueness that will have a chilling effect on an insular group. H.R. 115 is laced with a discriminatory effect that will trigger strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment, and open the gateway for draconian habeas laws. This bill will create a slippery slope, further adding to recent turbulence caused by Attorney General Jeff Session's memo and destroying whatever trust remains between law enforcement and communities. This bill sends troubling messages around the world about how we view and measure life in America in this 21st century. It is time to get serious about this epidemic and not hide behind vague language because `all' lives matter, blue, black, brown, white. Mr. Speaker, while some may say that any adverse effects of the bill before us are de minimis, and thus, will not severely impact the racial disparity found in the use of the death penalty, it is neither the amount of words in this bill nor the amount of time used to utter them that is significant; rather, it is the discriminatory effect that will result in communities disproportionately impacted by the death penalty. Let us take for example, the case of Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. ___ (2017) where the death penalty verdict was based merely on `whether defendant is likely to commit acts of violence in the future' and a psychologist opined that being black did increase the probability. The trial court reasoned that ``introduction of any mention of race was de minimis,'' in other words, insignificant. As Chief Justice John Roberts stated for the Court in reversing the lower court; ``Some toxins can be deadly in small doses.'' Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 is extremely deadly because it will undoubtedly contribute to the continuation of well-documented and pervasive racial disparities in the imposition of the death penalty. Since 1976 only 20 white prisoners have been executed for the murder of an African American victim, while an alarming 286 African American prisoners have been executed for the death of white victims, and 42% of African Americans currently remain on death row. Death penalty generally, has been criticized over the years by legal scholars and by Supreme Court Justices who have opined in several instances, that `the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.' Even in 1958, when the Court first explicitly spoke about the death penalty as having constitutional challenges, it said in Trop v. Dulles, ``the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause must draw its meaning from the `evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society' rather than from its original meaning.'' Mr. Speaker, there is no argument that we have evolved and matured significantly since we first implemented the death penalty in the 1600s and thus, we must evaluate cautiously, laws that seek to further advance this flawed, astronomically costly and unjust practice. Capital punishment does not work; it is discriminatory and is used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities. Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 82% of all executions have occurred in the South (37% in Texas alone), which contributed to the United States status as one of five countries in the world to account for the most executions in 2012. FBI data has shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent and in fact, 14 states without capital punishment in 2008, had homicide rates at or below the national rate. Taking another life does not stop violence. Like mandatory minimums, public opinion for the death penalty is currently at its lowest with a 42% opposition, evidenced in a 2016 Pew Research report, which found that the U.S. now dropped to number seven worldwide in countries accountable for the most executions. Mr. Speaker, over two-thirds of the world's countries have abolished the death penalty either in law or practice, and the U.S. is the only Western country that still uses the death penalty. Even family members of murder victims and other individuals who have witnessed live executions of death row inmates, particularly, in the recent botched and questionable executions, have called for a repeal of this practice and ask instead for alternative sentencing. In fact the death penalty solves nothing, and may even perpetuate the suffering of the parents, children, or siblings left behind. We do not need to expand the use of the death penalty where public opinion is at its lowest, but instead, implement sound and practical legislation that will save lives of our officers and the people they serve, where public opinion for this measure is extremely high.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2266, the ``Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017.'' H.R. 2266, the ``Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017,'' would authorize four additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships and convert 14 temporary bankruptcy judgeships to permanent status based on the most recent recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States. H.R. 2266 was introduced on May 1, 2017 by Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) together with Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Chair Tom Marino (R-PA) and Ranking Member David Cicilline (D-RI) as original cosponsors. This bipartisan legislation is time-sensitive as the temporary judgeships are due to expire on May 25, 2017. No hearing has been held on this legislation. A bankruptcy judge may hear and determine all cases arising under the Bankruptcy Code and certain related proceedings. A district court, however, may withdraw--in whole or in part--any case or proceeding referred to a bankruptcy judge. If designated by the district to exercise such authority, a bankruptcy judge may conduct a jury trial on consent of all the parties. Currently pending before Congress is H.R. 244, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017,'' which extends for one year the temporary judgeships for the District of Delaware (two judgeships), the Southern District of Florida (two judgeships); the Eastern District of Michigan; the District of Puerto Rico; and the Eastern District of Virginia. In analyzing bankruptcy judgeship needs, the Judicial Conference employs, as a first step, a case weight formula devised by the Federal Judicial Center that is intended to provide a more accurate and useful measure of judicial workload than a mere count of filings does. Pursuant to Conference policy, ``if a district's annual weighted caseload per authorized judgeship is 1,500 weighted filings or more, the district will receive consideration for an additional judgeship.'' With respect to the Conference's current request for additional bankruptcy judgeships, the weighted case filings have increased by more than 55 percent for most of these districts since the last time additional judgeships were authorized in 2005, according to the Conference. In addition, all 14 of the temporary bankruptcy judgeships that the bill converts to permanent status are set to lapse as of May 25, 2017. To offset the cost of this legislation, H.R. 2266 increases the quarterly fee payable that chapter 11 debtors pay to the United States Trustee System Fund, but only with respect to debtors that have quarterly disbursements in excess of $1 million dollars during the period when the Fund has less than $200 million. This provision is substantively identical to a legislative proposal made by the prior Administration as represented in President Barack Obama's budget request for 2017. Taken together, the resulting analysis provides a reliable basis upon which Congress may assess the necessity of authorizing additional judgeships and extending temporary judgeships. For all of these reasons, I support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 419, the ``Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act of 2017''. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits program or PSOB Program provides death, disability, and education benefits to public safety officers and their survivors. The PSOB Program is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, or BJA, which is a component of the Department of Justice. Under the Program, the death benefit is provided to eligible survivors of public safety officers whose death was a direct and proximate result of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty or certain work-related heart attacks or strokes. The Program provides a disability benefit to public safety officers who have been permanently and totally disabled as the direct and proximate result of a catastrophic injury sustained in the line of duty, if that injury permanently prevents the officer from performing any gainful employment. The education benefit provides assistance to spouses and children of public safety officers killed or disabled in the line of duty who attend an educational program at an eligible education institution. All too often, these first responders and their families needlessly suffer months and years of uncertainty after experiencing a loss of life or a traumatic injury. This bill is a show of appreciation for the brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in the line of duty as well as an expression of appreciation and support to the families of these first responders. S. 419 improves how the Department of Justice processes claims under the PSOB Program. The measure authorizes the Bureau of Justice Assistance to establish rules based on standards for the PSOB Program and it requires the Bureau of Justice Assistance to give substantial weight to evidence and facts presented by a federal, state, or local agency when determining eligibility for death or disability benefits. These two requirements will decrease the time in which claims are processed, thereby reducing the backlog of families awaiting a decision on their benefits claim. S. 419 also increases the level of transparency regarding claims processed by requiring the Bureau of Justice Assistance to publish and update information on the status of pending claims. By requiring that updates on pending benefits claims be posted on public websites, the public will be able to evaluate the performance of the Bureau of Justice Assistance in timely processing claims. As we honor our fallen heroes this week during National Police Week, I think now is as greater a time as any to ensure that we remove barriers that hinder their families from obtaining benefits we promised them when we enacted the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act. Accordingly, I strongly support S. 419.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in support of H.R. 2169. the ``Improving Fusion Centers Access to Information Act of 2017,'' which would enhance information sharing in the Department of Homeland Security State, Local and Regional Fusion Center Initiative. This bill requires outreach to be conducted to fusion centers in order to identify gaps in information sharing and consultation with other Federal agencies to develop methods to address such gaps. Additionally, it requires the DHS Secretary to coordinate with the heads of other federal departments and agencies to provide operational and intelligence advice to fusion centers and support their efforts to operate efficiently and effectively. H.R. 2169 requires the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) to ensure fusion centers have access to Homeland Security information sharing centers and that DHS personnel are deployed to support fusion centers in a manner consistent with the department's mission and statutory limits. Fusion centers provide the means to local, state, and tribal law enforcement to bring together information from distributed federal and private sector sources for the purpose of collection, retention, analysis, and dissemination. The term fusion centers first coined by the Department of Defense (DOD) refer to the fusing of information for analysis purposes. The Houston Regional Intelligence Service Center is a Fusion Center. The mission of the Houston Regional Intelligence Service Center is to provide security to the Houston area by gathering, developing and sharing intelligence regarding the capabilities, intentions, and actions of terrorist groups and individuals which pose threats. Houston hosted the 51st Super Bowl earlier this year and the Houston Regional Intelligence Service Center was on duty for this major national event. This year's Super Bowl had: 10,000--volunteers; 140,000--visitors; and 1 million--people who participated in at least one Super Bowl event. The Super Bowl took place free of incidents, which is a testament to the collaborative work of federal, state, and local law enforcement through the Houston Fusion Center. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not only good for our country, but it also will greatly benefit the citizens of Houston, Texas. If local law enforcement is given the proper resources, information, and intelligence, they will know how to properly handle terrorism threats. H.R. 2169 will strengthen our economy while keeping our fellow citizens safe. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting H.R. 2169 because the safety of citizens from potential threats is critical to the security of the homeland and strength of our economy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2281 the ``Border Enforcement Security Task Force Reauthorization Act of 2017.'' As a Senior Member on the House Committee on Homeland Security; and former Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I know well the importance of protecting our nation's borders. I thank my colleague Congressman Vela for sponsoring this bipartisan legislation, which reauthorizes the Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST) program. An escalation in drug trafficking and transnational criminal activity along our nation's southern border has led to record levels of violence and drug trafficking-related homicides. Despite significant efforts to combat the drug trade, many governments in the region suffer from overwhelmed criminal justice systems and law enforcement agencies. There must be a multi-pronged approach to solving the drug crisis in the United States, it must include treatment upon demand; education; increase resources for border interdiction and seizure of illicit drugs and advanced technology to detect and track those who may be engaged in illegal activity along the border. The Border Enforcement Security Task Force is accomplishing the important law enforcement component of border security. The Border Enforcement Security Task Force achieves its goal of border security enhancement by facilitating collaboration among federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement agencies to execute coordinated activities in furtherance of border security and homeland security; and enhancing information-sharing, including the dissemination of homeland security information among such agencies. The BEST program is currently administered by DHS, and involves information sharing and law-enforcement operations between personnel from federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law-enforcement agencies to combat criminal activity near the United States borders. This program has established teams of law enforcement agents from over 100 law enforcement agencies that form units to investigate transnational criminal activity. This approach supports better cooperation and collaboration among federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies when investigating criminal activity along the southwest and northern borders, as well as at the nation's major seaports. Since their inception, BEST Units have collectively initiated more than 10,654 cases. These actions have resulted in more than: 2,718 criminal arrests 7,245 administrative arrests 110,711 pounds of cocaine 5,517 pounds of ecstasy 1,764 pounds of heroin 1,036,749 pounds of marijuana 6,325 pounds of methamphetamine 2,988,561 rounds of ammunition 4,657 vehicles $130.2 million in U.S. currency 15,062 weapons This bill instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to also consider: The cross-border threats posed by transnational criminal organizations; The Department's homeland and border security strategic priorities; and The departmental Joint Task Forces and other multi-agency cross- border operations when establishing new BEST Units. In addition, this bill would update the Secretary's existing reporting requirement to provide an assessment of how BEST Units enhance information-sharing among law enforcement partners, coordinate with Departmental Joint Task Forces, and advance the Department's homeland and border security strategic priorities. This legislation will improve and update the information sharing practices between our law enforcement agencies so they will operate in a cohesive manner. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2281 the BEST program because it had proven throughout the years to improve our border security, along with improving how our law enforcement agencies operate and share vital information.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1677 ``Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2017.'' This bill, introduced by my colleague, Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel, uses sanctions to put pressure on the Syrian government and anyone supporting it to stop committing war crimes against humanity. I support this legislation for its important and necessary purpose to halt the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people, encourage a negotiated political settlement, and hold Syrian human rights abusers accountable for their crimes. The Syrian government, empowered with support from Iran and Russia, has pursued a strategy of targeting civilians to eliminate any opposition to its rule, including arresting anyone who opposes it. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has reported the deaths of 60,000 people in prisons since the start of the conflict. The Syrian government is the main aggressor in a conflict that has resulted in at least 400,000 dead and 14 million Syrians displaced; between 2011 and 2015, the Syrian Network for Human Rights attributed 96 percent of civilian deaths to the Syrian regime. Additionally, President Bashar al-Assad has blocked United Nations humanitarian aid from reaching the intended recipients. Who is Caesar? Caesar, who uses the pseudonym to remain anonymous as a way to protect his family, defected from the Syrian military in 2013. He worked as a crime scene photographer for the Assad government after joining the military, years before the current conflict began. As the conflict escalated, so did the number of bodies he would photograph each day. Photographing the torture and rising death began to change his attitude towards the regime and in 2013, with help from the opposition, he faked his own death and defected from the Syrian military. When he fled in August 2013, Caesar had collected over 53,000 photographs of detainees who had been tortured and killed. He handed these photographs over to an anti-government political group, the Syrian National Movement, who then distributed the photographs to other groups, including Human Rights Watch (HRW). With these photographs, HRW ``found evidence of widespread torture, starvation, beatings, and disease in Syrian government detention facilities.'' With the conflict in Syria in its fifth year, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill intended to punish the Assad regime and its supporters and based it on both Caesar's photographs and his testimony in front of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs this past July. The photographs and testimony show a clear connection between the reported human rights violations and the Assad government, legitimizing the bill and giving clear evidence to the international courts if President Assad stands trial for international war crimes. H.R. 1677 is intended to sanction both the Syrian regime and any actors, what the bill refers to as a ``foreign person,'' who support its human rights violations by imposing sanctions on them. This support can be in any capacity, such as economic or military support. H.R. 1677 is important and necessary as the United States cannot sit in silence while tens of thousands innocent civilians are slaughtered by Assad's authoritative regime. Assad's crimes are not only against humanity but also against democracy, and I fully support legislation aiming to stop these atrocities.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to join my colleagues in honoring our law enforcement officers across America, particularly in my home State, and look forward to providing that tribute in days to come. I thank my colleague, the sheriff, for his work. I have come to the floor today, however, to again comment on the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Russian collusion, alleged Russian collusion of the President's campaign operatives and the President as relates to the 2016 election. Director Mueller is a well respected law enforcement leader. I look forward to his quick response. But I believe it is important for this Congress, and I ask Speaker Ryan to ensure, that the committees of jurisdiction--Oversight and Government Reform, House Judiciary Committee, and House Intelligence Committee--do their work as well. That work would include hearings on the issues before us and an impeachment inquiry to determine the facts. I believe that we can do this together, Mr. Speaker, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans. The truth must be found, and America will be better for it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I too rise to honor this week of celebrating our police officers and hope to be able to speak about their bravery throughout the week. But I am overwhelmed and shocked at the actions of the President of the United States to have yielded classified information into code-word intelligence inside a room with the Foreign Minister of Russia and the Ambassador. It is well known that Ambassador Kislyak is reportedly considered by the U.S. intelligence community to be one of Russia's top spies and a central figure in the FBI investigation into Russia's collusion with Trump campaign officials during the 2016 Presidential election, along with the downfall of General Flynn. This is an absolutely unacceptable way for a President to act. Mr. President, you have jeopardized the lives of the American people; you have jeopardized the lives of intelligence assets around the world; and you have breached the liaison relationship that we have had with many of our allies. This needs to have a full investigation, besides a number of tools of the commission, a special prosecutor. This Judiciary Committee on the House side needs to stand up and have full hearings regarding the investigation of these horrific actions, violations that may breach on high crimes and misdemeanors. It is shocking that the day after the President fired FBI Director Comey to impede the Bureau's investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to the Russian agents and entities that interfered in the 2016 presidential election, we learn that the President recklessly disclosed classified and highly sensitive information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak at a meeting held at the request of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Ambassador Kislyak is reportedly considered by the U.S. intelligence community to be one of Russia's top spies and a central figure in the FBI investigation into Russia's collusion with Trump campaign officials during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. And yet, the President thought it appropriate to disclose to him classified information that had not even been shared with some of our allies. The President's disclosure of classified and highly sensitive information may have severely compromised a U.S. intelligence partner. But rather than provide a more thorough explanation for the President's actions, his surrogates are engaged in a bait and switch, feigning outrage over leaks when the President's loose lips are responsible for the crisis he has created for our nation and for himself. Every day the President gives the nation another reason to question his judgment, doubt his word, mistrust his motives, or question his capacity and competence to manage the national security and foreign policy of the United States. The American people deserve better. Beginning with the creation of an independent bipartisan commission to investigate President Trump's ties to Russia and the appointment of an independent special counsel to investigate the Trump campaign's ties to the Russian agents and entities that interfered in the 2016 presidential election. And Congress must take seriously its oversight responsibilities, and its oath to uphold the Constitution, and be a check on the excesses of the Executive Branch.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want you to look and keep your eyes on who will feel the TrumpCare's mother of all bombs of health care dropped on the American people. God have mercy on your soul. I am a person living with a preexisting disease. I am a breast cancer survivor. This heartless and callous bill, with 24 million-plus people being thrown off of health care and the reverse Robin Hood of stealing from the poor and the seniors laying in their beds, and you are doing an age tax that is five times more than any other young person has to pay, is disgraceful, as well as the pittance that you have given for preexisting conditions, which is $8 billion. They say you need $25 billion. Then you are telling the States to get a waiver. They are going to celebrate. And then you are saying to Trump, the king, that we have the votes to drop that mother of all bombs of health care. Let me just simply say: I want to stand with the people. I want her to live in dignity and to be able to get well. I want to make sure that Medicaid is provided for working families. I don't want the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, to steal bread from the market because they can't get any health insurance. God have mercy on your soul. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee and the representative of a congressional district that has benefitted enormously from the Affordable Care Act, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to H.R. 1628, the so-called ``American Health Care Act,'' which more accurately should be called ``Trumpcare, the Pay More for Less Act.'' I oppose this third and latest reincarnation of Trumpcare for several compelling reasons: 1. Trumpcare forces families to pay higher premiums and deductibles, increasing out-of-pocket costs. 2. Trumpcare will take away health care from 24 million hardworking Americans. 3. Trumpcare would gut Essential Health Benefits and protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions. 4. Trumpcare forces Americans aged 50-64 to pay premiums five times higher than what others pay for health coverage, no matter how healthy they are. 5. Trumpcare shortens the life of the Medicare Trust Fund and ransacks funds that seniors depend on to get the long-term care they need. Mr. Speaker, 85 months ago, on March 23, 2010, redeemed a promise that had been unfulfilled for nearly a 100 years, when he signed into law the landmark Affordable Care Act passed by the Democratic controlled 111th Congress. Seven years later, the verdict is in on the Affordable Care Act: the American people have judged it a success. As reflected in the most recent public opinion polls, 61% of Americans approve of ObamaCare and oppose efforts to repeal it, the highest approval rates on record to date and continuing an inexorable upward trend over the past several years. Mr. Speaker, the reason Americans are adamantly opposed to Republican repeal efforts, including the third iteration of Trumpcare now before us is that Obamacare is no longer a bogey cooked up in Republican talking points but a life-saving and life affirming measure that they experienced in their own lives. Americans think it is beyond crazy to repeal a law that has brought to more than 20 million Americans the peace of mind and security that comes with knowing they have access to affordable, high quality health care. Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 17.1% of Americans lacked health insurance; today nearly nine of ten (89.1%) are insured, which is the highest rate since Gallup began tracking insurance coverage in 2008. Because of the Affordable Healthcare Act: 1. insurance companies are banned from discriminating against anyone, including 17 million children, with a preexisting condition, or charging higher rates based on gender or health status; 2. 6.6 million young-adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents' health insurance plans; 3. 100 million Americans no longer have annual or life-time limits on healthcare coverage; 4. 6.3 million seniors in the ``donut hole'' have saved $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs; 5. 3.2 million seniors now get free annual wellness visits under Medicare, and 6. 360,000 Small Businesses are using the Health Care Tax Credit to help them provide health insurance to their workers; 7. Pregnancy is no longer a pre-existing condition and women can no longer be charged a higher rate just because they are women. We are becoming a nation of equals when it comes to access to affordable healthcare insurance. With all of this progress, and the prospect for more through further refinements, who in their right mind would want to go back to how it used to be? The answer seems to be only the President and House Republicans who call the Affordable Care Act and its enviable record of success a ``disaster.'' Americans know a disaster when they see one and they see one in the making: it is called ``Trumpcare,'' masquerading as the ``American Health Care Act,'' which will force Americans to pay more, get less, decimate the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and give a massive tax cut for top 1 percent. Americans are right to be alarmed and angered by what the Trump Republicans are trying to do by rushing to vote on a Trumpcare bill before it can be scored by highly respected and nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. What we do know for sure is that this Trumpcare bill is a massive $900 billion tax cut for the wealthy, paid for on the backs of America's seniors, the vulnerable, the poor, and working class households. Trump gave the game away on March 20, 2017 in one of his trademark pep rallies: ``We want a very big tax cut, but cannot do that until we keep our promise to repeal and replace the disaster known as Obamacare.'' This ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity--no bill ever tried to give so much to the rich while taking so much from the poor and working class. When they were forced to pull Trumpcare 1.0 from the floor because they lacked the votes to pass, House Republican leaders responded by adding an amendment (Trumpcare 2.0) that made the original bill even worse. Trumpcare 2.0 would allow states to jettison existing essential health benefit requirements, thereby permitting health plans covering millions of people once again to exclude coverage for maternity and newborn care, pediatric dental and vision services, mental health and substance use services, and other crucial benefits. All this accomplished was a hemorrhaging of support from the moderate wing of the Republican Conference who feared the repercussions of leaving millions of Americans with preexisting conditions without health insurance so the Trump Republicans invented Trumpcare 3.0 to provide $8 billion over five years to offset the cost of setting up separate pools or premium assistance programs for people with pre- existing conditions. This pittance is not designed or intended to help real people with preexisting conditions, but to provide cover for House Republicans to walk the plank. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, at least $25 billion per year would be required, not $8 billion spread out over five years as provided for in Trumpcare 3.0. Trumpcare represents the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 1% in American history. This callous Republican scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million people, leaving 52 million uninsured, and raising costs for the poor and middle class. In addition, Republicans are giving the pharmaceutical industry a big tax repeal, worth nearly $25 billion over a decade without demanding in return any reduction in the cost of prescription and brand-name drugs. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, of this bill, it can truly be said that ``never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few.'' The Pay-More-For-Less plan destroys the Medicaid program under the cover of repealing the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion. CBO estimates 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage by 2026 under the Republican plan. In addition to terminating the ACA Medicaid expansion, the bill converts Medicaid to a per-capita cap that is not guaranteed to keep pace with health costs starting in 2020. The combined effect of these policies is to slash $880 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade. The cuts get deeper with each passing year, reaching 25% of Medicaid spending in 2026. These steep cuts will force states to drop people from Medicaid entirely or ration care for those who most need access to comprehensive coverage. The Pay-More-For-Less plan undermines the health care safety net for vulnerable populations. Currently, Medicaid provides coverage to more than 70 million Americans, including children, pregnant women, seniors in Medicare, people who are too disabled to work, and parents struggling to get by on poverty-level wages. In addition to doctor and hospital visits, Medicaid covers long-term services like nursing homes and home and community-based services that allow people with chronic health conditions and disabilities to live independently. To date, 31 states and D.C. have expanded Medicaid eligibility to low-income adults, which, when combined with the ACA's other coverage provisions, has helped to reduce the nation's uninsured rate to the lowest in history. Trumpcare throws 24 million Americans off their health insurance by 2026 according to the Congressional Budget Office. Low-income people will be hit especially hard because 14 million people will lose access to Medicaid by 2026 according to CBO. Trumpcare massively shifts who gets insured in the nongroup market. According to CBO, ``fewer lower-income people would obtain coverage through the nongroup market under the legislation than current law,'' and, ``a larger share of enrollees in the nongroup market would be younger people and a smaller share would be older people.'' The projected 10% reduction in premiums is not the result of better care or efficiency--it is in large part the result of higher-cost and older people being pushed out of a market that is also selling plans that provide less financial protection. People with low incomes suffer the greatest losses in coverage. CBO projects the uninsured rate for people in their 30s and 40s with incomes below 200% of poverty will reach 38% in 2026 under this bill, nearly twice the rate projected under current law. Among people aged 50-64, CBO projects 30% of those with incomes below 200% of poverty will be uninsured in 2026. Under current law, CBO projects the uninsured rate would only be 12 percent. Being uninsured is not about ``freedom.'' Speaker Ryan has argued that people will happily forgo insurance coverage because this bill gives them that ``freedom.'' The argument makes as much sense as the foolish claim that slaves came to America as ``immigrants'' seeking a better life. The freedom to be uninsured is no freedom at all to people in their 50s and 60s with modest incomes who simply cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars toward premiums. They do not really have a choice. The claim of our Republican friends that Trumpcare provides more freedom to all Americans calls to mind the words of Anatole France: ``The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread from the market.'' Trumpcare raises costs for Americans nearing retirement, essentially imposing an ``Age Tax.'' The bill allows insurance companies to charge older enrollees higher premiums than allowed under current law, while reducing the size of premium tax credits provided. Again, these changes hit low-income older persons the hardest. A 64-year-old with an income of $26,500 buying coverage in the individual market will pay $12,900 more toward their premiums in 2026, on average. Trumpcare raises costs for individuals and families with modest incomes, particularly older Americans. A recent analysis found that in 2020, individuals with incomes of about $31,000 would pay on average $4,000 more out of pocket for health care--which is like getting a 13% pay cut. And the older you are, the worse it gets. An analysis by the Urban Institute estimates that for Americans in their 50s and 60s, the tax credits alone would only be sufficient to buy plans with major holes in them, such as $30,000 deductible for family coverage and no coverage at all of brand-name drugs or many therapy services. Another reason I oppose the Trumpcare bill before us is because its draconian cuts in Medicaid funding and phase-out of Medicaid expansion put community health centers at risk. Community health centers are consumer-driven and patient-centered organizations that serve as a comprehensive and cost effective primary health care option for America's most underserved communities. Community health centers serve as the health care home for more than 25 million patients in nearly 10,000 communities across the country. Across the country, 550 new clinics have opened to receive 5 million new patients since 2009. Community health centers serve everyone regardless of ability to pay or insurance status: 1. 71% of health center patients have incomes at or below 100% of poverty and 92% have incomes less than 200% of poverty; 2. 49% of health center patients are on Medicaid; and 3. 24% are uninsured; 4. Community health centers annually serve on average 1.2 million homeless patients and more than 300,000 veterans. Community health centers reduce health care costs and produce savings--on average, health centers save 24% per Medicaid patient when compared to other providers. Community health centers integrate critical medical and social services such as oral health, mental health, substance abuse, case management, and translation, under one roof. Community health centers employ nearly 100,000, people and generate over $45 billion in total economic activity in some of the nation's most distressed communities. Mr. Speaker, community health centers are on the front lines of every major health crisis our country faces; from providing access to care (and employment) to veterans to addressing the opioid epidemic to responding to public health threats like the Zika virus. We should be providing more support and funding to community health centers; not making it more difficult for them to serve the communities that desperately need them by slashing Medicaid funding. Trumpcare Republican plan leaves rural Americans worse off. Mr. Speaker, health insurance has historically been more expensive in rural areas because services cost more and it is hard to have a stable individual market with a small population. Under the Affordable Care Act, premium subsidies are tied to local costs, which helps keeps premium costs down. But they are not under the Republican plan. So, under the Republican plan residents in rural areas, who tend to be older and poorer, will pay much more and get much less health insurance. What the Affordable Care Act, and its repeal means in the lives of real people: At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the powerful and compelling reasons to reject Trumpcare lie in the real world experiences of the American people. Let me briefly share with you the positive, life affirming difference made by the Affordable Care Act in the lives of just three of the millions of Americans it has helped. Joan Fanwick: ``If Obamacare is repealed, I don't know if I'll live to see the next President'' ``After nearly a decade of mysterious health scares, I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder called Sjogren's syndrome last year, when I was a junior at Temple University. ``It's a chronic illness with no known cause or cure, and without close medical surveillance and care, it can lead to life-threatening complications (like the blood infection I frequently experience). ``For me, having this disorder means waking up every morning and taking 10 different medications. ``It also means a nurse visiting my apartment every Saturday to insert a needle into the port in my chest, so I can give myself IV fluids throughout the week. ``Without insurance, my medical expenses would cost me about $1,000 per week--more than $50,000 per year. And that doesn't even include hospitalizations. ``My medical bills aren't cheap under Obamacare, but I can afford them. ``Under Obamacare, insurance companies aren't allowed to cut you off when your costs climb so right now, the most I personally have to pay out of pocket is $1,000 per year.'' Brain Norgaard: ``I am a small business owner and leadership trainer who Obamacare has helped tremendously.'' Brian Norgaard, a Dallas, Texas resident called my office to express his opposition to Trumpcare and to offer share how the Affordable Care Act has helped small business owners like himself: ``I am a small business owner and leadership trainer who Obamacare has helped tremendously. ``My wife and I both own small businesses in the Dallas, Texas area and as a result of the huge savings we received after paying lower [healthcare] premiums under Obamacare, we were able to reinvest those saving into both of our businesses and the community. ``And the healthcare we received was quality, at that.'' Ashley Walton: ``For cancer survivors, we literally live and die by insurance'' Ashley Walton was 25 when a mole on her back turned out to be melanoma. She had it removed, but three years later she discovered a lump in her abdomen. She was then unemployed and uninsured, and so she put off going to a doctor. She tried to buy health insurance. Every company rejected her. Ashley eventually became eligible for California's Medicaid program, which had been expanded under the Affordable Care Act. The 32-year-old Oakland resident credits her survival to the ACA. Without it, ``I would likely be dead, and my family would likely be bankrupt from trying to save me.'' Before any of our Republican colleagues supporting this bill cast their vote, I urge them to reflect on the testimony of Joan, Brian, and Ashley, and on this question posed by a constituent to Sen. Cotton of Arkansas at a recent town hall: ``I've got a husband dying and we can't afford--let me tell you something. ``If you can get us better coverage than this [Obamacare], go for it. ``Let me tell you what we have, plus a lot of benefits that we need. ``We have $29 per month for my husband. Can you beat that? Can you? With all the congestive heart failures, and open heart surgeries, we're trying. $29 per month. And he's a hard worker. $39 for me.'' Like a horror film of yore with monsters and vampires, both the original Trumpcare and its sequels threaten to return this country to the days when annual and lifetime dollar-based limits on the use of essential health benefits shifted tremendous financial and health risks to working families. Insurance companies could charge people with pre-existing conditions many times more than they charge healthy people--just as they did before the Affordable Care Act. Millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions would be at risk of losing health coverage or face premiums so high only the very wealthy could afford them--the same people who benefit from the massive tax cuts in the original bill. I urge all Members to reject Trumpcare, one of the most monstrously cruel and morally bankrupt legislative proposals ever to be considered in this chamber. To paraphrase a famous former reality television personality, ``believe me, Trumpcare is a disaster.'' We should reject it and keep instead ``something terrific'': and that is the Affordable Care Act, regarded lovingly by millions of Americans as ``Obamacare.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about Senate Amendment to H.R. 244, ``Making Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017.'' The legislation before us is an imperfect vehicle for appropriations for FY 2017, but this Omnibus Appropriations package contains new funding for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2017 for federal agencies under the eleven remaining Appropriations subcommittees. The Omnibus Budget Agreement appropriates $1.070 trillion in base discretionary budget authority, allocating $551 billion for defense and $519 billion for nondefense in line with the Budget Control Act's statutory discretionary spending caps, as well as $93.5 billion in additional funding designated for Overseas Contingency Operations(OCO). Mr. Speaker, this budget agreement is far from perfect, but it is a positive step since it ensures that funding for appropriated entitlements will continue at a rate maintaining program levels under current law and prevents congressional Republicans from shutting down the government again and manufacturing a crisis that only harms our economy, destroys jobs, and weakens our middle class. The government shutdown of 2013, which was manufactured by the Republican majority lasted 16 days and cost taxpayers $24 billion. The enormous harm and disruption of the lives of federal employees and the people they serve, however, was irreparable. As I stated, Mr. Speaker, this Omnibus Budget Agreement is a product of goodwill and realism, and averts a shutdown of government operations and the disruption a shutdown causes to the lives of millions of Americans who depend upon federal programs to do their jobs, educate their kids, care for their parents, and contribute to their communities. Our constituents look to the Congress and the President to make responsible choices and decisions to keep the nation safe, the economy prosperous, and to make necessary and prudent investments in education, healthcare and research, transportation and infrastructure, economic development, science, the arts and humanities, and the environment. This is, after all, just another way of saying that the American people expect their leaders in Washington be guided by the Constitution's Preamble and pursue policies and provide the resources that will: ``establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.'' The funding priorities that have been floated by the Trump Administration fail this essential test of leadership because they are irresponsible, impracticable, unrealistic, and, in many respects, insensitive or indifferent to the deleterious impact they will have on the lives of real people living in the real world. They do not command majority support in the Congress or of the public and have been rejected in this budget. Instead, in a stinging defeat for the Trump, the Omnibus Budget Agreement does not fund the immoral and unwise border wall or create a cruel new deportation force. Also eliminated are more than 160 Republican poison pill riders, ranging from undermining a woman's right to reproductive health to dismantling Dodd-Frank's vital Wall Street consumer protections. Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that we succeeded in securing Democratic policy priorities and funding increases for critical nondefense items. This will save lives and create jobs. Mr. Speaker, let me identify some of the important policy and funding priorities included in this budget agreement: Fully funds community development block grants and low income housing programs in urban and rural communities. $2 billion for Medical Research: the budget rejects President Trump's dangerous plans to steal billions from lifesaving medical research; $221 million overall for Community Oriented Policing (COPS) and $137 million for the COPS hiring program; $1 billion for Coal Miners' Health: Democrats secured funding to deliver permanent health benefits for the thousands of coal miners and their families who stood to lose their health benefits this month; $600 million to combat and respond to the Opioid Epidemic; Provides level funding for the Environmental Protection Agency despite Republicans' hopes to gut it; Year-Round Pell Grants: Democrats insisted on, and won an increase of $105 in the maximum Pell Grant award and succeeded in restoring access to year-round Pell Grants which will make a huge difference in the lives of hard-working students; Science Funding: the omnibus budget increases funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Department of Energy Office of Science and ARPA-E, all initiatives President Trump wanted cut; Puerto Rico's Medicaid: the omnibus budget includes vital funds to stabilize Puerto Rico's underfunded Medicaid program, which threatened so many of our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico; $1 billion for Emergency Famine Relief to alleviate famine resulting from war, drought and displacement in Africa and the Middle East, saving countless lives around the world; Mr. Speaker, I support the omnibus budget agreement before us because it achieves the following goals and objectives that I laid out last week: ``To establish justice'' and ``To promote the general welfare'': 1. Funding for the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights so that they have funds needed to enforce laws protecting civil rights, voting rights, and prosecuting hate crimes. 2. Fully funds community development block grants and low income housing programs in urban and rural communities. 3. Fully funds the Legal Services Corporation so that working and low-income persons who lack an army of lobbyists to represent them in Washington will at least have the assistance of counsel to defend their legal rights in courts of law. 4. Fully funds programs providing food assistance to housebound seniors, such as Meals on Wheels. 5. Fully funds programs that provide students from low and moderate- income families access to affordable access to higher education and provides students with special needs the support needed to receive the free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Act). 6. Funds before and after school programs and other student enrichment programs that help students succeed. 7. Fully funds programs that make federal housing safer through energy efficient healing and cooling systems. 8. Preserves tax credit programs that help revitalize low income communities. 9. Fully funds the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy programs developing the next generation of clean energy and transportation technologies. ``Provide for the common defense'': 1. Provides robust funding for the Department of State and USAID to advance national security interests in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and to end violent conflicts in trouble spots which could threaten the security interests of the United States. 2. Provides adequate funding for United Nations peacekeeping missions throughout the world and distribution of food aid to people in developing and famine stricken countries, such as South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Nigeria. ``To ensure domestic tranquility'': 1. Fully funds cost-sharing reduction subsidies, or CSRs, to compensate insurers for reducing deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums for low-income customers on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. 2. Protects the adequacy, solvency, and integrity of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which provide health sustaining support for 70 million Americans. 3. Fully funds the National Institutes of Health research programs so that patient access to lifesaving treatments is not delayed. 4. Does not convert funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention into block grants which would hindering the nation's ability to respond swiftly and effectively to public health crises like Ebola, Zika, and HIV/AIDS. Mr. Speaker, working together the House and Senate has reached an agreement on an appropriate budget framework that invests in the American people, preserves our national security, and keeps faith with the values that have served our nation well and made the United States the leading nation on earth.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the continued appropriations for 2017 and to say: Say it isn't so. When the Trump budget was presented--the skinny budget--$600 billion was cut out of NIH, which would impact a major research in diseases that impact Americans. Thank goodness that we worked for a $2 billion increase for the NIH in this appropriations bill. And, equally so, how important it is that we can announce in Houston that the Houston Housing Authority will be able to reissue vouchers for homeless families because $654 million-plus was put in the section 8 vouchers, $40 million-plus was put in for veterans who are homeless, and $10 million was put in for the disabled. In addition, we added to the Cops on the Beat program and, as well, provided additional dollars to enhance the Civil Rights Division some $897.5 million. The budget or the appropriations should be a road map for serving Americans, not a nickel-and-dime approach to undermine. I am glad the resistance remains strong, and that is why we have a budget or an appropriation that listens to the people and the healthcare subsidies are being paid for, so that people can have that health insurance.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our nation is to have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military. We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. I was inspired to serve by President Kennedy who said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said: ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.'' By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated. That is why today I rise to pay tribute to four extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are: Marieme Foote from Ithaca College; Naomi Mulugeta from Texas Tech University; Mitch Kuhlman, from American University; and Alexandria Johnson from the Madeira School. Mr. Speaker, the energy, intelligence, and idealism these wonderful young people brought to my office and those interning in the offices of my colleagues help keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world. Because of persons like them the future of our country is bright and its best days lie ahead. I wish them all well. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great, good, and forever young.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening I began my remarks by saying, ``Say it is not so''; and I rise again this morning, as we begin our journey on ensuring that the government does not shut down and again rebutting TrumpCare that is so devastating, to say, ``Say it is not so.'' This morning we rose to headlines of the President of the United States saying that the government needs a shutdown in September. I am glad Democrats recognize that we do not represent just Democrats. We represent the entire Nation, and we owe them a commitment to govern, and that is what we will do. We now will face another attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. I am glad that Democrats have come together around common sense and the responsibility of serving not only the healthy, but the sick. Last evening, in a very emotional testimony, one of our late-night hosts who entertains America every night, gave an emotional statement about his infant son who was receiving heart surgery. In his tears, his excitement for the success, but also his pain that people who did not have money, as we debate this frivolous healthcare bill, will be subject to the dangers and the devastation and the potential death of a child they love. Say it is not so. And I remember when we started the Affordable Care Act, as a member of the Judiciary Committee--all committees were involved in this process. I remember us holding Democratic hearings to listen to families who were suffering and were the brunt of not having health insurance: The father who had a medical student son who was interning in Atlanta who had to drive with great fury to pick him up to be able to take him back to Washington, D.C., when he had an immediate attack of an appendix, laying him on his back seat because the insurance that the young man had only covered him in the city of Washington, D.C., where he was going to medical school. Or I remember the mother whose son was a drug abuser--but a lawyer, got himself back on track but suffered from hepatitis--whose son died in the emergency room because he did not have the medical coverage as he was getting his life back to help stabilize him, died in that medical condition and in that emergency room. Those are just a few stories of those who died because they did not have health insurance pre the Affordable Care Act. Now, today we come with a bill that is going to eviscerate the sick people with preexisting diseases--it is not like the Affordable Care Act--and literally throw them under the bus. Because what they are doing is taking away essential services and saying that there is no room at the inn for those with preexisting conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, allergic conditions, heart disease, cancer, leukemia, or a baby that is born with a heart defect. It is tragic that the bill they are putting on the floor is taking away essential services, like mental health, substance abuse, hospitalization, maternity; and they are throwing them to the States. If your State will do it, so what. I live in a State--as we all do, we love our State--they are facing fiscal crisis. Do you think they are going to take the sickest? No, they are not. Twenty-four million people will still lose their insurance. Hardworking families will have no health insurance. Those with preexisting conditions, under the Trump plan, still remain in the darkness of corners, not helped, and ready to die. What family wants to subject their loved one to a place where they have no hope? Then, of course, there is the horrific age tax. The premiums for those between age 50 and 64, hardworking Americans, just because they have reached a certain age, their premiums will shoot through the roof. These are people who have made and built this country with their hands and their minds, our mothers and fathers, and even ourselves. How tragic it is to be able to have these kinds of conditions. Then, of course, it will shorten the life of the Medicare trust and literally implode that. This is governing? I don't think so. I don't think so. And I, for one, am not going to stand for it because it is important that our people understand that we govern as Democrats. As we put this bill on the floor to keep from closing this government, let me just say to you quickly that we have upped the NIH-- the National Institutes of Health--with $2 billion. We have preserved the yearlong Pell, and we have funded housing so people don't have to be thrown out of housing. Mr. Speaker, Democrats know how to govern and save this country. I don't know what this person is doing at all.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate on the floor, and I want to join my fellow colleagues--women and men of the Democratic Caucus--on opposing the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017. I just have one anecdotal story that reflects the constituents that I represent. Take that woman who I saw--when going to my elementary schools, visiting them, I saw a mother who got up at 4 in the morning to take three buses to drop her young child off at an elementary school, and then get two buses back to work, an hourly wage maker. She does it because, one, she is supporting her child and, two, she has got to work. This bill is a complete undermining of all of the hardworking men and women who need their money to pay a light bill, to pay rent, maybe even a mortgage, to pay the normal expenses that many take for granted. And this bill wants to substitute compensatory time for overtime pay. So I cannot imagine that anyone with a heart would have this legislation as a substitute for this hardworking mother to be paid overtime. I just can't imagine that compensatory time off cannot pay the light bill, cannot pay rent, cannot pay healthcare costs, which we see are immediately being taken away from 24 million Americans. So I oppose this legislation because I want to stand on the side of the hardworking mother who needs her resources for a school uniform, a school trip, a rent payment, a light bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill should be opposed. It does not serve the American people.