Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her remarks and concern. I believe that the military has great interest in the ROTC program and particularly in recruitment in HBCUs and Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Let me also say, however, Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to emphasize my commitment to PTSD funding. I want to ensure as we go forward that we will increase the PTSD funding. I am interested in it being increased in particular by $5 million, but I know there are other amendments that would increase it even more. If we know the suffering from those who have PTSD as I have, this is something that I have worked for, fought for, and advocated for. The reason, Mr. Chairman, is I see it every day. My amendment would focus on the needs of those who want to live a normal life with post-traumatic stress disorder. Our soldiers are still coming back from places like Syria. We know they have come back from Afghanistan and Iraq, but they are still fighting there. And PTSD, recently diagnosed in these wars, to give these people the ability to be with their family, to be able to have positions because the treatment is there, to regain their life because what they have seen from the bloodshed of IEDs and the tragedies of war warrant this support of post-traumatic stress disorder funding. So I want to make note of that on the Record, of my support and the support for the increase. I close by saying I ask for those in support of the Jackson Lee amendment dealing with the ROTC, HBCUs, Hispanic- Serving and Tribal Institutions. It is a valuable program and a valuable use for that program to recruit more people from those communities. Mr. Chairman, I ask support for the Jackson Lee amendment. Mr. Chair, I thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the Rules Committee for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order for consideration of ``H.R. 6157, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019.'' I also thank Chair Kay Granger and Ranking Member Peter J. Visclosky for their work in bring the Defense Appropriations bill before the House for consideration. This Jackson Lee Amendment is No. 1 on the Second Rule for H.R. 6157 and provides that no funding in this Act shall be used or otherwise made available by this Act to end Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs at HBCUs, Hispanic Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges and Universities. ROTC provides training to college students to prepare them for future service in branches of the U.S. military: the Army, Air Force, and Navy. The Army, Navy, and Air Force ROTC programs are annual scholarship awards, which combined, are the nation's largest scholarship grantors. The Army ROTC alone provides $274 million in scholarship money to more than 13,000 students each year, according to the U.S. Army Cadet Command. Nationally about 12,000 high school seniors compete for about 2,000 Army ROTC scholarships. About half of these are three-year scholarships, and the other half are four-year scholarships Once students reach college, they can explore specific military branches by enrolling in ROTC programs provided by the Army, Navy, or Air Force. ROTC programs train future officers to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. To students who qualify, the ROTC programs offer scholarships that cover the cost of their education. In exchange, students make a commitment to maintain academic excellence and later to fulfill active duty services in their chosen branch of the Armed Forces. ROTC programs reward academic excellence to students attending HBCUs, Hispanic Servicing Institutions, and Tribal Colleges by providing a path to military service. I ask my Colleagues in the House to support this Jackson Lee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019. List of HBCUs With Navy ROTC Programs Clark Atlanta University (Georgia) Dillard University (Louisiana) Florida A&M University Hampton University (Virginia) Howard University (Washington DC) Huston-Tillotson University (Texas) Morehouse College (Georgia) Norfolk State University (North Carolina) Prairie View A&M University (Texas) Savannah State University (Georgia) Southern University and A&M College (Louisiana) Spelman College (Georgia) Tennessee State University Tuskegee University (Alabama) Xavier University (Louisiana) Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) With Army ROTC Alabama A&M University Alcorn State University Bowie State University Central State University Elizabeth City State University Florida A&M University Fort Valley State University Grambling State University Hampton University Howard University Jackson State University Lincoln University (Pennsylvania) Lincoln University (Missouri) Morgan State University Norfolk State University North Carolina A&T State University Prairie View A&M University Saint Augustine's College South Carolina State University Southern University and A&M College Tuskegee University University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Virginia State University West Virginia State University Learn How People Have Gained From ROTC Leadership That Lasts a Lifetime LTG (Ret) Andrew P. Chambers, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Retired LTG (Ret) Chambers graduated from Howard University and Commission as an Infantry Officer in 1954. After 35 years of service LTG Chambers retired from the Army in 1989. He then held the position of Director of Industry Operations for the Association of the United States Army, later assumed the role of Director of Community Services for AmeriCorps and then served as Vice President of University of Maryland University College Europe, retiring in 2005 LTG (Ret) Chambers passed away on June 3, 2017 (age 86) and was buried with full military honors at Arlington Nation Cemetery. MG (Ret) George A. Alexander, Former Deputy Surgeon General, Office of the U.S. Army Surgeon General, HQS, Department of the Army MG (Ret) Alexander is an active alumni and strong supporter of the Howard University Army ROTC Program. He graduated from Howard University College of Medicine in 1977 and was commissioned in 1979. COL Claude A. Burnett Currently serving the Chief of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Acting Chief of the Division of Surgery at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany COL Burnett graduated from Howard University with a BS in Chemistry and received his commission in 1992. He went on to obtain his medical degree from Meharry Medical College in Nashville, TN. COL Derrick W. Flowers Currently the G-8/Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management, Headquarters, US Army Medical Command, for Sam Houston, TX. COL Flowers received his Bachelor of Business Administration Degree in Accounting and commission as a Medical Services Corps officer from Howard University in 1990. COL Senodja F. Sundiata-Walker Currently serving as the Chief of Program Support Branch, Washington D.C. COL Sundiata-Walker graduated and received her commission from Howard University as a Military Intelligence Officer in 1995.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment No. 14.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our Nation safe. My amendment, and I appreciate the opportunity in presenting it, is identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted last year to the Defense Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2018, H.R. 3219. My amendment increases funding for Defense Health Program research and development by $10 million. These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United States military. Mr. Chairman, I am a breast cancer survivor, and the relief of the care and cure is one that you cannot imagine. Just imagine being in the United States military and being diagnosed. These funds are important to increase that research to help our men and women in the United States military. The American Cancer Society called several strains of breast cancer a particularly aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates. In this instance, it is triple negative breast cancer. That is one that is deadly, more so than many other types, and I have seen close friends, my neighbor, succumb to triple negative breast cancer. This increased funding should be and, hopefully, will be utilized to do important research in that area. This was evidenced by an article, ``Fighting a Different Battle: Breast Cancer and the Military.'' Breast cancer can affect both men and women. The bad news is that breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. Breast cancer has been just about as difficult to overcome as well. More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer, just between the years 2000 and 2011. According to the same study, more are expected as it grows. The good news is that we have been working on it and, therefore, much progress has been made. The Jackson Lee amendment will allow the additional research on, as I said, devastating triple negative breast cancer. That research is particularly needed since women are joining the armed services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to leadership. With increased age comes increased risk and the incidence of breast cancer. Military people, in general, and, in some cases, specifically, are at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer, according to Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston University who works with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on military breast cancer issues. Dr. Clapp notes that life in the military can mean exposure to a witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of getting breast cancer. So I ask my colleagues to remember that there are many challenges for those who serve in the United States military. Health is one of them. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the chairwoman for acknowledging the importance of the research that is already established. I want to reemphasize that, in the midst of breast cancer research, there will be a focus on many subtypes, if you will, one of them including triple negative breast cancer. So with the expansion of women in the military, it is extremely important to move forward with this amendment to help ensure that the men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom can live longer, healthier lives. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe. Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted last year to the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2018 (H.R. 3219). My amendment increases funding for the Defense Health Program's research and development by $10 million. These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United States military. As a Member of Congress, a mother, a sister and a spouse, and a breast cancer survivor, I feel a special responsibility to do all I can to ensure every American can win in the fight against all types of breast cancer but especially triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Breast cancer can affect both men and women. The bad news is breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. Let me say that sentence again. Breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011. And according to that same study, more are suspected; it grows. The good news is that we have been working on it, and I want to add my appreciation to the military. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14, however, will allow for the additional research. That research is particularly needed since women are joining the Armed Services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to leadership. Within increased age comes increased risk and incidence of breast cancer. Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at an alarming rate, but male service members, veterans and their dependents are at risk as well. With a younger and generally healthier population, those in the military tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians-- including significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast cancer is a different story. Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer, according to Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston University who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on military breast cancer issues. Dr. Clapp notes that life in the military can mean exposure to a witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of getting breast cancer. statistics on african american women and breast cancer In 2013, the American Cancer Society Surveillance and Health Services Institute estimated that 27,060 black women would be diagnosed with the illness. The overall incidence rate of breast cancer is 10 percent lower in African American women than white women. African American women have a five-year survival rate of 78 percent after diagnosis as compared to 90 percent for white women. The incidence rate of breast cancer among women under 45 is higher for African American women compared to white women. Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Accounts for between 13 percent and 25 percent of all breast cancer in the United States; Onset is at a younger age; Is more aggressive; and Is more likely to metastasize. Currently, 70 percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed. African American women are 3 times more likely to develop triple- negative breast cancer than White women. African-American women have prevalence TNBC of 26 percent vs. 16 percent in non-African-American women. African-American women are more likely to be diagnosed with larger tumors and more advanced stages of breast cancer. Currently there is no targeted treatment for TNBC exists. Some researchers theorize that higher rates of triple negative tumors among young African American Women may be explain, to some degree, the poor prognosis of breast cancers diagnosed. Not knowing if you have Triple Negative Breast Cancer is the biggest threat to health. Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment. There continues to be a need for research funding for biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trial designs that will lead to the early detection of TNBC and to the development of multiple targeted therapies to treat this awful disease. The dedication of funding for research into breast cancer is the right track, we're on the right road. The expansion of women in the military, makes this area of DoD research particularly important to addressing the real breast cancer risk posed to our women in uniform. Today women make up around 15 percent of all service personnel in the combined branches of the French military. Women are 11 percent of the Army forces, 13 percent for the Navy, 21 percent of the Air Force and 50 percent of the Medical Corps. In 2015, All U.S. military combat positions were opened up to women. The fighting capacity of the military is linked to the health and wellbeing of women throughout the armed services. We can offer another tool in the work to keep the women of the military healthy and free of breast cancer through development of test that can detect the disease in its earliest stages and treatments that increase survival rates should breast cancer be contracted. I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding H.R. 6157, the ``Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019,'' to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14 increases funding for the PTSD by $5 million. These funds should be used toward outreach activities targeting hard to reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Mr. Chair, along with traumatic brain injury, PTSD is the signature wound suffered by the brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear. For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see on a daily basis. In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face. Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th birthday. But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your thoughts and memories. And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back. PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes. People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb (especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become violent. They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult. Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep. These are called flashbacks; a person having a flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again. Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD. These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety disorders. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14 recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human, who live their experiences. Ask a veteran of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14 will help ensure that ``no soldier is left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country. I urge all Members to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 14. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on the critical importance of fully funding the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the extent to which officials of the Trump Campaign may have aided and encouraged this attack on our democracy. If we are to protect the rule of law and prevent future interference in our elections, it is essential that Special Counsel Mueller's thorough and nonpartisan investigation continued unimpeded until all the facts are known and laid bare before the American people. There are at least five (5) reasons why the Congress must act to protect the Special Counsel's Russia investigation from White House interference and obstruction. First, we need to restore public confidence in our elections and protect against interference in the future. Our intelligence agencies are unanimous in their conclusions that Russia engaged in an unprecedented campaign to undermine our elections through cyber-attacks, dissemination of false information, and other intelligence operations. It is imperative that we understand fully the nature of the interference and how to harden our electoral processes to prevent future attacks. Second, there is evidence that Trump campaign operatives conspired with the Russians. As disturbing as the Russian attack on the election is, the growing likelihood that some Americans aided this most hostile foreign adversary in undermining the very foundation of our democracy. There is much circumstantial evidence to support this conclusion. Members of the Trump Campaign high-command had meetings with Russian officials that were not disclosed in testimony and in security clearance applications. Senior Trump Campaign officials attempted to establish secret communications with the Russian government that would preclude oversight by U.S. intelligence agencies. Senior Trump Campaign officials had unusual financial ties to Russia. Senior Trump Campaign officials had advance knowledge of when Russian operatives would release documents stolen by the Russians from the Clinton campaign. Senior Trump Campaign officials (including Trump's son and son-in- law, and Campaign Chairman) met in Trump Tower on June 9, 2016 with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer and a former Soviet counterintelligence officer under the assumption they would provide politically damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government's efforts to support the Trump campaign. The firing of FBI Director James Comey has increased suspicion of collusion with the Russian government. The FBI determined that there was sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation into possible collusion with the Russian government. According to Former FBI Director James Comey, President Trump made unusual requests of him; including asking for his loyalty and hoping he would derail the Russian investigation. Director Comey refused to make such commitments. On May 9, 2017, President Trump fired Director Comey and admitted publically the next day that he fired Director Comey ``because of the Russia investigation.'' The Special Counsel must have the resources needed to perform a fair and credible investigation. The Department of Justice's appointment of former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to oversee the investigation was met with wide approval in Congress and the general public. Special Counsel Mueller has a well-earned reputation for fairness, probity, integrity, objectivity, and nonpartisan. The more evidence of collusion uncovered by Special Counsel Mueller, the more the President threatens to fire the Special Counsel or issue pardons to those implicated in the investigation. There is strong evidence of collusion. Republicans may point to the House Intelligence Committee report (written by Republicans) that concluded there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. House Intelligence Committee Democrats disagree with that report charging that Republicans did not take its investigation seriously. House Republicans refused to call key witnesses or request pertinent documents, and refused to compel and enforce witness cooperation and answers to key questions. Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee concluded the opposite, citing significant evidence pointing to collusion in the 70+ secret meetings and communications between senior Trump campaign officials (including Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulous, Donald Trump Jr., Michael Flynn, Carter Page, and others with agents or entities allied with Vladimir Putin or the Russian government. Mr. Speaker, this evening, just like last night and the night before, Paul Manafort, the Chairman of the 2016 Trump Campaign, sleeps in a jail, indicted and accused of money-laundering, criminal fraud, and being an unregistered agent of a foreign government. Michael Flynn, the President's first National Security Advisor, has been indicted and pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators regarding his contacts and communications with agents of Vladimir Putin's Russia. Also pleading guilty or indicted in Special Counsel Mueller's investigation are George Papadopoulous; and Trump Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates. All told, Special Counsel Mueller has won indictments against 19 persons--including 13 Russian nationals--and three Russian companies. Special Counsel Mueller's investigation is not a `witch-hunt' but a reasonable and necessary response to an attack on our country and its most fundamental democratic institution: free, fair, and untainted elections. Without the rule of law and democratic governance, all is lost; and all the efforts by our Republican friends to cut taxes for millionaires and multinational corporations, explode the deficit, and punish working families will avail us of nothing but `the tinkling of cymbals and the sounding of brass.'

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 435, the Credit Access and Inclusion Act of 2017. This bill expands credit access to millions of Americans by amending the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to reporting positive consumer credit information to consumer reporting agencies. H.R. 435 will help millions more low-income and minority households access credit by changing how Americans' financial information is reported to credit rating agencies. This means that millions of Americans who previously could not access a lower-cost loan, cheaper car payments, or better rent for their apartment will be able to do so. The passage of the Credit Access and Inclusion Act has the potential to bring a substantial number of people into the credit mainstream, particularly low-income families and households of color. Many families in this country will benefit from the opportunity to build strong credit, a cornerstone of financial security, that this bill makes possible. The absence of a credit history remains a significant barrier for households seeking safe and affordable credit products, rental housing, and jobs. This bill begins to level the playing field. Although the positive payments from nontraditional credit sources do not show up on their credit reports, derogatory data does so through the collections process. Without the ability to build a credit history with those positive payments, millions of Americans continue to lose opportunities to get and stay ahead in our economy today. This bill removes a major barrier to credit reporting proven payment data. When reported to nationwide credit bureaus, this data will ultimately help working Americans, younger and elderly Americans, and immigrants build or restore a good credit history in order to build assets and wealth, as well as enable financial security. The Credit Access and Inclusion Act, a bipartisan bill, will allow utility and telecom companies and landlords to report on-time payment data to credit reporting agencies, helping those with little to no credit build their credit scores based on a full picture of their payment history. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 435, the Credit Access and Inclusion Act of 2017, to ensure credit access to millions of new low-income and minority households.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5766, the Securing Public Areas of Transportation Facilities Act of 2018. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Homeland Security Committee and former chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security, I am well aware of the importance of our nation's transportation system. H.R. 5766, the Securing Public Areas of Transportation Facilities Act of 2018, works to improve the security of public areas of transportation facilities. Our Nation's vital transportation facilities must be protected. A safe, well-functioning transportation system is critical to the Nation's prosperity. Whether it is by road, transit, aviation, rail, or waterway, we rely on our transportation system to move people and goods safely, facilitate commerce, attract and retain businesses, and support jobs. Everyday millions of Americans travel through airports, train stations, bus terminals, and ports. Over 2 million travelers per day passed through U.S. airports in 2017. In Houston, George Bush Intercontinental Airport and William P. Hobby Airport served a combined total of over 54 million passengers in 2017. George Bush Intercontinental Airport is the 14th busiest airport in the United States. These airports are essential hubs for domestic and international air travel for Houston and the surrounding region. It is critically important that their safety is assured. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-71) was enacted and established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA is responsible for securing the Nation's transportation systems-- both aviation and surface transportation. Since the creation of the TSA, the technologies utilized at checkpoints and the mechanisms used to acquire them have changed very little. Given issues from prior Congresses, including the wait time crises and covert testing failures, there are renewed pushes by stakeholders to have TSA continue in a more progressive direction in terms of security policies and technologies and the manner in which these technologies are procured. The volume of work that the TSA must accomplish is growing each year and so are the threats they must face. In 2017, over 750 million passengers were screened by the Transportation Security Administration. In 2017, a record setting 3,957, firearms were discovered in carry-on bags at checkpoints across the country, averaging 76 firearms per week or over 10 per day. 84 percent of those firearms were loaded. This represents over a 16 percent increase in firearm discoveries from 2016. George Bush Intercontinental Airport had 142 firearms discovered in 2017. It is time for us to take action to secure our vital transportation facilities. H.R. 5766, the Securing Public Areas of Transportation Facilities Act of 2018, directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a working group to promote collaborative engagement between the Department of Homeland Security and public and private sector stakeholders to develop recommendations for enhancing security in public areas of transportation facilities. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to intervene. The Securing Public Areas of Transportation Facilities Act of 2018 is a necessary step towards securing our transportation system. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5766, the Securing Public Areas of Transportation Facilities Act of 2018, to protect the safety of our citizens.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding H.R. 6157, the ``Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019,'' to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 12 increases funding for the PTSD by $5 million. These funds should be used toward outreach activities targeting hard to reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Mr. Chair, along with traumatic brain injury, PTSD is the signature wound suffered by the brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear. For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see on a daily basis. In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face. Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th birthday. But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your thoughts and memories. And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back. PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes. People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb (especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become violent. They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult. Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep. These are called flashbacks; a person having a flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again. Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD. These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety disorders. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 12 recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human, who live their experiences. Ask a veteran of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 12 will help ensure that ``no soldier is left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country. I urge all Members to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 12.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, let me first thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky and the staff for shepherding this legislation. My amendment provides flexibility for the Secretary of Defense to allocate resources needed to provide technical assistance by U.S. military women to military women in other countries combating violence as a weapon of war, terrorism, human trafficking, and narcotics trafficking, to ameliorate their impact on women and girls across the globe. More and more, we are seeing that, in the countries where terror is perpetrated, more women are being allowed to be part of their military. We know of the growing leadership of women in our military, rising in responsibility and rank throughout all of the services. As a member of the Afghan task force, which I co-chaired for a number of years, I have seen women leadership dealing with peace around the world. The purpose of my amendment is to provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility to work with military women in the United States, for them to interact with military women face-to-face, one-on-one, as they work to develop security measures that, in particular, will protect women and girls. Women and girls are more subject to human trafficking. They are more subject to being victims of narcotics trafficking. They are more subject to being victims of war and terrorism as they try to protect their families. I remember, in the early stages of the Afghan war and after the attempt with the new President to begin to write a constitution in Afghanistan, one of the issues was to elect more women at that time. We did do that. I met those women who were in the Afghan Government. But, tragically, in the period of time that we left to go to Iraq, many of those women were killed as they went to their home districts. So the idea of protecting women through women who are in the military, or to develop strategies, is very important. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to foster peace and relationships and the interaction between women here in the United States, with their expertise, and women who are now rising in various militaries in countries where terrorism is raging, to be able to help those women as well. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe and for their work in ensuring that they have resources needed to keep our Armed Forces the greatest fighting force for peace on earth. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is simple and straightforward and affirms an example of the national goodness that makes America the most exceptional nation on earth. The purpose of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 is to provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility to allocate resources needed to provide technical assistance by U.S. military women to military women in other countries combating violence as a weapon of war, terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking. Mr. Chairman, the United States is committed to combating violent extremism, protecting our borders and the globe from the scourge of terrorism. The United States Armed Forces possess an unparalleled expertise and technological capability that will aid not only in combating and defeating terrorists who hate our country and prey upon innocent persons, especially women, girls, and the elderly. But we must recognize that notwithstanding our extraordinary technical military capabilities, we face adversaries who adapt very quickly because they are not constrained by geographic limitations or norms of morality and decency. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS/ISIL and other militant terrorists, including the Sinai's Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in the Sinai Peninsula which poses a threat to Egypt. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 help provide the Department of Defense with the resources needed to provide technical assistance to countries on innovative strategies to provide defense technologies and resources that promote the security of the American people and allied nation states. Terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking and their impact on women and girls across the globe has had a great adverse impact on us all. According to a UNICEF report, rape, torture and human trafficking by terrorist and militant groups have been employed as weapons of war, affecting over twenty thousand women and girls. Looking at the history of terrorism highlights the importance of providing technical assistance through our military might, as this enables us to combat terrorism which now can plague us here in the United States. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 will help curb terrorism abroad by making available American technical military expertise to military in other countries, like Nigeria, who are combating violent jihadists in their country and to keep those terrorists out of our country. Time and again American lives have been lost at the hands of terrorists. These victims include Christians, Muslims, journalists, health care providers, relief workers, schoolchildren, and members of the diplomatic corps and the Armed Services. This is why the technical assistance offered by our military personnel is integral to promoting security operation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft for missions to empower local forces to combat terrorism. Terrorists across the globe have wreaked havoc on our society and cannot not be tolerated or ignored, for their actions pose a threat to our national security and the security of the world. Mr. Chairman, from the United States to Africa to Europe to Asia and the Middle East, it is clear that combating terrorism remains one of highest national priorities. Collectively, helping our neighbors and their military build capacity to combat terrorism, eradicate human trafficking, stop narcotics trafficking and negate their impact on women and girls across the globe serves our national interest. I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her understanding and graciousness, as well as I thank the ranking member. This is something I have worked on over the years. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking, and their impact on women and girls across the globe has had a great adverse impact on us all. According to a UNICEF report, rape, torture, and human trafficking by terrorists and militant groups have been employed as weapons of war, affecting more than 20,000 women and girls. I am sure that number has grown. We are all well aware of the Chibok girls taken in Nigeria as victims of Boko Haram. I am grateful for this amendment because the victims have included Christians, Muslims, journalists, healthcare providers, relief workers, schoolchildren, and members of the diplomatic corps and the armed services. Working with our women in the United States military and our efforts with strategy will be an effective tool in helping women across the world. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I understand my good friend's challenges and his frustration, but I recognize that the area of which he is speaking, which I have been to as well, is a frontier area. That is an area where terrorists can be harbored. But the Pakistani military has, over the years, been fighting against terrorism. Pakistanis in Pakistan have, themselves, suffered at the hands of terrorists. And if we take this amount of money, the engagement and partnership that we have, the response to the United States that is important, the collaboration with the forces in Afghanistan will be diminished. The Pakistani military has shed blood, has lost treasure in the fight against terrorism. There are, of course, important improvements that they can make, and I believe the funding has the kind of guidelines and structures to do so to protect the Pakistani people against terrorism as well. They want to live in peace. So I would just say that it is important that we keep the engagement and the dialogue as well as involvement of the Pakistani military in fighting terrorism, and these resources are necessary for it to do so.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. There is no one to whom he can take a back seat in terms of his freshman term for his engagement and involvement. He has made the most eloquent statements on the floor, which show his commitment to the people of this Nation and the people of his district. Tonight is certainly an example of that, as we have come to the floor to, really, speak about children. I hope that my friends and my colleagues will fully appreciate the fact that, as we speak about children, we are speaking about everyone's children. We are speaking about a young boy who was killed running away from law enforcement--not running toward, not creating a threat. We are thinking about children who need a better education or children who need to have a supplemental nutrition program or children who need to be safe from human trafficking. We are talking about children. Mr. Speaker, a week ago Monday and Sunday, I was in McAllen and Brownsville. I was in the detention centers with the tinsel, silver- like blankets. I was in the cage-like atmosphere where human beings were kept, human beings, of course, who had fled their country and had come across the border. Some might make the point that they came across illegally, but they came across and presented themselves to officials. Heretofore, that action was not a criminal action. I saw those individuals. I saw the most potent memory of what is wrong about what we are doing: mothers who were crying their hearts out for having not been able to see their children, with stories that would break your heart, stories where you were told to go into court, your children could not go with you, and you came back and your children were gone. What father, what mother could even live with themselves, knowing their child had been snatched with no information and in a--how should I say it?--deceiving manner, not a manner where you could sit and explain to Jose or Maria or little Roger, whom I held in my hands, 9 months old, fleeing with his sister because his mother is deceased. What do you think that sister feels? Her mother is deceased, and the 9-month-old that she was bringing, her mother's baby, is taken away from her. And Roger cannot speak. One-year-old Leah cannot speak. None of them can speak, and they have been taken away. How dastardly, how insensitive our government appears to be. A Nation founded upon the values of humanity, freedom of religion and speech and due process. We all know the law provides anyone within our boundaries the right to due process. But, no. We are, in fact, doing what Bishop Daniel E. Flores of the diocese of Brownsville said: We are acting, by separating immigrant parents and children as a deterrent, on a cruel and reprehensible policy. Reverend Bishop Michael Curry said: For Christians, Jesus of Nazareth is a standard of conduct for your life. He tells us to love God and to love thy neighbor. I would say almost every religion speaks about love, speaks about family--not in the way that the United States Attorney General used and abused the New Testament, by citing Roman 13, to submit to rulers, to justify the child separation policy, before he was completely undermined and embarrassed by a fake executive order that was signed by the President of the United States. I say that because that term has become part of our language. I have never used it before, but it was an appropriate description of an executive order that will last for only 20 days and will not have any answer for us going forward. We don't have any legislation. Our legislation to solve this problem introduced by Mr. Nadler and the Judiciary Committee Democrats and all of us, welcoming anyone else who would like to sign, would get to the immediate concern of not having a separation of these children and, also, ending the zero-tolerance program, which has created this unjust situation. Let me indicate to you that all of the medical professionals, including Alicia Lieberman with the Early Trauma Treatment Network at the University of California said: Decades of studies show early separations can cause permanent emotional damage. ``Children are biologically programmed to grow best in the care of a parent figure.'' Members who have visited have said they walked into rooms with 300 children, and they were absolutely silent. They were frightened. Toddlers. Who among us who have had toddlers in their home, from our own children to those of us fortunate enough to have grandbabies, like mine--like Roy III and Ellison--have ever seem them sit still? These children were in total fear and apprehension. This is what we are creating. This is not the America we love. It is noted that the activity in the children's brains was much lower than expected. If you think of a brain as a light bulb, it is as though there was a dimmer that has reduced them from a 100-watt bulb to a 30- watt bulb. This is what happens. Children who have been separated from their parents, in their first 2 years like little Roger, who is 9 months old, their IQ may go down. So we are on the floor today, and I am glad to be with Chairman Richmond of the Congressional Black Caucus. We believe in speaking out on the issues that impact all of humanity. And this is the sin that we are in the midst of. Do you realize that the only numbers that these children and parents are getting are the aid numbers? Someone says there is a number at Health and Human Services. None of us have seen it. I am demanding a full inventory of every single child that we allege that we have who was separated and snatched from their family members, who are in foster care or some detention center, as well as the 10,000 unaccompanied children. Mr. Speaker, do you realize that I have been here long enough that I was down on the border 4 years ago when the massive numbers of unaccompanied children came to the United States? Then, we put these boys and girls, as unaccompanied children, in this vast industry of foster care and centers. They are still there. Can anyone who believes in a higher power want to accept that? Even as clean as these places may be, Mr. Speaker, do you know that these caretakers working in these nonprofits, that they cannot touch the children? They cannot hold the children. They cannot comfort a crying toddler. They are told not to touch these children. Do you realize that we are in one of the worst, or largest, refugee crises in the world. That is why we are receiving these people. It is going up 67 percent all over the world because people are fleeing devastation and crises in their countries. That is what is happening in Honduras, with the largest number of murders in the world. El Salvador. Guatemala has a million people displaced. Yet, our government would suggest that they cannot seek asylum for domestic violence or gangs or fleeing a place that has volcano ash that has displaced a million people in a small country? Where is our mercy? That is why we are on the floor today. We are on the floor today because of, as I indicated, the horrible, horrific impact on children. ``Reuniting and Detaining Migrant Families Pose New Mental Health Risks,'' says The New York Times. I want to just add these points to your discussion that we have faced. Some of these children, Mr. Speaker, are in foster care. We know that there are American children in foster care. We know that there are families who are trying to get back on their feet. They want their children. There is a love for those children. But they have had to be moved out. The worst thing--I have had these calls to my office--is a mother's parental rights to be extinguished unfairly when she was trying to get herself together, maybe economically, maybe trying to get off drugs. We feel the pain of that mother, that American mother. How would you like to be a Guatemalan mother--this happened in 2012-- who was arrested on immigration charges and lost custody of her son, who was then adopted by a Missouri couple over her objection. The judge who initially terminated the mother's parental rights found that, should she be deported, the chance that she might try to return to get her child would render her an unfit parent. I feel like I am in a nightmare. Your child is snatched away from you at the border. They go into foster care. Some good-intending people--I don't want to condemn the adoptive parents, good-intending people. I don't know who gave them the authority that this was an available child. These children are in foster care around the Nation. They are everywhere. We don't know which way they are, to be honest with you. They get in foster care and some--maybe I'll say--well-intentioned foster care notifies someone and said: ``We have a child for you to adopt.'' And your rights are quashed. I am feeling pain right now. I can't even imagine it: I have fallen upon hard times. My State children's protective services takes my child. I make a commitment to get my life back together, and my child is lost to me forever. This is an amazing scenario that we are in. I want to read this last thing and then speak very quickly about our family values. This is from an immigrant mother: My child was snatched from me and separated from me one day after I was arrested. Again, I want to end the arrests, the zero tolerance. They are presenting themselves for asylum. They should have the right to go through the legal process. Then they should have the right to counsel, due process. And they should have the right to be able to be released. Now, there will be a great deal of ire and humor for some on this point. That is because they don't understand. We had a case management program that was 90-plus percent positive on the return of those individuals, those families, for their court date. This administration defunded it. It was a case management program. They followed those families, put them on the electronic bracelet, and they returned. They did not escape. They did not remain in the United States without coming to court and getting a determination. So this mother was separated. This is a court case, thank goodness, that was filed on June 22: ``I have been able to speak to my child only three times and only for approximately 5 minutes each time since we were separated. My son isn't able to give me much information about his circumstances because he is too young and too upset to understand what is happening.'' She doesn't know where he is. He doesn't know where she is. ``Every time we talk, he only wants to know when he will see me again, so it is hard for him to focus on anything else.'' Just like I said, we are diminishing his capacity. We are creating a situation of undermining his intellectual growth, his psychological growth, all of this. ``There have been a few times he said that he had a nosebleed. I told him to tell someone if he is feeling sick, but he is too scared to tell anyone.'' That is why you went into a room of toddlers and nobody was moving. Nobody was moving. No toddler was even moving. ``He says that he is scared to report any type of mistreatment or health issue because the other children have told him that children who report things get sent to another place.'' I have legislation that I am introducing, and I hope my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, will extend the temporary protected status for Salvadorans, Hondurans, and, as well, Guatemalans. We want to give them TPS on the basis of the volcano. Why? Because this administration has ended it. It will end in 2019. These people are fleeing violence, and you will be sending those here who are working, contributing, and paying taxes--before we can try to regularize or find a way for them to access status--you will be sending them back to murderous countries in the largest crisis of refugee movement in the history of our time. You will be sending them back. Where is our mercy? Then you want to add to that the fact that we have an administration and a Congress that is making changes to school free lunches. These are for our children already here. Making eligibility proposed cuts to Supplemental Security Income, SSI, many children, that is their lifeline. If something happens to their parent, they have SSI. The refusal to adopt comprehensive criminal justice reform, I am a steadfast supporter of good law enforcement. They are part of the legal and law and order structure, but they are also part of the human rights and civil rights structure of this Nation. It is important that we have the collegiality, the comity, the communications, and the friendship, actually, between police and community. It is difficult when there are mothers who are African Americans who believe that their Black boys are more apt to be shot by law enforcement, as a young man was just shot a few days ago in Pennsylvania. This is not a condemnation of law enforcement. It is to work to make the system better and to save lives. So we are interested in criminal justice reform. But, of course, that is not moving in the direction we would like. I would like it to be moving in a nonpartisan manner to save lives. The GOP chose to cut $150 billion over a decade from various safety net programs: Medicare; cash assistance programs, like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; again, as I said, SSI; and healthcare. Republicans are suing the government to eliminate the preexisting condition requirement for insurance carriers. I am almost speechless. I cannot believe that. I was here for the Affordable Care Act. We laid ourselves on the line to fight for all of those who came to us in hearings, pleading: I have asthma. I have acne. I am pregnant. I have diabetes. I have sickle cell. And I have not been able to get insurance. Here we are taking away that lifeline that was a valuable asset to the healthcare of the American people. The farm bill, cutting $23 billion that resulted in 400,000 households losing SNAP--our children, here in the United States--the supplemental nutrition program, thousands of children losing reduced meals. Do you know, right now, Mr. Speaker, out of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, my Houston parks department is serving three meals a day to children who would not eat but for this program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture--three meals a day to hungry children. There is hunger in America, but we are making it worse. What about the $1.9 trillion tax cut? Do you realize that I go around in my community and beyond and people ask me: ``What happened with the tax cut?'' They don't have any impact from the tax cut. There is no increase in wages. Bonuses are not anything that anybody remembers because only a few people got them. This is the pay-more-for-less tax cut, massive tax cuts and a lot of money going to individuals who already have money. This is Robin Hood in reverse. This bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity. It is making rich people richer. It is a scheme. And by taking insurance away from 24 million people, raising costs for the poor and middle class, these are questions of whether family values exist in this Nation. As Judge Learned Hand observed: ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice.'' So I would ask that my colleagues join me, as I asked in the Women's Caucus hearing just a few minutes ago, that we secure a count of every single child held in captivity. That means an immigrant child who was snatched away from their family or an unaccompanied child. There are thousands. Where are they? I would also ask that Members be aware that these facilities are being brought into our districts with no notice to us as Members of Congress. These facilities are being paid for by Federal tax dollars, and the tax dollars of my constituents, in particular, in Houston, Texas. They have given no notice to local officials. We were not even aware that they were coming. The site that is about to be seeking to be opened is in a concrete area. It is very difficult for any of us to see where these children would play and recreate. So we wonder: How we are going to treat children who are going to be thrown into these facilities with no access to what children need? Then this ending of the temporary protected status, I ask my colleagues to join me on the legislation that I will be introducing for a 2-year extension, so that these individuals are not thrown into the devastation that will make them refugees, because they will be coming back, and they are now contributing citizens. What do you do with a country that has a million people displaced, like in Guatemala? What do you do when we say that we are supposed to have values, and not only are we treating parents who are deeply pained--poorly, reprehensibly, and inhumane--by snatching their children, or not seeking to reunite those children who came unaccompanied? When I say that, obviously, not reunite them into a bad situation, but document--they are just being held in these institutions, 10,000 of them. They are just being held. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for being particularly gracious and yielding. I want to have paid tribute in my words to little Roger in Brownsville, Texas, and little Leah in Brownsville, Texas, a 9-month- old and a 1-year-old. Even if they go to foster care, that is not their relative or their parent. Which of their parents will have their parental rights extinguished against their will and, unfortunately, have one of our courts say it is a right decision? Which of these people will be denied due process, because we have words from this administration that say: I want no lawyers or courts. I want Border Patrol and ICE? Those are not judges and juries. That is not a component of due process. Law enforcement has its role, and then the judiciary has its role, and the rights of these individuals warrant that. Mr. Speaker, I close with Ephesians 4:30-32: ``Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.'' And Galatians 5:22-23: ``But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self- control; against such things there is no law.'' There could be no law against being humane to these children. I am grateful to the Congressman for his leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus. We are not only talking about domestic issues here in the United States, but we have extended ourselves to talk about the pain that is transpiring in these mothers and fathers right now, at 9:10 p.m. eastern time, in these detention centers, without their children. Mr. Speaker, over the last many weeks, the country has been horrified by the sights and sounds of children being separated from their parents, and Americans aghast at the realization that families are being torn apart in their name. When I visited the border and the federal detention facilities that housed parents and children quarantined from one another, what I witnessed was horrific and was echoed in heartbreaking audio recordings released by the press revealing children crying, aching for their parents, as all face a fate uncertain, and one inconsistent with the American ideal. I will never forget the little children I met during my visit to the border. One baby, 9-month-old Roger, had been taken from his 19-year-old sister after she was prosecuted for crossing the border illegally. Their mother is dead, now their family is gone. This crisis is not just an immigration matter, nor is it just a foreign policy matter. It is a humanitarian crisis, executed by an administration that purports to be the champion of ``family values'' but whose actions do not actually value families. But the President's attempt at attacking children and their caretakers is not one that only pertains to asylum seekers at the borders. For the entirety of his term, the President and his administration have relentlessly targeted communities of color and the programs they have previously benefitted from. This includes changes to school free lunch program eligibility, proposed cuts to Supplemental Security Income, the refusal to adopt comprehensive criminal justice reforms, one thing after another. Just last week, the GOP chose to cut $150 billion over a decade from various safety net programs which include Medicare and cash assistance programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Security Income. And the House farm bill that Republicans passed, and which Democrats were unanimously in opposition to, will result in some 400,000 households losing SNAP benefits. As well, thousands of children would also risk losing their enrollment in free and reduced-price school meal programs because of this. The President and GOP have promised for years now to create a plan to improve health insurance for everybody. But that promise has not been kept. By passing a nearly $1.9 trillion tax law and repealing the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, Republicans will increase health care premiums on children and families. According to the CBO, 4 million more people will be without health insurance by 2019. By 2027, 13 million more people will be uninsured. Families' premiums will also increase by nearly 10 percent on average per year over the next decade. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has significantly improved the availability, affordability, and quality of health care for tens of millions of Americans, including millions who previously had no health insurance at all. Americans are rightly frightened by Republican attempts to repeal the ACA without having in place a superior new plan that maintains comparable coverages and comparable consumer choices and protections. It is beyond dispute that the ``Pay More For Less'' plan proposed by House Republicans a few months ago fails this test miserably. The Republican ``Pay More For Less Act'' is a massive tax cut for the wealthy, paid for on the backs of America's most vulnerable, the poor and working class households. This ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity--no bill has ever tried to give so much to the rich while taking so much from the poor and working class. This Republican scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million people and raising costs for the poor and middle class. It is despicable and shameful that those elected to serve their people would rather see their pockets full than their constituents healthy and well. An Administration that cared about ``family values'' would not be working so hard to repeal a healthcare program that has insured nine out of ten Americans and saved families with genetic diseases and pre-existing conditions thousands of dollars in debt. In 1968, African Americans were about 5.4 times as likely as whites to be in prison or jail; compared to today, African Americans are 6.4 times as likely as whites to be incarcerated, which is especially troubling given that whites are also much more likely to be incarcerated now than they were in 1968. It is clear the inequalities and disparities that ignited hundreds of American cities in the 1960s still exist and have not been eliminated over the last half-century. As Judge Learned Hand observed, ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not ration justice.'' Reforming the criminal justice system so that it is fairer and delivers equal justice to all persons is one of the great moral imperatives of our time. For reform to be truly meaningful, we must look at every stage at which our citizens interact with the system--from policing in our communities and the first encounter with law enforcement, to the charging and manner of attaining a conviction, from the sentence imposed to reentry and collateral consequences. The need for meaningful prison and sentencing reform cannot be overstated because being the world's leader in incarceration is neither morally nor fiscally sustainable for the United States, or the federal government, the nation's largest jailer. For individuals who have paid their debt, the reentry process is paved with tremendous, and often insurmountable, obstacles resulting in recidivism rates as high as 75 percent in some areas. More must be done to ensure that the emphasis on incarceration is matched with an equal emphasis on successful reentry so that the approximately 630,000 individuals who reenter society each year are prepared to be successful in civilian life. This is why I have also strongly supported and cosponsored legislation that will allow those with a criminal conviction to have a fair chance to compete for jobs with federal agencies and contractors. I have also been working for many years to stop the over- criminalization of our young people. Today, more and more young children are being arrested, incarcerated, and detained in lengthy out-of-home placements. Harsh and lengthy penalties handed down to young offenders increase their risk of becoming physically abused, emotionally traumatized, and reduce their chance of being successfully reintegrated back into their communities. I have introduced and supported legislation to help reform how youth and juveniles are treated to reduce contact and recidivism within the juvenile and criminal justice system; to help protect them from a system that turns them into lifelong offenders. Just as we need to minimize the conviction of innocent people, we must address the unnecessary loss of life that can result from police and civilian interactions. Effective law enforcement requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced impartially and equally. That confidence has been eroded substantially in recent years by numerous instances of excessive use of lethal force. There is no higher priority than improving the peacefulness of these interactions and rebuilding the trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve and protect. At what point will Republicans step away from the tyrant of their party and make changes that will actually benefit the communities they represent, to stop fighting the disenfranchised and instead fight FOR the disenfranchised? Now more than ever, the Trump Administration and the GOP have shown how inhumane they are when it comes to dealing with marginalized individuals. This has become crystal clear in the span of two weeks when the public was finally made aware of the policies in place at our Southern borders. While the President purported to end the practice of separating families with his Executive Order signed on Wednesday, thousands of children have been torn apart from their families and sent to various pockets of the country, often under cover of night, without any indication to their parents as to their whereabouts, or a plan to reunite them. In my home state of Texas, a migrant who was separated from his family committed suicide while in federal detention. A mother who, while breastfeeding her young child when both were in federal detention, had her child ripped away from her arms. This cannot be how we make America great again; this is how we make America hateful again. The Trump Administration is utterly failing in its basic duty to treat all persons with dignity and compassion, and is making a mockery of our national values and reputation as a champion of human rights. We are a great country with a long and noble tradition of providing sanctuary to the persecuted and oppressed. We are also a nation of families, from all shapes and sizes. From the 16-year-old girl and her single mom who desperately depend on the benefits SNAP provides. To the 19-year-old girl who must now become the sole guardian for her baby brother, in a country she prays will offer her peace and refuge (and return her brother to her). It is in that spirit that we should act. It is for them that we must all stand together in the face of injustice. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a copy of an Op-Ed entitled ``We Must Cease the Inhumane Practice of Separating Families Apprehended on the Border'' in The Hill newspaper. We must cease the inhumane practice of separating families apprehended on the border [From The Hill, June 12, 2018] (BY REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TEXAS), OPINION CONTRIBUTOR) Every day hundreds of persons, ranging from infants and toddlers to adolescents and adults, flee violence, oppression, and economic desperation from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, seeking safe harbor in the United States. They are not criminals or terrorists; they are refugees seeking asylum. While they hope to receive asylum, none of us expected that they would be treated as criminals or that their children would be forcibly separated from them. I cannot think of a situation more devastating than having the government forcibly separate a parent from their child to a place unknown, for a fate uncertain, absent any form of communication. But shamefully that is exactly what is happening under this administration. Reports indicate that as many as 700 children have been taken from adults claiming to be their parents since October 2017, including more than 100 children under the age of 4. This startling fact comes after Acting Assistant Secretary Steven Wagner of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) testified before the Senate in April 2018 that during a review of more than 7,600 unaccompanied immigrant children who had recently arrived and been placed with a sponsor, officials at the agency were unable to determine the precise whereabouts of 1,475 children. This is unconscionable and unacceptable. This administration's practice of separating children from their parents inexplicably turns accompanied children into unaccompanied children, with all of the attendant risks and dangers, including human trafficking. In 2014, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported that ``over a period of 4 months, HHS allegedly placed a number of UACs in the hands of a ring of human traffickers who forced them to work on egg farms in and around Marion, Ohio. The minor victims were forced to work six or seven days a week, twelve hours per day. The traffickers repeatedly threatened the victims and their families with physical harm, and even death, if they did not work or surrender their entire paychecks.'' What is even more reprehensible is to this day, the Trump administration maintains that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is not legally responsible for children after they are released from ORR care. This line of thinking allows such gross negligence to take place in the first place. As the Founder and Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and as a parent and grandparent, this is unacceptable. Studies have documented that when young children are traumatically removed from their parents, their physical and mental health and well-being suffers. The effects of these traumatic experiences--especially in children who have already faced serious adversity are unlikely to be short- lived, and can likely last a lifetime. This is exacerbated when the child in custody speaks a language that is not English or Spanish. Although the government has a legal obligation to provide reasonable language services to unaccompanied minors, many children arriving to the U.S. speak indigenous languages and have little or no translation assistance provided by the U.S. government. The Trump administration's ``zero-tolerance'' policy does not make our nation safer or more secure, nor is it a solution to the problem of illegal immigration and refugees seeking asylum. It is, however, monstrously cruel, inhumane, and shameful and makes a mockery of America's reputation as the most welcoming and generous nation on earth. United Nations Office spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani recently condemned the Trump administration's treatment of unaccompanied minors coming to the United States saying that ``the use of immigration detention and family separation as a deterrent runs counter to human rights standards and principles''. The last time this nation had policies that promoted the forcible separation of children from newly arrived persons was slavery: a dark chapter in this nation's history that we should not revisit. Today, the parents of these thousands of children will not be deterred from finding ways to reunite with their children, even reentering the United States under the threat of imprisonment. It would be unconscionable to prosecute parents under these circumstances. There must be strong and aggressive congressional oversight of this administration's immigration enforcement. The Trump administration's policy should cease and desist immediately. National Policy regarding immigration legislation should not create greater fear for families already traumatized by intolerable conditions in their home countries. U.S. immigration policy should not deter refugees from seeking asylum within our borders. We should welcome mothers carrying their babies to a safe haven and assure the safety of their children. I will soon be introducing legislation prohibiting the separation of children from their families absent a health or safety risk. The legislation will also provide that these children the right to be represented by counsel and that translation services be available at all legal proceedings at all stages. As we have seen with the recent volcanic activity and earthquakes in Guatemala, the United States should be seeking ways to help its neighbors in the Southern Hemisphere. The Trump administration is utterly failing in its basic duty to treat all persons with dignity and compassion. Rather, it is making a mockery of our national values and reputation as a champion of human rights. This crisis is not just an immigration matter, nor is it just a foreign policy matter. It is a humanitarian crisis, executed by an administration that purports to be the champion of `family values' but whose actions do not actually value families. We are a great country with a long and noble tradition of providing sanctuary to the persecuted and oppressed. And it is in that spirit that we should act. We can do it; after all, we are Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is a painful experience, as I indicated. Toddlers don't speak. They are standing still, as has been evidenced by Members who have gone. I saw two little babies. Leah, a little older, fussy, playing on the floor, didn't want anyone to touch her. And Roger wanted someone to touch him. Mothers in cages, other mothers in a detention center in Los Fresno, nine of them from Honduras, each and every one had a child taken, and they were crying. But the crux of this is that they don't know where the child is, and the child does not know where they are. These centers are being put up. One that already exists in my community has been charged with abusing children: throwing them down on the floor and giving them medication that they do not want; in essence, giving them medication to keep them quiet. I know there are good people--everyone wants to talk about good people in their own State--but these are inhumane conditions. The greatest pain that I can say that you would see is men and women who are on the verge of deportation, they don't know what is happening, but they don't have their children. They are going back without their children. Then you also see these large warehouses with thousands of little kids from 10 to 17, but they have been there for a while. They are unaccompanied children, and we have no accounting of these children. That is what we are seeing. That is, I think, a shame on this government, and we can do better. We have been a refuge for refugees. There is a way to orderly do this.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the implications of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Joint Hearing on the FBI and DOJ Actions in Advance of the 2016 Election. The Report of the Department of Justice's Inspector General regarding these actions does not vindicate the President or conclude that the Trump Campaign did not collude with Russians to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. Nothing in this report changes the fact on March 31, 2016, Mr. Trump met with George Papadopoulos at Trump Tower. This is significant because as we speak, Paul Manafort, the chairman of the Trump Campaign, sits in jail as an indicted money launderer, and an unregistered agent of a foreign government. Donald Trump is the first sitting president in history whose campaign chairman spent his time behind bars during his own presidential administration. But Manafort is not the only member of the Trump Campaign staff indicted or to have pleaded guilty to felonies arising out of the Russia investigation. He is joined by Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor; Rick Gates, Deputy Campaign Chairman; and George Papadopouls. Now that we have discussed what is not present in this report, we can turn to what is included. This report is clearly the product of attention to detail as well as a commitment to sharing with the American people information about the FBI's investigation into Secretary Hillary Clinton's emails in the days, weeks and months leading to the 2016 election. I have spent the last few days studying this report which is comprehensive and answers a lot of questions that the American people have about the election. I would like to acknowledge that I take a back seat to no one when it comes to standing up for law enforcement--they do a difficult job under difficult circumstances. But I cannot help but notice some glaring things about this report. The report concludes that while political bias was apparent in the atmosphere leading up to the 2016 election, political bias was not influential in individual decisions which were made. There exist some operative dates and facts relevant to this inquiry that might cause some Americans to question that conclusion. First, the announcement by the Inspector General's office that it would be conducting its investigation occurred on January 12, 2017, one week after then-President-elect Trump was briefed by the Intelligence Community about the existence of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russian attempts to meddle into the 2016 election. Many Americans will find this timing very troubling. Second, in Chapter 7 of the report, the Inspector General cites all the reasons for concluding that Secretary Clinton did not break the law or have any basis to conclude that she broke the law for her use of a private server. So it was the Inspector General office's finding that while it did not make any pronouncement on whether the decision was correct, it did say that the decision not to take any action was reasonable, and grounded in the law, facts and applicable DOJ precedent. Moreover, the decision to on one hand decline prosecution, but on the other to editorialize Secretary Clinton's behavior as extremely careless, appears to be a political decision and one that had the foreseeable effect of harming Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump. The month-long delay between the discovery of additional emails, in late September 2016, and the public announcement of this fact, on October 28, 2016, had the foreseeable effect of harming Secretary Clinton and helping Trump. Secretary Clinton's campaign was not the subject of a federal counterintelligence investigation by our nation's law enforcement. But the same is not true with respect to the Trump Campaign, which was under investigation for colluding with a hostile foreign power to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. So, millions of Americans are left with painful realization that there was actually a pretty persistent double standard in favor of Trump and prejudicial to Clinton. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable for Americans to conclude that Secretary Clinton was the victim of a double standard. When the IG's Report was released, the president indicated that this report was a total vindication of him and his campaign in the election. In fact, nothing in this report exonerates the Trump Campaign of colluding with the Russians. This is because the IG office did not investigate any aspect of the Russian government's interference in the 2016 election. One of the concerns the Report had with leaks is both the total universe of people privy to information, and the fact that guidelines about talking to the press were often flouted. In that section, the Report references the improper disclosure of non-public information specifically as it relates to October 2016--and we seem to have a concern that the weeks that passed between the initial discovery of emails on the Weiner laptop led to their public disclosure in part because DOJ management was concerned that the information would leak anyhow. In fact, we have documented reports of Rudy Giuliani going on Fox News and claiming to have information about this very subject. Both in the Executive Summary and in the body of your report, leaks from April 2016 and October 2016 are cited. The Clinton campaign was the principal subject of these leaks and was harmed by these leaks. We know this because the FBI did not start its counterintelligence investigation of Trump until late July 2016 and we know through this report that a major portion of the investigation was the leaks from New York through October 2016. At the conclusion of the report, the IG's office lists a series of recommendations that it believes the FBI should follow when it comes to lessons learned from this saga. One of them is ensuring a uniform system of ensuring that only those with the authority to speak on a topic do so. This is the first of many steps needed to ensure the errors of this oversight of the FBI and DOJ are not repeated in the future.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, it certainly saddens me to have to come call legislation harsh and cruel; for if there is anything that we should do in a bipartisan or, frankly, nonpartisan manner, it should be the complement to the Statue of Liberty, which, over the centuries, has been the standard-bearer of the values and virtues of this Nation. I am saddened that we have come to a point, having worked on the Judiciary Committee with outstanding leaders like my ranking member, my chairman, the subcommittee ranking, Ms. Lofgren, for many years on real immigration reform, here we are today. Let me tell you why I am opposed to this. It may be because I represent Americans, Americans who are in the 18th Congressional District in Texas. It may be because we are one of the most diverse cities--my mayor says the most diverse city--in the Nation. It may be that we have South Asians and Haitians. We have people from Eastern Europe. We have those, of course, who are Latino. We have those from the Caribbean, and Africans, and many, many more. We have those from Europe. Here is what this bill will do. It will quash any opportunity for mom and dad to bring in extended family members, citizen mom and dad to bring in their family members. It ends legal immigration and what we have called the values of America, family reunification. At the same time, the ugly name that has been given to diversity visas is not true. Those who come through the diversity visa for small countries--should we discriminate against small countries?--have the highest level of education and go into medicine and science and try to help. Then there is no relief for DACA. People who are military, paramedics, lawyers, teachers, we are dependent upon them, having grown up here, loving this Nation, pledging to the flag, pledging to the United States flag. Then, finally, let me say that it is a sin and a shame that we have such an administration.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then, as we have not done anything for DACA, we have not done anything for the children snatched away from their families, the children that I saw for 2 days on the border at Texas--Roger, who I held in my hands; maybe the 2-year-old like this--because what it does is it does nothing to reunite the children. It does nothing, after 20 days, to be able to protect them, because the fake executive order does not go beyond 20 days. Frankly, we don't know where the 2,000 children are, and I know the values of the faith community in America are to reunite. I am saddened that we have this bill. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding the time. I would offer to say that those Guatemalan Americans, El Salvadoran Americans, those Americans from the country of Mexico, and others who serve in the United States military, certainly reflect the diversity of this Nation. I would offer to say that, sadly, this is the image that is America today. It is not the Statue of Liberty. I stand to oppose this bill because I know, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, we had a plan that was bipartisan that would provide for border security that included technology and barriers. Now, we have succumbed to a process which every good-thinking person has to oppose, including the business community. Law enforcement opposes this legislation, in particular, because it makes communities less safe. Just this week a Texas sheriff's deputy was arrested for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl and threatening to deport the undocumented mother if she reported the claim. Good law enforcement officers understand that they need to have people report the crime. We know that it was an immigrant, a researcher, who helped us get the polio vaccine. Finally, young people who now are coming to this country, snatched away from their parents, unaccompanied youngsters as well, will no longer have the protections of the special immigrant juvenile status. It strips crucial protections for abused, abandoned, and neglected children by limiting their ability to access special immigrant juvenile status. This bill is a bad bill. It is not an immigration bill. It is a bad bill and it really is not for the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R. 4760, the ``Securing America's Future Act of 2018.'' H.R. 4760 is a DREAM Killer Bill that fails to fix our nation's fractured immigration system. This bill slashes legal immigration, it cripples our agricultural industry, criminalizes undocumented immigrants, undermines our public safety, and denies critical protections for children and families. H.R. 4760 withholds grants from communities implementing community trust policies that limit law enforcement officials questioning an individual's immigration status. This Republican-sponsored bill forces local governments to comply with Trump's mass deportation agenda, despite Republican's historic demands that the federal government stay out of people's lives. My colleagues and I will never vote in favor of a bill that perpetuates the administration's mass deportation agenda, especially in light of the human rights violations we are currently witnessing at our U.S.-Mexico border. When I visited the border this past weekend, what I witnessed was horrific. It was not the America that I know and love. Since early May, more than 2,300 children have been separated from their parents. By playing the blame game and putting the burden on Congress to fix what President Trump alone has started, the Administration issued an Executive Order yesterday that pretends to open the door for a halt of his intentionally barbaric policy of separating families intended to deter people from attempting to cross the border. The new policy detains entire families together, including children, but ignores legal time limits on the detention of minors. The President is ignoring the immigration laws that set the precedent on this arena. The Flores Settlement, issued in 1997, was the result of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of immigrant children in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to parents, relatives, or those willing to accept custody. It also mandates that the government cannot keep children in detention for over 20 days. Trump's executive order is in direct violation of the Flores agreement by allowing children to be detained for well-over 20 days. H.R. 4760 is a politically motivated bill intended to spread the false narrative that immigrants are criminals, liars, and job stealers who are somehow a drain on our society and deserving of punishment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of our nation's most beloved and respected figures that are even taught about in schools, were immigrants. H.R. unfairly and unnecessarily subjects immigrants to lengthy criminal sentences, as well as excessive detention and unreasonable scrutiny. The restrictive features of the bill--including asylum provisions, cancelling the applications of 3 million people waiting to immigrate legally, and permanent reductions in legal immigration--we are told are a small price to pay to help Dreamers gain a pathway to citizenship. However, this is not the case. The CATO Institute recently reported that 82 percent of Dreamers would not even benefit from this bill's citizenship path. H.R. 4760 does not provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers; instead, it denies Dreamers the coveted American Dream. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 4760, the ``Securing America's Future Act of 2018.'' This bill offers minimal protections for Dreamers in exchange for implementing Trump's mass deportation plan. It includes a litany of bad proposals from the House Judiciary Committee. It eliminates most family-based immigration categories, as well as the diversity visa program. It mandates the use of E-Verify on a nationwide basis, thereby crippling industries such as agriculture, restaurants, hotels, construction, and many others. It purports to address concerns in the agricultural industry. But its solution is to replace the 1 to 1.5 million undocumented farmworkers in this country with an army of guest workers at drastically depressed wages. This would undermine the wages and working conditions on farms and a host of other sectors (like forestry, logging, and food processing) that employ many U.S. workers and have never been considered agriculture. It subjects each and every undocumented immigrant over the age of 18 to criminal prosecution by making it a crime to be here without immigration status. This would effectively turn most undocumented immigrants--including the parents of the Dreamers the bill purports to help--into criminals overnight. It undermines our asylum system by establishing impossibly high evidentiary burdens and denying asylum to those that travel through ``so-called'' safe third countries. It removes critical protections for unaccompanied children and creates a scheme to swiftly remove them without an opportunity to see a judge. It also abolishes important child safety protections for children traveling with their parents. No Path to Citizenship: In exchange for all of the above, and much more, the bill offers no path to citizenship. Instead, it creates a renewable ``contingent nonimmigrant'' status that would perpetually deny Dreamers the American Dream. Dead on Arrival: We are only voting on this bill to appease members of the House Freedom Caucus. A similar bill offered by Senator Grassley only received 39 votes in the Senate. The bill is simply too extreme for many Republicans, as indicated by letters of opposition from right-leaning groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Koch-brothers funded LIBRE Initiative, and the CATO Institute. Expands Family Separation: The Trump/Sessions zero-tolerance prosecution policy is fueling the wave of family separation at the border. This bill doubles down on the use of criminal prosecution by making unlawful presence a misdemeanor, or a felony under many circumstances. This would exponentially increase family separation in the interior, as it transforms non-violent, civil immigration violations into criminal offenses. The result would be the arrest, conviction, and detention of millions of immigrants. Harms Children: Republicans will likely argue that this bill treats unaccompanied alien children (UACs) from Central American like those from Mexico and therefore does nothing more than remedy a loophole in the law. But in fact, this bill removes basic protections for all UACs. Among other things, the bill: removes protections for young children aged 13 and under, as well as children with disabilities; eliminates an existing provision allowing limited government funding for counsel for UACs, relegating many children to appear in immigration court without legal representation; requires DHS to investigate and remove all potential UAC sponsors. This would both disincentivize sponsors from coming forward to claim children and overburden state foster care systems: eliminates the ability for all UACs to first present their asylum claims to specially trained USCIS asylum officers in a non-adversarial setting. UACs would instead be required to present their claims in open court to an immigration judge, opposite a trained ICE trial lawyer, and likely without legal representation; and strips crucial protections for abused, abandoned and neglected children by limiting their ability to access Special Immigrant Juvenile status. Makes Communities Less Safe: The bill withholds DHS grants and other law enforcement grants from communities that implement community trust policies that limit or restrict law enforcement questioning of an individual's immigration status. Although Republicans often demand that the federal government stay out of people's lives, the bill forces local governments to cooperate with Trump's mass deportation agenda. Republicans have long sought to turn ``sanctuary cities'' into a pejorative term, but studies show that such jurisdictions have ``statistically significantly lower'' criminal activity compared to other jurisdictions. Law enforcement officials across the country oppose these provisions because it would make their communities less safe. For example, Latinos in three major cities have been reporting fewer crimes since Trump took office, particularly as it relates to domestic violence and sexual assault. Just this week, a Texas sheriff's deputy was arrested for sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl and threatening to deport the undocumented mother if she reported the crime. If enacted, the bill would supercharge Trump's deportation agenda, thereby turning undocumented immigrants into prey for criminals. Destabilizes Agriculture: The bill mandates E-Verify use nationwide, despite the reliance on undocumented immigrants by several large sectors of the U.S. economy. To address labor concerns in agriculture and various other industries, the bill creates a massive new guestworker program in which undocumented farmworkers may purportedly participate. But the bill's unrealistic and anti-worker provisions would have devastating impacts on those workers, as well as similarly situated U.S. workers and employers. Among other things, the bill provides status to undocumented farmworkers through a ``report to deport'' guestworker program that requires them to first leave the country--including their homes and families--with no assurance that they would be able to return. Few would participate in such a program. The guestworker program would eventually result in millions of guestworkers in the country, and all would be paid at far-below market wages. This combination would have devastating impacts on the labor market-- not only in agriculture, but in other covered industries such as logging, forestry, and food processing. Given what Republicans often say about the need to protect U.S. workers, we cannot see why they would support this bill. Fails to Fix the Broken System: The bill fails to repair our fundamentally broken immigration system. H.R. 4760 is simply a politically motivated bill intended to propagate the fiction that immigrants are criminals, liars, and job stealers who are somehow a drain on our society and need to be punished. Nothing could be further from the truth. Immigrants generally play a positive role in our society, and this bill unfairly and unnecessarily subjects them to lengthy criminal sentences, as well as excessive detention and unreasonable scrutiny. Republicans have long championed their identity as the ``Party of Lincoln,'' but this bill proves that they have clearly become the ``Party of Trump.'' Trump champions nativist fear-mongering, relies on alternative facts, and seeks to send America back to the dark ages of isolationism and cultural in-fighting. This is the wrong direction for our country. Family Immigration Led To John Tu's Billion Dollar Company. John Tu created wealth, shared that wealth with his employees and demonstrated people can achieve the American Dream while also fulfilling the dreams of others. Immigrant entrepreneurs possess relatively few options for starting a business and remaining in the United States. There is no startup visa that allows individuals to receive permanent residence specifically for starting a business. Once someone acquires permanent residence (a green card) he or she has the freedom to start a business in America. That is why the stories we hear about successful foreign-born entrepreneurs come almost exclusively from individuals sponsored by an employer or family member. John Tu is a great example of this. John Tu (No. 87 on the Forbes 400 list) was born in China in 1941, where he lived with his parents and sisters. He describes himself as a mediocre student unable to attend the best Chinese colleges. He was denied a visa to the United States and instead applied to a college in Germany, where in 1978 he earned a degree in electrical engineering. ``My dream of coming to the United States persisted,'' said John in testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration. He recalled visiting his sister, who was living in Boston. She had come to America as a student and married a U.S. citizen born in Taiwan. That trip reignited his dreams. ``My experience brought me to the conclusion that in the U.S. one can be anything he wants. I decided right then that I would find a way to make my home in America.'' His sister, who became a U.S. citizen, sponsored John for immigration through the immigrant preference category for the siblings of U.S. citizens. As someone willing to take a chance on a new country, it's not surprising John Tu quickly became an entrepreneur. He started a one-man gift shop in Arizona, where his sister had moved to, and sold collectables imported from China. A few years later, John ventured into commercial real estate, eventually buying a condominium in Los Angeles. In California, he met David Sun, his future business partner, who also was born in China. In 1982, John Tu and David Sun started a computer hardware company called Camintonn Corporation. They later sold the company to AST Research, with each man earning about $1 million. But a year later, John and David lost almost everything. Their broker, a trusted friend, invested poorly, which caused their savings to be nearly wiped out in the October 1987 stock market crash. John Tu and David Sun picked themselves up and did what entrepreneurs do best--they started another business. Their new company, Kingston Technology, sought to fill a niche in the marketplace for computer memory products. ``Kingston soon began developing memory products for a variety of PCs and thriving beyond either of our expectations. It is ironic that from the biggest financial failure came my most successful venture,'' said John. The company grew to over 500 U.S. employees and by 1996 was valued at $1.5 billion. Not surprisingly, this attracted the interest of buyers. That year, John and David sold 80 percent of Kingston to Japan-based Softbank Corp. While the sale initially made news, it is what John Tu and David Sun did with the proceeds that generated worldwide attention: The two men set aside $100 million in profits from the sale and awarded bonuses to their American employees, something virtually unheard. In many cases, the bonuses ranged from $100,000 to $300,000. This decision changed the lives of those working at Kingston, allowing many to fund dreams for themselves and their children. ``The bonus meant a great deal to the employees, for some it meant ridding themselves of debt, for others a down payment on a house, and for one person the opportunity to return to college and finish his education,'' said Kingston employee Gary McDonald. He decided to use the bonus money to fund schooling and assistance for his four children, two of whom had special needs, including one with autism. ``Without the bonus it would have been much more of a financial struggle,'' he said. Fate intervened and in July 1999, for business reasons, Softbank decided to sell its 80 percent share in Kingston back to John Tu and David Sun for less than half of the original sale price. Today, Kingston is ``the world's largest independent manufacturer of memory products,'' according to the company. Kingston employs more than 3,000 people around the world and maintains its headquarters in Fountain Valley, California. It has garnered a number of awards, including Fortune magazine's list of the ``Best Companies to Work for in America.'' John and his company Kingston contribute to many charitable causes. An Immigrant And An Immigrant's Son Saved Americans From Polio. Polio struck future presidents and poor children alike, becoming an epidemic that consumed Americans throughout much of the 20th century. Immigrant Albert Sabin and the son of an immigrant, Jonas Salk, developed the vaccines that ended polio as a threat to Americans. Neither Salk or Sabin--or their life-saving Polio vaccines--would have been in America if not for family immigration. ``Without Sabin and Salk, American children would continue to be paralyzed for life by polio,'' Michel Zaffran, director of polio eradication at the World Health Organization, said in an interview. ``Their contribution is quite simply immeasurable.'' Americans today do not consider polio a threat. That was not always the case. ``No disease drew as much attention, or struck the same terror, as polio,'' according to David Oshinsky, author of the Pulitzer Prizewinning book Polio: An American Story. ``Polio hit without warning. There was no way of telling who would get it and who would be spared. It killed some of its victims and marked others for life, leaving behind vivid reminders for all to see: wheelchairs, crutches, leg braces, breathing devices, deformed limbs.'' Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who used a wheelchair throughout his presidency, is the most famous victim of polio. But at its approximate height, in 1949, around 40,000 cases were reported in America, according to Oshinsky. In San Angelo, Texas, one out of every 124 residents contracted the disease, resulting in 24 deaths and 84 cases of permanent paralysis, affecting mostly children. Cases of polio first appeared in the U.S. in the 1800s. The invention of the electron microscope in the 1930s allowed researchers to see the virus that causes the polio infection, which is spread through fecal waste, from one person to another, by hand, food, water and other methods. When Albert Sabin was born in Poland in 1906, Americans could not have known this Polish infant would someday grow up and change their lives. ``When he was 15, his family came to the United States to escape the murderous pogroms [against Jews] that erupted there following World War I,'' according to David Oshinsky. ``The Sabins settled in Paterson, New Jersey, an immigrant textile center, where his father took a job as a weaver. Fluent in Polish and German, but knowing no English, Sabin was tutored by a cousin who encouraged him to avoid the dead-end life of the silk mills by getting an education.'' Sabin did well in high school, while working to help support the family, and accepted an offer from an uncle who offered to pay his college tuition if he agreed to join him as a dentist. Albert did not enjoy studying dentistry and lost his uncle's financial support. In a great example of mentoring, the well-regarded New York University (NYU) professor William Hallock Park, a bacteriologist, saw something in Sabin and arranged for a scholarship.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we have a humanitarian crisis at our borders. A crisis initiated by an administration that purports to be the champion of `family values' but whose actions do not value families. Yesterday, after much deserved criticism and push back, President Trump signed an executive order that modified his ``zero-tolerance'' policy by detaining parents and children apprehended by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection together, possibly on military bases, instead of separating them. The executive order, however, is silent regarding where the families would be detained or whether children will continue to be separated from their parents while the facilities to hold them are located or built. We have so much work to do, because even in ending the heinous practice of separating families, there are still many legal and practical obstacles. Kenneth Wolfe, a spokesman for the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, initially stated that ``there will not be a grandfathering of existing cases.'' Mr. Wolfe was later to be corrected by Brian Marriott, Senior Director of Communications for the Department of Health and Human Services, who stated that Mr. Wolfe had ``misspoke'' and insisted that ``it is still very early, and we are awaiting further guidance on the matter.'' Mr. Marriot then said that ``reunification is always the goal'' and that the agency ``is working toward that'' for the children separated from their families because of President Trump's policy. While there is a possibility that the children could be connected with other family members or sponsors living in the United States, it is not necessarily the parent they were separated from at the border. This raises the heart-breaking questions of what happens to the more than 2,300 children who have already been separated from their parents under the president's ``zero tolerance'' policy? We have all heard the wailing of detained immigrant children on audio tapes and we have all seen the heartbreaking pictures. The latest reports suggest that very young infants, some as young as 3 months old, are being separated and being placed in ``tender age shelters.'' This is outrageous. This past weekend, I was at a processing center in McAllen, Texas and the Southwest Key Programs' Casa Padre which houses 1,500 children, most of them separated from their parents. I saw people huddled in cages. I saw children who certainly needed to be with their parents. Like nine-month old baby Roger, who I held in my arms. Or Leah, a one year old, separated from her grandmother and her sister, whose love for her would have provided comfort and protection. As the Founder and Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and as a parent and grandparent, this is unacceptable. Studies have documented that when young children are forcibly removed from their parents, the traumatic experience engenders long-term negative effects on their physical and mental health and well-being suffers. In one famous experiment in Romania, doctors considered the results later in life of those children separated from their parents. The activity in the children's brains was much lower than expected. ``If you think of the brain as a lightbulb,'' Charles Nelson, a pediatrics professor at Harvard Medical School said, ``it's as though there was a dimmer that had reduced them from a 100-watt bulb to 30 watts.'' The children, who had been separated from their parents in their first two years of life, scored significantly lower on IQ tests later in life. Their fight-or-flight response system appeared permanently broken. Stressful situations that would usually prompt physiological responses in other people--increased heart rate, sweaty palms--would provoke nothing in the children. The effects of these traumatic experiences--especially in children who have already faced serious adversity--are unlikely to be short- lived, and can likely last a lifetime. The stressed endured by a child in custody is exacerbated when the child does not speak a language that is not English or Spanish. Although the government has a legal obligation to provide reasonable language services to unaccompanied minors, many children arriving to the U.S. speak indigenous languages and have little or no translation assistance provided by the U.S. government. The last time this nation had policies that promoted the forcible separation of children from newly arrived persons was slavery: a dark chapter in this nation's history that we should not revisit. Today, the parents of these thousands of children will not be deterred from finding ways to reunite with their children, even reentering the United States under the threat of imprisonment. It would be unconscionable to prosecute parents under these circumstances. The level of callousness displayed by this administration towards those seeking refuge within our borders is shocking and the world is taking note. Yesterday, Theresa May, the Prime Minister of our closest ally Great Britain, denounced the ``zero-tolerance'' policy on the floor of the House of Commons. His Holiness Pope Francis said the ``zero-tolerance'' policy is contrary to Catholic values. The Most Reverend Bishop Michael Curry stated that for Christians, Jesus of Nazareth is the standard of conduct for your life--he tells us--``love God and love thy neighbor.'' However, the Trump Administration has forgotten that. The United States Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen defended this egregious policy. Attorney General Jeff Sessions used Romans 13 (submit to rulers) to justify the ``zero-tolerance'' policy. It is outrageous to use the Bible--Romans 13--to justify this policy. However, many used Romans 13 to justify horrors in history such as slavery and Nazism. The more operative biblical passages should be, Matthew 7--the golden rule--or Matthew 25--I was a stranger and you welcomed me (``least of these''). National policy regarding immigration legislation should not create greater fear for families already traumatized by intolerable conditions in their home countries. U.S. immigration policy should not deter refugees from seeking asylum within our borders. I am thankful to the 60 members of the United States Senate of Congress who said enough is enough to the despicable ``zero-tolerance'' policy. I am thankful to the Republican governors of Maryland and Massachusetts who ended their contribution of National Guard deployments because they too are saying ``not in my name.'' But there is still more work to be done. We should welcome mothers carrying their babies to a safe haven and ensure the safety of their children. The Trump administration is utterly failing in its basic duty to treat all persons with dignity and compassion. Rather, it is making a mockery of our national values and reputation as a champion of human rights. We are a great country with a long and noble tradition of providing sanctuary to the persecuted and oppressed. And it is in that spirit that we should act. We can do it; after all, we are Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, you can hear the babies crying. When I went to the south Texas processing center, places where they were holding children, you could see the cages. You could hear and feel the warmth of Roger that was 9 months old who I held in my hands and who I did not want to let go. I could feel that because Roger's relatives had been taken from him, and he was crying. The babies are coming every day. There are 2,000 children who have been snatched from their families. It is child abuse. Mr. President, you can come to the Republican Conference and make jokes and raise your fist, but you can sign right now on behalf of the American people that you will let these babies go to their families. Pope Francis said: ``A person's dignity does not depend on them being a citizen, a migrant, or a refugee. Saving the life of someone fleeing war and poverty is an act of humanity.'' This is a sin. Please, for Carlos and Alajerry, please let our children go to their families.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, America is listening to the pain of so many of the Members, my colleagues, as we have experienced the devastation of watching families torn apart from their babies, their toddlers, their young children. I spent my Sunday and Monday, Father's Day, looking at those who just simply wanted an opportunity, holding baby Roger in my hands, whose mother had died and whose sister was ripped away from him and prosecuted criminally for entering the United States. Or baby Leah, who was 1 year old and was obviously fussy and had been in such a way that she was experiencing trauma. And yet, we now have this executive order that looks as if the President has done something that he could not have done a few hours ago, which is picking up the telephone and telling the people at the border to cease and desist. Those are good people who work there. They are only following orders. But this is a tragic executive order--it has no heart to it--because what it does is, yes, it keeps the families together in a criminal posture and houses them in the same conditions, now on military bases, rather than allowing them to proceed through court proceedings. In my southern district of Texas we have 50,000 cases in backlog because, as I go to the Budget Committee, this administration refuses to give us more judges. Well, they are trying to open one of these places in my congressional district. And I want to congratulate Houston, because Houston is standing for humanity; it is standing, as the Pope has said, because everyone deserves dignity. This executive order is not worth the paper it is written on because it could have been a phone call, not a demand that it is all of Congress' fault. But I am standing for the children, and we are going to save them.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dorothy Cotton, a great American and unsung hero of the Civil Rights Movement, who dedicated her life in service to this country by working to eliminate the vestiges of Jim Crow segregation which paved the way for the freedoms and liberties all Americans enjoy today. As a member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) family, I am heartbroken to learn of her death. Dorothy Cotton was like a mother figure to the young women in the movement; we yearned to be like her, someone who not only had a seat at the table but a voice. A voice that advised the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during times of challenge and crisis. A voice that challenged the patriarchal treatment of women within the movement by serving as the only woman aide to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A voice that oversaw the citizen education workshops that empowered disenfranchised African-Americans to register to vote. Born in Goldsboro, North Carolina, this tireless civil rights activist who proclaimed that the Civil Rights Movement was her life, was described as a warm presence who sang spirituals to ease tensions at demonstrations. Educated at Shaw University, Virginia State College, and Boston University, Dorothy Cotton began engaging in activism at the Gillfield Baptist Church in Petersburg, Virginia where Dr. Wyatt Tee Walker, also head of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was pastor. There she began to organize protests against segregation in the local public library and at the whites-only lunch counter at Woolworth. Shortly after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke at the church, he requested that Dr. Walker join him at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and Dorothy Cotton followed. At the SCLC, she served as an Administrative Assistant to Rev. Walker, quickly ascending to directing citizen education workshops to empower disenfranchised African-Americans to register to vote. She recruited people, from pool halls to churches, to demand and exercise their voting-rights. At the workshops, thousands of participants learned citizenship rights, black history, economic opportunity and organizing credit unions. With that knowledge, they went back to their communities educating other African-Americans on the importance of political power and to help them register to vote, even teaching them how to pass literacy tests. In addition, she trained children to participate in demonstrations which became known as the Children's Crusade, organized night marches against segregation in St. Augustine, Florida, and brought children to the local public beach to protest a whites-only policy. She regularly traveled with Dr. King, typing his famous I Have a Dream Speech, going with him to Oslo, Norway to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and staying in a Memphis, Tennessee motel room next to his until hours before his assassination in 1968. Dorothy Cotton remained active in civil rights and education after leaving the SCLC, moving to Ithaca, New York in 1982 to be Director of Student Activities at Cornell University. She worked with students to demand that Cornell University divest its financial ties to South Africa to protest the country's apartheid policies. After retiring from the university, the Center for Transformative Action started the Dorothy Cotton Institute to advance global human rights in her honor. In addition, the Dorothy Cotton Jubilee Singers was established to help preserve the spirituals she sung. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating Dorothy Cotton's life and legacy. America is a better place because of Ms. Cotton and her service. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Dorothy Cotton.