Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the Law Enforcement Caucus, Mr. Reichert, and I pay tribute to his service. Certainly, Mr. Pascrell has been on the front lines for a very long time, and I have been delighted to join him, first, when we were on the Homeland Security Committee and then continuing on the caucuses that deal with our first responders across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, let me indicate to my colleagues that I also rise in support of H. Res. 285, and to thank Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Taylor, and to also reinforce what I hope will be a worthy discussion going forward on the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act, which has a wide range of civil rights groups and police groups who are already beginning to support us. This resolution has been introduced before, and we were lucky enough to get a number of good cosponsors of organizations who believe in our community-police cooperation. I happen to come from Houston, where our first African-American police chief was Lee Brown, who is known as the father of community- oriented policing, which is the premise, I believe, of this resolution, getting to know your officers, engaging with your officers, and finding a way to empower both police and community working together. The Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act, which I look forward to working with the ranking member of the full committee and ranking member of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, deals with accreditation, deals with development programs that are helpful to law enforcement, processes to address questions raised, and as well the medallion for the family members' collection of data, and, what I like, the professional training funding that will come about for additional professional training that many of the departments would long for and welcomed when we began to discuss it. So H. Res. 285 is a very important statement being made that I hope that all of the Members will join, too, and that is that we need good police-community relations. We need to develop and empower the creation of police and community alliances. We do it in Houston, Texas. We have layered officers. Most people have never heard of constables. We have them in Texas. The rangers, we still have the rangers with historic history. We have our police in the different cities and counties and small towns, and then we have the deputy sheriffs and sheriffs in our counties all throughout. Many of these organizations do public service and barbecues. Certainly we all gather together when we have a person fallen in duty, and as well we continue to work when there is a tragedy dealing with a civilian as well. We must do everything we can to improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities we serve. Research shows that in order to succeed, we must expend the resources needed to improve communication and collaboration between law enforcement and the public. There will be many officers up this week. We should see all of them and engage in a friendly and welcoming way. We should reinforce the value of having a Nation of laws and those who enforce it, that we are also neighbors, and that we should look forward to increased community- police interaction and relationships. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution and let us work together for good in a Nation as great as America is. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me, from the beginning, acknowledge the ranking member for being on the floor on these important bills during this police and law enforcement week in commemoration. This week is one of the weeks that, over the years, all of us as Members have enjoyed the most, seeing a lot of our law enforcement representatives from our hometown jurisdiction and just seeing them from all over the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4854, the Justice Served Act of 2018. I thank my colleague, Mr. Pascrell, my fellow Texan, Judge Carter, and other Members for bringing this forward. This legislation would help ensure that prosecutors have the resources to go after perpetrators of violent crimes, specifically those who have been identified by DNA evidence. I want to just say that again, Mr. Speaker, violent crimes, which leave in their wake either the bloody loss of life or some victim that is ruined for life because of the viciousness of the crime, some of them children, families, the elderly. This is a very important element of law enforcement, the fair investigation of crimes and bringing forward the perpetrator in a fair and just and constitutional manner. To do so, they need tools. Congress has appropriated over $100 million per year for the last decade to reduce the DNA backlogs and improve crime laboratory capacity. The Justice Served Act of 2018 does something unique. It capitalizes on these investments by allowing a portion of the Debbie Smith Grant Program to be allocated to prosecute perpetrators of violent crimes. Mr. Goodlatte is right. I remember meeting Ms. Smith and the tragedy that she faced, but also the way in which she wanted to commit to making life better for many others. I thanked her for that as she appeared before our committee in years past. According to FBI data, over 1 million people were victims of violent crimes nationwide in 2016. And in many of these cases, especially cases involving sexual violence, DNA evidence is a crucial component of prosecuting the perpetrators. The Judiciary Committee is about to begin its effort of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, which my office has worked extensively with other Members who previously had great commitment to this legislation. We look forward to a bipartisan initiative. We know that in the elements of sex crimes and domestic violence, the DNA kits are extremely important, among other evidence that can be found. Prosecutors often, however, face large caseloads and lack the resources to properly ensure that violent crimes are adjudicated in a timely manner, even when a suspect has been identified through DNA evidence. H.R. 4854, the Justice Served Act of 2018, encourages a resolution of this problem by providing additional resources, none to take away from the important work of the purpose of the act, but to add these additional resources as are available through this legislation. Prosecutors need to investigate, solve, and close these cases. Give them those resources to do so. Remember, investigating, solving, and closing have the component of making sure that we do justice as well. This includes additional funding for the prosecution of cold cases where new forensic technology has identified a suspect. It is important to note that the need for additional funding is not the only problem that impacts prosecutors' ability to deal with perpetrators of violent crimes. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, RAINN, the overwhelming backlog of untested DNA evidence is currently one of the biggest obstacles to prosecuting perpetrators of sexual violence. Based on public reports, at least 100,000 rape kits sit untested in evidence rooms, warehouses, and the like. These rape kits often contain DNA evidence collected through a sexual assault forensic exam, a medical process where evidence is collected from a victim's body or clothes. This evidence is a crucial factor in achieving justice, and it is vital that prosecutors have this evidence. So this legislation, the Debbie Smith Act, was passed to alleviate my comments that I just previously made, and it has been enacted since 2004, and it has made a great impact, but now we have the opportunity to use some of those resources to help move along some of these violent cases and to assist prosecutors, again, in the fair adjudication, the just adjudication, to bring justice to those who have suffered a violent criminal act, lost their life, and certainly enhanced the justice system. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4854, the ``Justice Served Act of 2018'' and thank my colleague, Mr. Pascrell and other Members for bringing this forward. This legislation would help ensure that prosecutors have the resources to go after perpetrators of violent crimes, specifically those who have been identified by DNA evidence. Congress has appropriated over $100 million per year for the last decade, to reduce the DNA backlogs and improve crime laboratory capacity. The ``Justice Served Act of 2018'' capitalizes on these investments by allowing a portion of the Debbie Smith grant program to be allocated to prosecute perpetrators of violent crimes. According to FBI data, over a million people were victims of violent crimes nationwide, in 2016. In many of these cases, especially cases involving sexual violence, DNA evidence is a crucial component of prosecuting the perpetrators. Prosecutors, however, often face large caseloads and lack the resources to properly ensure that violent crimes are adjudicated in a timely manner, even when a suspect has been identified through DNA evidence. H.R. 4854 the ``Justice Served Act of 2018'' encourages the resolution of this problem by providing additional resources prosecutors need to investigate, solve and close these cases. This includes additional funding for the prosecution of cold cases where new forensic technology has identified a suspect. It is important to note that the need for additional funding is not the only problem that impacts prosecutors' ability to hold perpetrators of violent crimes accountable. According to the Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network, (RAINN), the overwhelming backlog of untested DNA evidence is currently one of the biggest obstacles to prosecuting perpetrators of sexual violence. Based on public reports, at least 100,000 rape kits have sat, untested, in evidence rooms, warehouses, and the like. These rape kits often contain DNA evidence collected through a sexual assault forensic exam, a medical process where evidence is collected from a victim's body or clothes. This evidence is a crucial factor in achieving justice and it is vital that prosecutors have this evidence. In order to address the backlog, Congress passed the ``Debbie Smith Act.'' The Debbie Smith Act provides crucial funding to support public crime laboratories' work to build capacity and process DNA evidence including evidence collected in rape kits. Since its enactment in 2004, the Debbie Smith Act has been renewed twice with overwhelming bipartisan support. This funding has significantly decreased the backlog of untested DNA evidence. The problem, however, continues to persist because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that needs to be analyzed. For example, in 2016, the Harris County Institute of Forensic Science, in Houston, received over 3,000 cases to be reviewed. Despite receiving federal grants, this lab continues to face difficulties in analyzing all the evidence in a timely manner. We in Congress need to make sure that we are allocating enough resources to ensure that these labs are able to meet the demand. Victims of violent crimes, especially victims of sexual violence, have the right to have their cases resolved as quickly as possible. They need to be able to move on, knowing that they are safe from the person who hurt them. It is therefore important that Congress continue to support efforts to ensure that states and local government have the resources to test and analyze DNA evidence and that prosecutors have the resources to go after these suspects. For these reasons I support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has worked without ceasing on legislation that will help our law enforcement officers.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Pascrell for making that commitment that the resources under the Debbie Smith Act will still be viable and ready to be used for those sexual assault, sexual violence victims as this legislation was intended, but a provision in the bill allows the resources to also keep in line that nothing will undermine the investigation of sexual assault cases, sexual violence cases, but it allows the hand of justice to move on further for those who are the victims of violent crimes and to ensure that perpetrators of violent crimes are prosecuted as quickly as possible, again, under the equal and balanced hand of justice. So H.R. 4845, the Justice Served Act of 2018, provides funding to State and local prosecutors to help them tackle the backlog of violent crime cases, including cold cases, where suspects have been identified through DNA evidence. Certainly, there may be some overlap. I want to make it very clear to our victims of sex crimes, domestic violence, and other crimes dealing with those particular issues, that these dollars are enhanced dollars to be able to do the violent crimes. While it is important that State and local prosecutors have the resources they need, it is also important that Congress remain vigilant and continue to support efforts to clear the backlogs of untested and unanalyzed DNA evidence, including rape kits. The backlog in many jurisdictions is enormous. This was our intent, to move forward, to provide justice to those who have suffered, some have lost their life. So in the spirit of expanding justice to ensure that justice is for all, I rise to support this legislation in keeping with its initial purpose, to solve the backlog of DNA kits, and now to be able to assist in the solving and bringing to justice the perpetrators of violent crimes. Mr. Speaker, I again ask my colleagues to support the underlying legislation, I thank the sponsors of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5645, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act-- otherwise known as the SMARTER Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about creating equal rules or implementing ``smarter'' legislation. Rather, it is about attacking the administrative authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). H.R. 5645 is an unnecessary measure that would fundamentally undermine the FTC's independent enforcement authority and ability to prevent anti-competitive mergers. As we all know, the FTC was created by Congress with the specific intent of creating an independent antitrust enforcement agency and supplemental authority to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Specifically, if enacted, the SMARTER Act would strip the FTC of its power by eliminating the agency's authority to enforce antitrust laws in larger merger cases, and by blocking its ability to use its administrative proceedings to stop a harmful merger transaction. The bill seeks to do so by requiring that the FTC use the same enforcement process as the DOJ. This proposed sweeping change undercuts the FTC's administrative litigation process for contested mergers or acquisitions and effectively removes the very core and functioning character of this agency. Moreover, reducing the FTC's independence directly conflicts with Congress's intent in creating this antitrust enforcement agency and policymaking body as a distinct and independent shield from political and executive interference. As enforcers of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, both the FTC and the DOJ have the authority and responsibility to prohibit mergers and acquisitions that would ``substantially lessen competition'' or ``tend to create a monopoly''. Under this enforcement authority, these agencies serve to complement each other, and have developed over the years to specialize in particular industries and markets. Based upon historical experience and coordinated developments, the FTC serves to protect consumers and consumer spending. For example, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, professional services, food, energy, and certain high-tech industries like computer technology and internet services. Whereas, the DOJ typically assumes a specialized focus on larger corporate industries like telecommunications, banks, railroads, and airlines. Thus, while the FTC and the DOJ have operated with a shared responsibility of enforcing federal antitrust laws, these two federal agencies are unique and each retain exclusive authority of certain conduct. Serving as joint enforcement agencies for over 100 years, the FTC and DOJ rely upon each other to coordinate agency jurisdiction and harmonized standards and practices. The SMARTER Act is simply unnecessary as it fails to put forth any meaningful effort to enhance or rectify any expressed concerns governing these longstanding agency operations. In particular, in 2002 Congress sought to review and amend antitrust laws and policies in light of the changing economy and rise in technological advances. In 2007 a report issued by the Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) set forth specific recommendations for the FTC to eliminate real or perceived disparities in the review process for merger transactions. According to the AMC, Congress should seek to ensure that the same or comparable standard is used when seeking a preliminary injunction against a potentially anticompetitive transaction. However, the SMARTER Act goes beyond this recommendation and seeks to chip away and carve out the entire administrative adjudication authority of the FTC. In order to identify potential violations of the Clayton Act, the FTC and the DOJ review proposed merger transactions pursuant to the Hart- Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (the HSR Act), which provides advance notice and sets forth guidelines on large merger and acquisition transactions. The heart of this concern is the alternate means by which the FTC and DOJ carry out their enforcement roles during this HSR pre-merger process. Namely, H.R. 5645 is curiously motivated by the preliminary injunction process utilized by the FTC and the DOJ to halt proposed transactions that would violate the Clayton Act if completed. Additionally, the DOJ typically consolidates the preliminary and permanent injunction proceedings, while the FTC typically only pursues preliminary injunctions. While some argue that proposed transactions reviewed through the FTC would be treated more leniently than those reviewed through the DOJ, this assertion has not been fully substantiated by the AMC. The pre-merger review process and the injunction standards utilized by the FTC and DOJ are the very procedural steps that characterize and distinguish the respective enforcement roles of these agencies. This supposed area of concern addresses only a small fraction of proposed transactions, as the vast majority of merger and acquisition proposals are found to not be in violation of the Clayton Act upon undergoing the review process. The FTC and DOJ review over a thousand merger filings every year. Yet 95 percent of those merger filings present no competitive issues or challenged transactions. As reported by the American Antitrust Institute (AAI), the overall concerns purported by the bill's sponsors are simply without foundation. In contrast, the overall work of the FTC has an incredible impact on American consumers, communities and corporations and will be severely impacted if disrupted. As highlighted by the FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez in her testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, the FTC prioritizes the protection of consumers and the prevention of anticompetitive market practices. In fact, the FTC exists to ensure fair competition and to prevent enormous concentrations of economic power that hurts consumers and small businesses. For example: In the past year, the FTC has challenged over 28 mergers, (although in most it was able to negotiate a remedy to allow the merger to proceed). At the consumer level in my home state of Texas, the FTC secured an $82,000 settlement against an auto-dealer found in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in September 2017. Also last year, the FTC ordered the largest divestiture ever in a supermarket merger, requiring Albertsons and Safeway to sell 168 supermarkets in 130 local markets throughout several states, ensuring that communities continue to benefit from competition among their local supermarkets. The FTC has also taken an aggressive stance on stopping anticompetitive mergers and conduct in the healthcare market by halting such practices through administrative litigation. In September 2017, the FTC secured a $1.1 million settlement to consumers who lost money to a health insurance telemarketing scam. And in the last two years, the FTC took action in 13 pharmaceutical mergers, ordering divestitures to preserve competition for drugs that treat diabetes, hypertension, and cancer, as well as widely used generic medications like oral contraceptives and antibiotics. Last year, on March 18, 2016, after a thoroughly vetted investigation, the FTC approved a final order preserving competition among outpatient dialysis clinics in Laredo, Texas. That is, the FTC cleared U.S. Renal Care, Inc.'s (the country's third largest outpatient dialysis provider) $640 million purchase of dialysis competitor DSI Renal, on the condition that three of DSI's outpatient clinics in Laredo, Texas be handed over to a third party. Absent this agreed divestiture, the acquisition would have led to a significant increase in market concentration and anti-competitive effects. The likely result, according to the FTC, would have included the elimination of direct competition between U.S. Renal Care and DSI Renal, reduced incentives to improve services or quality for dialysis patients, and increased ability for the merged company to unilaterally increase prices. Notably, the DOJ has also been successful in securing investigations and halting suspected harmful merger practices on a much larger scale (in the health care and airline industry as of late). In June 2016, the DOJ put pressure on several multibillion dollar health insurers seeking to engage in large merger transactions with near certain suppression of market competition in the healthcare industry. In August 2016, the DOJ issued civil investigative demands on several major US airlines seeking to halt any potential unlawful mergers. These cases demonstrate the need for continued protection of the FTC and its ability to effectively carry out injunctions on harmful merger and acquisition activities, as well as, anticompetitive business conduct that harms consumers and restrains market activity. The ability of the FTC to function independently is necessary to the success of both the FTC and DOJ. The far-reaching and elusive SMARTER Act fails to keep the foundational integrity of these agencies and should be opposed. I urge my colleagues to vote against this serious threat to our fundamental protections of consumers and fair economic competition.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Nadler, and the chairman of the committee, Mr. Goodlatte, who is now managing the bill; and I certainly acknowledge my fellow Texan and know that he has all good intentions on important legislation dealing with the question of safety and security. H.R. 2152, unfortunately, has been noted possibly to have requirements that would undermine the privacy of those who participate in the program, who are disproportionately poor Americans, and discourages the use of pretrial service programs in communities across the country because of the punitive measures in this bill. I rise to oppose H.R. 2152 because it is flawed and needs to address the disparate treatment of poor Americans. I believe the consideration of the issues underlying the bill is timely but, unfortunately, not directed in the right way. The House should examine pretrial services and bail issues with the goal of reforming our Nation's bail system, not for the purpose of protecting the use of money bail which is unfair to the indigent, unproductive, and expensive for American taxpayers. In fact, in Harris County, we have a money bail system, and a Federal judge, Judge Lee Rosenthal, indicated that it was disproportionately unfair to poor constituents in the State of Texas and, particularly, Harris County. We have been working to come together and have an agreement in our local community on recognizance bonds for individuals who work, and put a certain criteria in. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, we are as concerned about the safety and security of our constituents, but it would be inappropriate for us to enhance the commercial bond industry, which I certainly appreciate-- they create jobs and they are businesses--in contrast to individuals who simply cannot afford a money bond. In this instance, this bill would penalize those entities, those communities that use Federal funds for pretrial release programs if they don't provide all of this data. Now, it might be important to provide this data for someone who is particularly dangerous, but, Mr. Speaker, you know just like I do, those individuals do not get a bond. So, as I indicated, the Citizens' Right to Know Act would require a State or local government that uses Justice Department grant funding to pay for pretrial services, which are important programs, to report, annually, certain information to the Department of Justice about defendants who participate in the pretrial services program. The very fact that you are in the program is an indication, in most jurisdictions, that you are not a violent felon. You would hope that you are not a person accused of sex crimes, sex trafficking, human trafficking. Those are matters that can be fixed. Information that will be required to be reported includes the name of each defendant participating in the pretrial release program and each occasion that the person failed to make an appearance, the record of prior convictions of each participant, and the amount of money allocated for the pretrial services program. If a unit of government fails to comply with the reporting requirement, it would lose its entire funding under the relevant program for the following fiscal year, penalizing smaller communities, innocent communities that didn't have the wherewithal to provide all that data. Certainly, it would be better spent on making sure that they use the pretrial program efficiently and safely and secure. The requirements in this bill largely mirror legislative initiatives being advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in the States, under the false guise of transparency. Citizens have a right to know what their government is doing. I absolutely agree with that, and I support the reporting of information that will educate us as to what is taking place. As for H.R. 2152, however, I question whether the categories and information that must be reported under the bill are designed to do that or are adequate to tell us about the efficacy of these programs. In addition, the bill requires that this information be made publicly available by the Attorney General. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the ACLU, NAACP, Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change have written to us opposing the bill and expressing concerns about this publication requirement and the harm to individuals resulting from a sharing of criminal records and personally identifying information. I share these concerns. The groups that I have named have been historic organizations that have dealt with the civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, and constitutional rights of Americans, no matter who they are. Although the Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to eliminate the reporting of arrest records of the participating defendants, I see no need to compile and make public information about prior convictions and the failures to appear in connection with identifier-specific defendants--maybe overall numbers, but this would be unnecessary and unproductive. The main crux of what we should be about is that a pretrial program is a secure and safe program. The levels of a person who can participate should be utilized with guidelines, restrictions, and, certainly, local monitoring. But to penalize an organization, entity, a governmental entity trying to do its best and to be fair and balanced in the criminal justice system based on money bail is something that I would raise the question. You can document, in Harris County, that we have had an enormously disproportionate impact on individuals with small offenses who have had to go no other route but either jail or money bail. They have no money bail. They are in jail. They could have a legitimate job. They could be a teacher. We just had an incident with a mother who was placed in--she was, unfortunately, at least the allegations are, that she was driving, unfortunately, in a school zone and had a minute amount of marijuana. Whatever our positions are on that, she was sent to the Harris County jail, of course, lost her job. She was gainfully employed and is, obviously, distraught. I hate to say it; her allegations are that she was raped in the Harris County jail, sad to say that. But the point is, just think if she could have been released on her own recognizance and/or a small amount in a pretrial release program. Not given that opportunity, she was taken in and, unfortunately, suffered these unfortunate consequences. Members submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to address some of these concerns and also to encourage States to eliminate monetary bail, but none were made in order for consideration on the floor today. That is unusual, a closed rule on a Judiciary Committee bill that is the arm of decency as relates to decency, dignity, liberty, justice, and freedom. Those are very important elements to the American people, and, certainly, the amendments should have been at least given consideration for the Representatives of the people of the United States in the people's House to debate these amendments. That was not the case, so we have a closed rule. I am baffled by that. Instead of considering this bill, the House should be taking up legislation to encourage States to end the practice of requiring money bail, a practice that disparately impacts the poor and most vulnerable in our society. For instance, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1437, the No Money Bail Act of 2017, which would reduce Justice Department grant awards to States that do not eliminate money bail and would also eliminate bail at the Federal level. Instead of considering H.R. 2152, we should be advancing legislation such as H.R. 1437, or, minimally, both bills should on be on floor at the same time. Again, this is no attempt to undermine how we secure our communities. I certainly take no backseat to the fact that our families, communities, police officers, and people in the criminal justice system should be protected, and those who have been given the benefit of a pretrial release should adhere to the rules that are there; but I can see no reason to be punitive to the local governmental entities as relates to not reporting names and all those details, including prior convictions, et cetera, et cetera. What is the Federal Government going to do, say, if you have two prior convictions, you can't be in the pretrial release program? That is a local, State issue as opposed to a Federal issue, and what you are doing is connecting desperately needed criminal justice dollars from the Department of Justice to communities that may be trying to do their best. With the version of H.R. 2152 that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, we are not doing that, unfortunately. Therefore, I oppose the bill and hope that the House will soon take steps to do something about the real problem: our Nation's unjust money bail system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. He is a dear friend. As we debate this question, I think it is a very important moment as we look at comprehensive criminal justice reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me indicate and reemphasize points that I made and, as well, points that Mr. Johnson made. This will have a disparate impact, and what strikes me of great concern is that this amendment was, in essence, a closed rule. I submitted an amendment that would basically gather data--which, I think, is what the proponent of this legislation wants--to ensure that pretrial release is working, to show that people who would be a threat to the community are not running without restraint, and to show the number of people who would appear for their appearance, if you will, in court who were beneficiaries of the pretrial release program. Those are all good elements, but it concerns me, again, that we don't have any clear parameters of whom this will hurt. And also, small communities are dependent upon Federal grants. Their structure may not be the best, and so, if you are now asking them for reporting of individual names and past offenses, I beg the question of the value of that information. What we really should have is aggregate numbers of who, under the pretrial program, is able to or is, in essence, not meeting the criteria and is breaking the agreement and commitment they have to either appear or to stay in a certain area. That is important information, and I think the DOJ could utilize that in an aggregate form. Why are we giving names that will remain in the DOJ database for someone who may ultimately go back to work, as this mother may go back to her family and her life would hopefully--even though she experienced a tragedy in the jail and lost her job, let's hope that she has a future. But if she were caught in this bill, would her name now be in the database? I have not researched her case. It seems that this might have been her first offense, but it certainly was a minor offense with a small amount of marijuana. As the facts evidence, it was the jurisdictional, the geographic area that she was in that caused the greatest trouble. So the other side of it is that money bail is another issue that we should have looked at. We should have put both bills on the floor of the House because there is a movement across the Nation to begin to address, again, disparate treatment of money bail--not on the issue of race, but on the issue of economics. So the person working in the fast-food place is in jail and, most likely, loses their job. We know that people who work in fast-food are mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers taking care of families, and being in jail does not help them take care of their family. You can be assured--unlike maybe other positions where you can say I was on vacation or that you didn't even stay in jail because you had the money to get out of jail--you cannot say you are on vacation for a couple of days or that you were nothing because you are right out back at work. You are fired. A very evident case is the gentleman who was wealthy in Texas--a very renowned case--found in a hotel room in Galveston. He had decapitated his roommate's head and disposed of it--is my recollection. I stand to be corrected if my recollection is not correct--in the Galveston Bay, and because he could post a $100,000-plus bond, Mr. Speaker, he was released. Put that on any poor person, and we would be aghast at even how this person got bond set. But he did. Ultimately, he was acquitted in that case. I still shake in my boots. So the issue is there is more to this than giving names and putting it in a database in the DOJ for persons who may never commit another offense in life. Money bail contributes, again, to the unnecessary detention of many low-risk pretrial defendants, inappropriate release of high-risk defendants who have financial means--as I just indicated, a person who decapitated a person's head--unwarranted financial burdens on low-income communities, and the gamble of placing public safety in the hands of a bail bonding industry that will always profit before the public good, a real point to the unfairness of the money bail. Yet you would deny funds to small towns that are doing pretrial release, or even big counties and cities that are trying to do their best, but they need these Federal funds. Find another way for us to be able to assess what is going on. Wealth-based detention has disastrous consequences: overcrowding of local jails, lost jobs, lost housing, poor sanitation and medical care, broken families, and it drains local budgets. In many cases, an arrestee may be held longer in jail while awaiting trial than any sentence she or he would likely receive if convicted. Right now, in my own county and other big counties around the Nation that have not corrected that, they are doing that right now: causing innocent people to plead guilty to offenses that they did not commit in order to shorten the lengthy pretrial detention. Individuals who are detained are not able to assist their attorneys in the investigation of charges against them, resulting in many wrongful convictions and longer sentences. So I only offer this thought so that we can have a viable discussion on the money bail issue and the disparate treatment that this legislation--though, not intended--would bring about when you ask communities to give the names and prior convictions of persons who may have had one or two marijuana or DUI--which all of us abhor-- convictions. But the privacy issues are a concern, and the lack of debate on the impact of money bail and its unfairness are not being discussed, and the lack of a rule that allows amendments, I think, concerns me. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change, who expressed their opposition to this legislation. May 8, 2018. Vote ``No'' on the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2017'' (H.R. 2152) Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the NAACP, Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change, we urge you to vote ``No'' on H.R. 2152, the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2017,'' as the House considers this bill. This legislation raises serious privacy concerns for the civil and human rights community given the personally identifiable data that is to be collected and publicly reported by the federal government. The bill also undermines efforts to eliminate or reduce jurisdictions' reliance on money bail systems. We urge the members to instead consider H.R. 1437, the ``No Money Bail Act of 2017,'' and other bipartisan efforts to encourage the elimination of money bail systems. The Citizens' Right to Know Act Raises Privacy Concerns The Citizens' Right to Know Act requires jurisdictions receiving funds from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to report to the Attorney General the names, arrest records, and appearance failures for those participating in DOJ funded pretrial services programs. The legislation allows the Attorney General to make public the names, arrest records, and failure appearances that jurisdictions report. Except for a clause that subjects the data ``to any applicable confidentiality requirements,'' the bill does not provide any explicit privacy protections for those whose personally identifiable information has been collected by the federal government and is subject to public release. The bill requires that the Attorney General penalize noncompliant jurisdictions by denying them 100 percent of the DOJ grant program funds that are used to support pretrial services programs. While we appreciate the need for the federal government to collect and report data, personal privacy interests must be balanced with public interests. When personally identifiable information is being collected and publicly reported, we believe that such information should be obtained and disseminated only with individuals' informed consent. We also believe that the potential to harm individual reputations should be considered when arrest records are publicly shared. We are troubled that the Citizens' Right to Know Act would collect and publicly report personally identifiable information of individuals participating in pretrial services programs--individuals who have not been convicted of a crime given their pretrial status. The Citizens' Right to Know Act Undermines Bail Reform Efforts The Citizens' Right to Know Act is inconsistent with efforts to reform money bail systems, like the No Money Bail Act, which many of our organizations support. By collecting and reporting only certain data about pretrial services programs and those participating in them, the Citizens' Right to Know Act will depict a one-sided picture of pretrial services programs and participants. For example, the legislation's focus on when an individual has failed to appear promises a negative narrative around the pretrial stage. If this bill were serious about measuring the true impact of pretrial services programs, it would collect a more robust data set and not that which is of interest only to the bail bonds industry. We support bail reform that corrects the injustice of basing a defendant's release on how much money the person has. Instead of considering the Citizens' Right to Know Act, Congress should take up the No Money Bail Act of 2017. This legislation would incentive jurisdictions to reform their money bail systems using federal resources. The No Money Bail Act would build safer communities, stronger families, and a fairer criminal justice system by ensuring that people who are innocent in the eyes of the law are not deprived of their freedom because they cannot afford money bail. For the above described reasons, we urge members of the House to vote ``No'' on the Citizens' Right to Know Act. Instead, we encourage the House of Representatives to give serious consideration to bail reform bills through legislative and oversight hearings on the issue. Sincerely, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, Human Rights Watch, Color of Change.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am clear and I think my colleague Mr. Johnson is clear on the pretrial release versus the money bail, but in many instances, pretrial release may have a negative impact on a poor, alleged actor of criminal activity as the money bail system. But this will add additional pain and lack of promise. As I said, my amendment was to have the aggregate number of those who did not appear. That is viable and important information. You could have it by counties, small towns, villages, and cities to indicate what the impact is of pretrial release. What strikes me as a concern is to have names and prior convictions, because it becomes part of a DOJ database and these persons may never commit another crime. They might have been in the hospital, maybe they get back and say why--I don't know what it means if you didn't make the first one and they got information that Mr. Smith was in the hospital, didn't have a lawyer, is coming back, but his name has already been sent out. And then you are going to penalize the local jurisdiction for the Federal funds that they are so desperately in need of. By the way, I am grateful that in the omnibus that we recently passed, we plussed up all of those numbers. And I can assure you, our communities are jumping for joy in the work that they have to do in criminal justice reform or to secure or to make safe their communities, particularly, our police officers for whom I have championed the COPS on the Beat, and I just wish we could really plus that program up because it is a very viable program that we had from the 1990s. So taking money away is going to be, in this instance, when there could be a positive alternative to giving the information, something that I would be concerned about. I have already mentioned the issue that wealth-based detention has disastrous consequences: overloading the local jails, the lost jobs, the lost housing, poor sanitation, medical care, broken families, and draining local budgets. So let us have a moment on the floor that we can discuss the reform of money bails, as was done in the Federal court in the Southern District of Texas. In closing, I would like to reiterate that this bill is, as they say, an effort at finding a problem. It is important that we promote transparency and accountability in government, but this bill does not move in that direction. I am willing to extend my hand of friendship to my friend from Texas. We will see where this bill goes. But we know what it may really do. The bill was written for the purpose of burdening pretrial services programs, publicizing the sensitive information of defendants who are charged with but not convicted of a crime--and I think that is an important element; you really do deserve privacy if you are just an accused and not yet convicted--and in order to undermine the efforts to reform the money bail system. That is why civil rights organizations have written to oppose this bill. I would like to think that they would be willing as well to work with us and come halfway to address the question of the money bail disparate treatment, discriminatory impact. By the way, it is not just a racial disparate treatment; it is a poor people's disparate treatment; it is a working people's treatment, when they don't have money. We have heard the stories. They put up grandmother's house, their house, and it becomes a real tall mountain to climb. The money bail has been harmful and, in some instances, shameful in what it has done to poor, working families. And instead of considering the bill that would help us reform that, we should be considering--rather, this bill with the ask of private information. I would like to see if we have to have this bill to do it in aggregate. No names on it would be very helpful. And we should be advancing legislation to eliminate the placing of financial conditions on someone's release from jail pending trial, which is taking money away from the local jurisdiction. The bill today does that, and I think that we can work to do better. And I am not pleased to be opposing, but I would ask my colleagues to consider all that I have said about bail reform and disparate treatment and how we can best handle the needs of finding out who leaves pretrial release and who doesn't. Let's just get the numbers. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this bill. I ask my colleagues to join me, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted, if I might say, to be with Professor Raskin today, and I would like to use that terminology, or Congressman Raskin, but it means that he gets into both the theory, the practice, and the passion of an idea. That is what teachers do. They try to instruct their students to look at the holistic concept of a theory. Mr. Speaker, the loss of food stamps is not a theory, but it has passion in the loss of such. It has a broad landscape of impact. It certainly has a theory of which I don't adhere to, and that is that Americans who have asked for a hand up are the ones deserving of the brunt of an enormous tax cut that has created an enormous deficit that was not asked for by the top 1 percent, who are getting the major aspect, or major benefit, of this tax cut. As a member of the Budget Committee, we took pains, the Democrats, to parse through the ultimate negative impact of the $1.4 trillion-plus tax cut. During the Obama administration, we discussed a corporate rate reduction. Many of us would have considered that on the idea of job creation, coming from the early thirties, if you will, down to about the mid-twenties. We did more than--when I say ``we,'' this bill did 21, unasked for by any corporate entity, which added, again, insult to injury as it relates to those families, disabled, and seniors, children who are dependent upon these programs. We have many Americans who are dependent upon means-tested programs, 70 percent. The supplemental nutrition program, unlike the 21 percent corporate rate reduction for taxes, is $1.40 per person. One of our colleagues in the other body, Senator Booker, as we all know who are familiar with him, and I think maybe we should join in that effort, spend that much per meal, all of the Members of the House of Representatives, because what we are dealing with today is the farm bill. The farm bill takes to shutting down the SNAP program and to cutting it drastically, and to ignore and underfund important programs because we find ourselves in a predicament of the deficit, the tax cut, and what choices do we make. The decision to limit SNAP is not limited to red States or blue States. Eighty-five of the top 100 counties of individuals receiving SNAP benefits are rural communities, and many of them are, in fact, Republican represented. The disastrous changes to SNAP would jeopardize the food security of 42 million people, including 30 million children, 4.8 million low- income seniors, and 1.5 million low-income military veterans. So in conclusion, I came to the floor today to ask the question: Why in the farm bill? There is something about having a little seniority in this House. I can remember that of all the bills in this Nation that came out of this House and Senate--and I might say, joyfully, because I have been supported by the Farm Bureau. I come from a State of ranchers and farmers. We used to take pride in having that nexus between farmers and the SNAP program and the continuity of such. So here we are. We have breached it. We have blown it up for no reason other than to pocket the money for the tax cut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing us together. I ask my colleagues to vote against the farm bill, because that would be standing up for maybe a better pathway of that bipartisan farm bill that we have had over the decades to make a difference in the lives of all Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, just a few years ago, there was serious deliberation, prayer, much review, the utilization of experts as the House of Representatives voted for the Iran deal of the P5+6. I remember extensive deliberations and the probing of experts on the compliance aspect of this nuclear deal. As I speak, the President has announced a pullout--or will be announcing such, I think--with drastic consequences. It is certainly appropriate to look at bilateral agreements, but to all that have reviewed, Iran is complying with this agreement. As we approach North Korea, it will be baffling to them as we try to engage in a final agreement. This is not about campaign pledges or your dislike for the former President of the United States. It is about the safety and security of the world and the containment of nuclear products and the utilization of such. So I would argue that the Congress needs to stand up, make good on its commitments, protect the American people and the world from nuclear catastrophe.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of H.R. 3170, the Small Business Development Center Cyber Security Training Act of 2017. H.R. 3170 amends the Small Business Act to require the Small Business Administration to establish a program for certifying employees of small business development centers to provide cybersecurity planning assistance to small businesses. Cybersecurity threats faced by small businesses are as serious as those faced by large businesses and government agencies. According to the Better Business Bureau's 2017 report ``State of Cybersecurity Among Small Businesses in North America'' found that small business owners are becoming more and more aware of cyber threats, continue to be concerned about cyber risks, and are taking some proactive security steps in spite of their unique challenges in regard to cybersecurity. Global spending on cybersecurity is expected to reach $170 billion by 2020 as businesses and governments work to security networks and the data they contain. Cyberattacks in the form of ransomware, phishing, point-of sale malware, keyloggers, tech support phone scam, remote access Trojan or rat are some of the threats faced by small businesses. According to the trade journal Small Business Trends: 43 percent of cyberattacks target small businesses; 14 percent of small businesses rate their ability to mitigate cyber risks, vulnerabilities, and attacks as highly effective; 60 percent of small companies go out of business within six months of a cyberattack; 48 percent of data security breaches are caused by acts of malicious intent, human error, or system failure; and Small businesses are most concerned about the security of customer data. Cyber criminals are not only interested in what may be of value on a small business computer or computing device. Criminals can also see value in taking control of a small business' computers or computing devices to launch an attack on a third party. These types of attacks can shield the attacker from being identified and cause problems for the small business as networks label their computing devices or web addresses as the source of an attack. The overall impact of a cybersecurity incident according to the National Institute for Standards and Technology could include: damage to information or information systems; regulatory fines and penalties/legal fees; decreased productivity; loss of information critical to running your business; damage to reputation or loss of consumer confidence; damage to credit and loan worthiness; or loss of business income. There is a growing shortage of cybersecurity professionals with over a quarter-million positions remaining unfilled in the U.S. alone and a predicted shortfall of 1.5 million cybersecurity professionals by 2019. Solutions like the ones contained in the bill before us would increase the number of cybersecurity professionals in the Small Business Administration to serve the cybersecurity needs of small businesses. The bill would require the SBA to have staff at their Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) receive training in cybersecurity so that they will be prepared to assist businesses with cybersecurity planning. Small Business Development Centers provide an array of technical assistance to small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs. By supporting business growth, sustainability and enhancing the creation of new businesses entities, SBDCs foster local and regional economic development through job creation and retention. As a result of the no-cost, extensive, one-on-one, long-term professional business advising, low-cost training and other specialized services SBDC clients receive, the program remains one of the nation's largest small business assistance programs in the federal government. The SBDCs are comprised of a unique collaboration of SBA federal funds, state and local governments, and private sector resources. SBDCs provide services through professional business advisors such as: development of business plans; manufacturing assistance; financial packaging and lending assistance; exporting and importing support; disaster recovery assistance; procurement and contracting aid; market research services; aid to 8(a) firms in all stages; and healthcare information. H.R. 3170, would add to this list cybersecurity planning assistance. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a discussion on prison reform, and I missed rollcall vote No. 167, H.R. 4910, the Veterans Cemetery Benefit Correction Act, as amended. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished manager for yielding to me and for the eloquent statements of our colleagues, including Congresswoman Sewell and Congresswoman Moore. I thank our chairman, Mr. Richmond, for his persistence that members of the Congressional Black Caucus come to the floor of the House to be able to address these concerns that are very important. I am going to be very brief, but I want to join my colleagues on what I think is a striking and provocative discourse, and it is a hurting discourse. The reason why I want to make sure that my voice is heard is because I have constituents who are living poor, but their spirit is not poor. Their commitment to success is not poor. Their desire for better opportunities for their children is not poor. Yet we want to condemn or malign this group that may be living in poverty. It strikes me as a difficult proposition to know that the Speaker of the House, for example, is seeking, again, welfare reform which, when I first came to the United States Congress, I enthusiastically voted against. And I was right because so many people were turned off the rolls; so many lives were ruined; so many children did not get the needs that they needed; so many poor mothers could not tend to their newborn babies because resources were lost. Now we come again to a concept of welfare reform, and we are not concerned, I guess, about the different health conditions of different ethnic and racial populations. The age 60 for some, maybe 80, in terms of a physical condition that they are facing, and so a flat number of 60, cut you off or you can't have coverage that is necessary, is a sad state on this great country. The other point that I think is important is that the President has offered a review of the programs that help the poor. Now, right now today, Houston is still suffering from the impact of Hurricane Harvey. And as I heard my colleague, good times today and bad times tomorrow. Or making ends meet today or yesterday, and not making them meet today. We are still seeing students and families who were displaced during Hurricane Harvey losing everything and barely getting back on their feet, and this is May, and we are about to enter the hurricane season again. So the idea of a safety net that the $1.7 trillion tax cut cuts right into, that is the point. A safety net is not a handout. This reverse Robin Hood tax bill takes from individuals who are part, again, of the greatness of America. We are always hearing of the stories of the person from the little red schoolhouse or rural America who was great and made it to a success story. They made it through the Helping Hands. They made it through the Pell grants. They made it through Medicare. They made it through Medicaid. In 1965, we saw more seniors living after 1965, when President Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid. So the idea that we are reviewing programs that are impacting people who suffer from poverty or that we would think it is more important to have this major tax cut that is creating this huge deficit so the people who are victimized are the people who, in fact, are part of America's greatness and have every right to have an opportunity of success in their lives. Seventy percent of Americans rely on at least one means-tested Federal program. The nutrition program, the SNAP program, the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, was a lifeline for Houstonians and people in Harris County during Hurricane Harvey. I remember getting an extension, and 30,000 people came and stood in the hot Sun for 3 days just to be able to get a voucher that would carry them through the Christmas holiday. That was what you call emergency supplemental nutrition. What we have now, the SNAP program, $1.40 per meal. And then the President was offering: Let's don't do that. Let's send a box. Let's send a brown box to the house and have some dry milk and whatever other nonperishables could be in there. These people have children. They have pre-K. They need childcare. Have you heard the fact that HUD may be tripling the rents that low- income Americans are receiving that housing Federal subsides would have to pay? So they get a Federal subsidy and they have to pay three times the rent? That seems to be a little absurd. If we are concerned about what is a hand up, what is, in fact, the opportunity for individuals to meet their promise and their greatness, we would not have passed such an atrocious tax bill that really eats at the flesh of survival of this country and many Americans. For example, the top 1 percent's tax cut, if they didn't get that tax cut--of which many have said: We don't want it, didn't need it-- childcare would be able to be provided for 19 children, job training for 27 workers, Pell grants for 38 students, and providing substance use disorder treatment for 21 people. The CHIP program would be stronger; and, of course, the ability for individuals suffering from the opioid crisis, we would have far more dollars to be able to assist them to restore their lives. So it is very important that the debate tonight not be, as it has been characterized, about poor people or the impoverished, or that the debate is about handouts. It is the safety net that every single American desires but is really owed to have. It is the very safety net that has the world looking to America as the greatest Nation in the world. I have many friends in many countries around the world, and some of these countries have a billion-plus people. The safety net that they have is a nonsafety net. So the level of disaster and devastation in populations is almost unbelievable as compared to here in this country. But the reason why we are this country is because people expect us not to be those countries. They expect us to be the America with resources, and we do have resources. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me to explain, one, the devastation of this trillion-plus tax cut bill that we fought vigorously in the Budget Committee and offered any number of amendments to correct and protect Medicaid, Medicare, education, and benefits that really give us stair steps of opportunity. But I hope, as we move forward, that we will not go down this very disastrous pathway of changing welfare to make it a punitive legislative initiative so that the people hurt the most are those in the sunset of their life, seniors, those who are suffering from opioid addiction, and our children. I hope we don't totally implode the valuable safety net that brought us through the depression that FDR developed in the 1940s with the WPA and then on into the 1960s when President Johnson had the great society. Where is the America that cares? Where is the America that understands? Mr. Speaker, It is important for me to be standing here. This is the Reverse Robin Hood Tax Bill. Instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. This tax law takes from the very poor and gives to the very rich. Last year, the GOP passed its tax cuts for the richest among us. Now no one should be surprised that this happened. It is crystal clear that President Trump, a man who comes from wealth, doesn't understand the challenges facing the working poor. His constant effort to undermine programs that help these Americans maintain a basic standard of living does nothing more than reinforce deeply racialized myths that poor Americans are lazy and undeserving. This couldn't be further from the truth. Millions of Americans who are beneficiaries of these programs work two or more jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads for their families. In addition, the vast majority of full-time workers live paycheck to paycheck. In fact, 70% of Americans rely on at least one means tested federal program throughout their lives. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) only provides $1.40 per meal. Not to mention that only one in five qualifying families actually receives housing assistance. At the end of the day, our constituents should be able to support their children with one full-time job. This requires increasing the minimum wage, strengthening job training programs, and creating good-paying jobs. Ultimately, we need to give families the tools they need to rise out of poverty, not undercut programs that keep them afloat. Instead, the current president has made the least of these pick up the tab. And he's doing this while his cabinet nominated officials are feeding at the trough. Take for example the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Just last week, HUD indicated that they would triple the rents that low-income Americans receiving housing federal subsidies would have to pay. This was done while Secretary Carson spent $30,000 in taxpayer money on a dining room table, proposed tripling the rent for low-income Americans receiving federal housing subsidies. Last month, the president issued an executive order to restrict access to healthcare, housing, food, and many other programs that help the working poor. President Trump's plan to cut funding for healthcare, food, and housing programs in order to give tax cuts to billionaires will do nothing more than make a bad situation worse. The fact of the matter is that programs that help the working poor have been under constant attack for the last 30 years and, in many cases, don't go far enough. Only one in four qualifying families with children actually receives Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) only provides $1.40 per meal. Not to mention that only one in five qualifying families actually receives housing assistance. Federal programs should do more to help the working poor who are forced to spend 70-80% of their income on rent and utilities. To give you a snapshot of who is harmed by this tax scam, and how it harms those needing a hand up, consider that the average tax cut for someone in the Top 0.1%, that money could mean: Childcare for 19 children. Job training for 27 workers. Pell grants or 38 students. Providing substance use disorder treatment for 21 people. Health coverage through the Children Health Insurance Program (CHIP). So when we consider who this helps and who this hurts, it is clear that this bill hurts those seeking help caring for their families. It hurts those seeking training and a professional gateway to another profession. It seeks those looking for assistance to education. And in this age of the Opioid crisis, where tomorrow we will be having a hearing on this matter, an average tax cut would provide substance use disorder treatment for 21 people. So it is clear that this bill is not for the middle class. By now, the GOP's playbook is well known: campaign as if you support the middle class and those striving to enter it, but once elected use the levers of government to favor the rich and the powerful. That's why time on the GOP is coming up. The American People are watching and they know that the Democrats offer a better deal. And Democrats stand ready to offer #ABetterDeal.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Amendment No. 147 to H.R. 4, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018,'' the intent of which is to direct nonstop flights from Reagan National Airport (DCA) to San Antonio, Texas. I oppose the amendment for several reasons. First, Amendment 147 would arbitrarily alter the number of flights that are permitted to go beyond the federally mandated 1,250 mile perimeter rule around Reagan National Airport (DCA) that was created by Congress in the 1980s. Second, Amendment 147 would allow four new beyond perimeter exemptions to each carrier that commits to swap an inside perimeter slot to a large-hub airport to serve an airport within 25 miles of a military medical center that does not currently have service, exemptions that apply only to airports in San Antonio and San Diego. Third, Amendment 147 would politicize the slot and perimeter rules at Reagan National Airport (DCA) by earmarking slots that can only be used to serve limited destinations that are predetermined by Congress. Last, Amendment 147 sets a dangerous precedent of carving our predetermined markets for beyond perimeter exemptions, removing free- market business decisions from the carriers and placing the decision on which routes should be served in the hands of legislators. The High-Density (``Slot'') or Perimeter Rules governing flight operations at DCA are designed to both manage congestion at DCA and also balance traffic between DCA and IAD, the two airports in a single airport system. Although the intent of Amendment 147 may be well-meaning, the amendment as currently drafted adversely affects communities with current service to DCA, as well as Dulles International Airport and the populations it serves. This is because changes to the High-Density (``Slot'') or Perimeter Rules governing flight operations at DCA will lead to secondary and tertiary effects on flight operations at airports around the nation. For these reasons Amendment 147 is opposed by both International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the largest airline union in the nation; and by American Airlines, one of the largest air carriers in the world. I include in the Record a letter from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and urge all Members to join me in voting against Amendment 147 to H.R. 4. April 26, 2018. Dear Representative: On behalf of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, we strongly urge you to vote ``NO'' to the Cuellar No. 147 amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Act, H.R. 4 when it's considered. As the largest Airline Union in the United States, we believe this amendment will have a negative impact on the thousands of airline workers that we proudly represent in the local metropolitan Washington D.C. area. We oppose any changes to the perimeter rules governing flight operations at National Airport (``DCA'') that could have a negative impact on our airline membership. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our position, please do not hesitate to give us a call. Sincerely, Hasan Solomon, National Legislative Director.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 4, FAA Reauthorization and Disaster Recovery Reform Act, which was not included in the Rule for this bill. I am disappointed that the other Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 4, the ``FAA Reauthorization and Disaster Recovery Reform Act that would have made permanent the FEMA Office of Disaster Response and Recovery, which exists, but has not been codified, was not made in order. FEMA is the agency that helps people before, during and after disasters. For 38 years, FEMA's mission remains: to lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from disasters with a vision of ``A Nation Prepared.'' On April 1, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed the executive order that created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). From day one, FEMA has remained committed to protecting and serving the American people. That commitment to the people we serve and the belief in our survivor centric mission will never change. The Federal Emergency Management Agency coordinates the federal government's role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters, whether natural or man-made, including acts of terror. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 100-707), signed into law on November 23, 1988; amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-288). The Stafford Act constitutes the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities especially as they pertain to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and FEMA programs. The underlying Disaster Reform language in H.R. 4, the FAA Reauthorization Act provided the opportunity to make strong statement regarding the Federal government's responsibility for disaster response and recovery. The work of the FEMA Office of Disaster Response and Recovery is critical when disaster strikes and for this reason should be a permanent part of the agency. This is the office responsible for the Federal wide coordination of disaster response and recovery efforts. Disaster response also requires that this office work well with non- governmental aid agencies like the Red Cross, and health care responders, and private entities and business who collaborate on meet the needs of communities experiencing a disaster. I offered this Amendment to this bill because of my experience with Hurricane Harvey. There was no way to pre-prepare for Hurricane Harvey, or Maria or any of the other major disaster events in 2017. What we can do is learn as much as possible and apply those lessons to future disaster response and recovery efforts. When there is an event, like Hurricane Harvey there are important and valuable lessons that can help us to meet future challenges. On June 1, 2018, this year's Hurricane Season will begin, and it must be the duty of this Congress to make sure that FEMA is prepared to meet the challenge. I plan to introduce a FEMA Modernization Act this year to address a range of moderation issues that are intended to strength the capacity of the agency to manage several major disasters simultaneously. Every place in this nation has one or more vulnerability to floods, damaging storms, wildfires, earthquakes, volcanic activity, or earth movement--such as mudslides. FEMA is the nation's premier organization that must respond to catastrophes at a moment's notice. Making permanent the FEMA's work in disaster response and recovery will be part of this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 4, FAA Reauthorization and Disaster Recovery Reform Act, which is included in En Bloc Amendment Number Four. I.thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Rules for making this Jackson Lee Amendment in order. I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their leadership in bringing the FAA Reauthorization and Disaster Recovery Reform Act to the House Floor for consideration. I am disappointed that the other Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 4, the ``FAA Reauthorization and Disaster Recovery Reform Act that addressed disaster recovery reform and offered improvements to commercial air transportation, were not made in order. I offered Jackson Lee Amendment No. 609 because of my experience with Hurricane Harvey. Over the years, Members of Congress, develop an extensive network of people we work with and those who may have need of legislative assistance. The storm and the catastrophic flooding that resulted from Hurricane Harvey put at risk thousands of people who needed help. The 911 emergency call centers serving the disaster area were inundated with thousands of calls for rescues. I am pleased to say that my office managed dozens of calls, which came to me and my staff from Houston residents seeking rescue or medical assistance. FEMA, the City of Houston and the State of Texas did exceptional work in the disaster response for Hurricane Harvey. There is no blame or fault, but valuable lessons that can be learned. There was no way to pre-prepare for Hurricane Harvey or Maria or Irma or any of the other major disaster events in 2017. What we can do is learn as much as possible and apply those lessons to future disaster response and recovery efforts. When there is an event, like Hurricane Harvey there are important and valuable lessons that can help us to meet future challenges. Harvey's significance is the size of the impact zone and the level of flooding experienced. The nine-county Houston metro area impacted by Hurricane Harvey covers 9,444 square miles, an area larger than five states, including New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut. Harris County covers 1,778 square miles, enough space to fit New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin and Dallas, with room still to spare. There was over 41,500 square miles of land mass impacted by Hurricane Harvey and the subsequent flooding that covered an area larger than the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont combined. Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex. Harvey dropped 51.88 inches of rain near Cedar Bayou, in the City of Houston, and 52 inches in Nederland and nearby Groves Texas making this the highest rain totals ever recorded for a single U.S. weather event. At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was underwater. At the peak on August 31, there were 34,575 evacuees in shelters across Texas. Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. in our nation's history. Hurricane Harvey damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were destroyed. On April 17, 2018, 2,585 families are still in hotel rooms in hotels because of Hurricane Harvey. Thousands of others with severe damage to their homes continue to live with family or friends. 889,425 people have registered for assistance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There are families including small children and the elderly living in mold infested or gutted-out homes. The Jackson Lee Amendment made in order for consideration of H.R. 4, provides for a GAO report 240 days following enactment on long-term recovery efforts following Hurricane Andrew, September 11, 2001, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Ike, and Hurricane Sandy to better inform the Congress when catastrophic events occur that may require long-term recovery planning. My amendment is the first step to determine how best to stress test FEMA for capacity and competence to respond to several major disaster at the same time. Disasters like Harvey, Maria, Jose, Sandy, Ike, and September 11, 2018 are exemplars of the most challenging and catastrophic events in our nation's modern history. These disasters will or have taken years to recovery from, which classifies them as long term recovery events. We need to learn from our past to better secure our future should our nation face similar challenges. This Jackson Lee Amendment would ensure that we learn and benefit from these tragic events so that we might be better prepared for future challenges. The amendment will provide GAO report that will: define a federal disaster long-term recovery, define the stages of a long-term recovery, and report on the competence and capacity of FEMA to manage 2 or more major disasters of the magnitude exemplified--simultaneously. Further, the GAO will report on lessons that may be applied to future long-term disaster recovery efforts. The GAO will also report on what existing authority granted to FEMA to advise and make recommendations to the President regarding Presidential Disaster Declarations which may be instructive regarding a Presidential long-term recovery disaster declaration. Another Jackson Lee Amendment to the Disaster Recovery Reform component of the bill, but which was not made in order would have made permanent the FEMA Office of Response and Recovery, which currently exists but is not codified by law. In 2017, starting on August 25, when Hurricane Harvey struck Texas, on September 6, when Hurricane Irma lashed the U.S. Virgin Islands, on September 9, when Hurricane Jose smashed into Puerto Rico, and Hurricane Irma moved over the Florida Keys, and on September 20, when Hurricane Maria took aim at Puerto Rico; FEMA had to respond to each disaster and engage in sustained recovery efforts that will in the cases of Texas and Puerto Rico last for years. Hurricane Harvey broke a rainfall record for a single tropical storm with more than 4 feet of rain. Puerto Rico is still mired in attempting to recover from the longest blackout in U.S. history after Hurricane Maria struck many months ago. More than 1,000 are estimated to have died in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria and its aftermath. Following the hurricanes came California's most destructive and largest wildfire season ever. The Tubbs Fire in Northern California killed 22 people and damaged more than 5,600 structures. Last year was also the third-hottest year on record. San Francisco reported its highest temperature ever, 106 degrees Fahrenheit, while other parts of the country set records for high- temperature streaks. For states like Arizona and South Carolina, 2017 was the warmest year ever. 14 places across Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas reported record- high water levels during floods in April and May. In 2017, requests for federal disaster aid jumped tenfold compared to 2016, with 4.7 million people registering with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Last year will go down in the record books for many reasons, destructive hurricanes, wildfires, mudslides, and droughts struck leaving death and destruction. Every place in this nation has one or more vulnerability to floods, damaging storms, wildfires, earthquakes, volcanic activity, or earth movement--such as mudslides. FEMA is the nation's premier organization that must respond to catastrophes at a moment's notice. This Jackson Lee Amendment will allow Congress to develop better situational awareness on FEMA's role in disaster response especially when there may be multiple disasters putting demand on limited agency resources that require long-term recovery planning. Thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment and I ask for bipartisan support for this Jackson Lee Amendment included in En Bloc Four.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member and the manager of this fourth en bloc and rise to support the Jackson Lee amendment that has been included in the en bloc legislation. And I am thankful to Mr. DeFazio and the chairman for that. My amendment, made in order, deals with a GAO report of 240 days following any disaster, a long-term recovery efforts plan. These disasters are examples of the most challenging and catastrophic events in our Nation. And I am reminded of August 2018 in Houston, Texas. Hurricane Harvey has been defined as the singular most catastrophic incident and natural disaster in the continental United States. We are still suffering. People are still in hotels, still without their homes. So to the list of long-term recovery experiences, this GAO study would have us learn a lot. We need to learn from our past to do better to secure our future. This GAO report would define the Federal disaster long-term recovery, define the stages of a long-term recovery, and report on the competence and capacity of FEMA to manage two or more disasters of the magnitude that happened at the same time. I do want to take note of the fact that my amendment that did not authorize the FEMA Office of Response and Recovery was not made in order. I look forward to introducing legislation that would respond to that. I am also concerned that two amendments dealing with the endangered species the Rules Committee did not make in order. In this time, I believe it is time to stand up to protect our endangered species. One of my amendments had to do with trophy products coming across on international airways; and the other was, as airports are built--and many are built in wetlands--for those who are building those airports to collaborate with a number of agencies to address the question of protecting the endangered species. We live on this Earth with the wonderment of this Earth, and those include our wonderful animals, many of them endangered. And I believe the episode with Cecil the lion recognizes that we must protect our endangered species. I would hope going forward I would have the opportunity, at some time, to debate on the floor of the House the value of protecting our endangered species.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is an open letter to the Nation regarding education or the education of our children. I represent the 18th Congressional District and have at least seven school districts, and certainly aware of the school districts throughout the State of Texas and also what school districts are facing across the Nation to pay teachers, most of all to educate our children. The Houston Independent School District and its board are attempting and, I believe, are committed to educating our children. However, at this present stage, we have at least ten schools with an IR status, a diminished status, with the potential of being closed by the State of Texas. I will be going home to rally the community, because right now today is Friday, and children are learning in our schools. Why punish them, make them the victims of the lack of resources, credentialed teachers, and the lack of a plan that all of us can agree with? I happen to have agreed with the initial step to at least solve a problem temporarily, but we know that a temporary solution is not the best. We need to be able to have those children meet the basic test standards, but, more importantly, we have to reflect on changing these----

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Very tough test standards that don't test the child's acknowledge. So----

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, to that school district, to the city of Houston----

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Houston for yielding, and I would like to address all of us on the floor tonight as my fellow Texans. That was a favorite of George W. Bush, the son of Barbara Bush, when he would greet us during his Presidency, which I had the privilege of being here in the United States Congress, and he would always greet me as his fellow Texan, and how proud we are to be able to call President George H.W. Bush and the extended family, and his wonderful First Lady, the matriarch, the first girlfriend, if you will, and as has been told over and over during the time of her memorial, the first man that she kissed. How proud we are to call both of them our fellow Texans. Now we are standing here today to mourn Barbara Pierce Bush. And as I do that, let me, first of all, acknowledge President George H.W. Bush, and wish him a speedy recovery for him to regain his strength; for all of us watched as he sat in the viewing of her repose on that Friday, as he came and sat and remained for a period of time to greet the many people that came to honor her during that viewing. I was one of those who had the privilege to go and to pay my respects on that day. But again, they are one of America's greatest families, although Barbara Pierce Bush would never acknowledge that by her attitude or the way she addressed people. She was just Mrs. Barbara Bush, a very humble but strong and firm and straightforward First Lady. Barbara Bush was a descendant of the 14th President of the United States, Franklin Pierce; the wife of the 41st, George Herbert Walker Bush; and the mother of the 43rd, George W. Bush. Of course, she finds her place in history for many, many reasons; but, of course, we take note of the fact there was only one other woman who was both the wife and the mother of a President of the United States, Abigail Adams. So that is a very high-ranking and honorable place to be. Barbara Bush, the widely admired and fiercely loyal wife, mother, and grandmother, was born in Rye, New York, but she got to Texas as soon as she could. She met a dashing young George Herbert Walker Bush in Greenwich, Connecticut, at a school dance when she was 16 and he was a year older. What an amazing story. In fact, what an amazing love story. Three years later, Barbara Bush married her sweetheart, and their love lasted for 73 years. I remember, as we mourned her last weekend, over and over again, the commentators would say, 73 years of marriage. That, alone, is a historic tribute to integrity and the beauty and the love of both of them. And, of course, they were married until she departed in death. George and Barbara raised their family from west Texas to Houston. Of course, we know that he was a war hero and a remarkable set of action that he saw in World War II, and a miraculous recovery from when his plane fell, and, as well, miraculous in the fact that he survived; but, more importantly, the actions that took place as he pursued the enemy. He truly was a hero as well. Barbara Bush was plainspoken, but she had that wonderful white hair, pearl necklace and earrings. And so many in Houston, on the day of both her funeral and as well the day that we viewed her remains at St. Martin's Episcopal, as she lied in repose, she was there, and we were wearing pearl necklaces and earrings, just to be able to say she is someone that we admired, not for those external things, but for the goodness of her heart. She was an early supporter of the civil rights movement, the equal rights movement, and we repeated over and over again that very famous story of her going to an AIDS clinic and picking up a baby and hugging and touching those individuals who were HIV infected, to let the world know that they needed love and comfort, and that we needed to fight for the cure and to recognize the humanity of those who are suffering from HIV/AIDS. Certainly she loved literacy, and that became one of her major efforts, and that is where, during her time in Houston, I would see her--often with her son Neil Bush--efforts dealing with literacy. Her work and dollars came to places way beyond where she might expect them. Certainly a lot of work on literacy was done in my congressional district. Barbara Bush raised more than $1 billion for literacy and cancer charities. And as my colleague has indicated, it was both in tribute and in recognition of the devastation of childhood cancer, leukemia, which she lost her firstborn to. Barbara Bush recognized that education was the key that unlocked the door of human potential, and so her foundation, again, as I indicated, focused on family literacy. I have met people who, through her literacy program, were able to restore their lives and to secure employment because they were then able to move forward because they learned to read. And, unfortunately, they learned to read after they finished all of their education. She understood the value of that. As they came back to Houston, we were delighted to call them Houstonians, and as well we recognize what a valuable couple they were to us. And anything you asked them to do, from being with the Texans and supporting them and rooting them on and being with the Astros or the Rockets or any of our teams or any of our universities or anything that was needed, they were there. So I am always amazed at the breadth and depth of Barbara Bush; how many people she touched, how many people loved her, how many people stood in line just to pay their respects. We know her book with her dog, Millie, and her puppies, written during her White House years, was a best seller, as were her other books. And all of it was donated to charity. We also realize that as she and her husband ended their service--and, by the way, she was by his side for being the representative in China, for being the CIA director, for being the Congressperson that previously overlapped the 18th Congressional District. Many of my constituents were his constituents, and so we have had a full circle of their wonderful service to this Nation. On a personal note, I want to offer my tribute from my husband, Dr. Elwyn C. Lee, because as a young man growing up, it was the Bush family who helped him go to Andover and opened his eyes to go to the same school that Mr. Bush, H.W. Bush, went to, and his years of finishing high school. We know that when we got married, we received a gift from the Bushes. We just couldn't even imagine it, that they would even remember us. We sent them an invitation, they remembered, and they provided us with a very special gift. They are very, very special people, and I speak in present tense because her spirit continues to thrive, and we are reminded of the charity, the love, and the standard bearer that she was for what is great about America. We know that she is survived by her husband, their children--George, Jeb, Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy--and that, as has always been said, she will join her firstborn Robin at her final resting place. It is important to pay tribute to such a wonderful American, such a wonderful woman, and to be able to thank her for teaching us and to remind us what is important in life, and it is family, friends, and faith. Thank you, Mrs. Barbara Pierce Bush. May you rest in peace, but let it be known that we will never forget your spirit, your strength, and what you did for America, and you gave it to us straight: Family, friends, and faith. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of Barbara Pierce Bush, the matriarch of one of America's great families, and former First Lady of the United States. Barbara Bush was a descendant of the 14th President of the United States, Franklin Pierce; the wife of the 41st, George Herbert Walker Bush; and the mother of the 43rd, George W. Bush. Barbara Bush, the widely admired and fiercely loyal wife, mother, and grandmother, was born June 8, 1925 in Rye, New York. Barbara Pierce met the dashing young George Herbert Walker Bush in Greenwich, Connecticut at a school dance when she was 16 and he was a year older. Three years late Barbara Pierce married her sweetheart and their love lasted for 73 years, until she was departed from her beloved by death. George and Barbara raised their family mainly in West Texas, where they settled after the end of World War II and where the future President went into the oil business. Barbara Bush was a plainspoken woman who was instantly recognizable with her signature white hair, pearl necklaces, and earrings. Mrs. Bush was an early supporter of the Civil Rights Movement, Planned Parenthood, the Equal Rights Amendment, and was a tireless champion of many charitable causes, especially literacy. Barbara Bush raised more than $1 billion for literacy and cancer charities. Barbara Bush recognized that education was the key that unlocked the door of human potential. Literacy was Barbara Bush's special cause, which led her to establish the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy. Shortly after the end of her husband's presidential administration, the Bush Family returned to Texas, and all Houstonians were lucky to call her and her husband, George H. W. Bush, the 41st president, our neighbors and dear friends. Barbara Bush's books include an autobiography and one about post- White House life. Her children's book about their dog, Millie, and her puppies written during her White House years was a best seller, as were her other books. In 2001, when George W. Bush took office, Barbara Bush became the only woman in American history to live to see her husband and son elected president. Barbara Bush lived a full life and will be remembered in American history, alongside only Abigail Adams, for the impact her life had on this country. Barbara Bush is survived by her husband and their children George, Jeb, Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy. She will join her first born, Robin at her final resting place. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Barbara Pierce Bush, the Former First Lady of the United States.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding, and I make the very point that there are three Members on this floor today from the Judiciary Committee who have an enormous amount of seniority, who have seen the long journey that our talented genius-based musical icons in our Nation have traveled to come to this point, and so I say congratulations. In the markup, I indicated that there was a harmonious sound coming from the Judiciary Committee and that it was evident that we could work together in a bipartisan manner. I thank the chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, and the ranking member, Mr. Nadler, who have been intimately involved; and I am reminded of all of those who have come in and out of my office through the years as I served on the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Committee some years back and that they were still traveling even in this year, 2018. So I applaud Mr. Collins and Mr. Jeffries for providing that musical tone. This is a very important bill. It is an important bill because it was an inconsistent patchwork that governed the industry that was in dire need of reframing, and the MMA 2018 addresses that patchwork. And specifically, under title II, it finally gives a just compensation to those artists who recorded works prior to 1972. First and foremost, the MMA is a proposition that is supported by both the majority of songwriters and publishers and the digital service providers. Secondly, it modernizes the process and brings music licensing into the 21st century--long overdue. Third, it puts unclaimed royalties in the hands of the content community, rather than sitting with digital services. It streamlines the streamline. Fourth, it finally creates a comprehensive database, and confidence grows in the market. And for all of those individuals who provided us the joy that was earlier mentioned, it creates a formalized body run by publishers that administer the law, the mechanical licensing and compositions streamed on services like Spotify and Apple Music, and others; it changes the procedure by which millions of songs are made available; and it funds the creation of a comprehensive database, but, more importantly, it helps those who prerecord it. My tribute to Aretha Franklin, Dionne Warwick, the late Jackie Wilson, Duke Fakir, The Shirelles, French Family in Houston, Bun B, Trae tha Truth, and the late Crickets, the Ebony singers in Houston, the Houston Grand Opera, Mrs. Barbara Tucker, End Jazz, Jason Moran, Kirk Whalum, Howard Harris, Imani children's band, Kashmere jazz band; and, of course, gospel, Kirk Clark, Kathy Taylor, Michael McCain, and Georgia Adams. Houston is a hub, Mr. Speaker, and we are celebrating because of this bill. I congratulate everyone. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Music Modernization Act of 2018 (MMA) of which I am an original cosponsor. This bill has arrived at its current state through the diligent work of various stakeholders involved, including the music industry, congressional staff, and Members of Congress. Hours of debate, negotiation, and deliberation have yielded a product of cooperation and compromise. I commend the industry and the parties involved in drafting this bipartisan solution--it is rare that this committee reaches such agreements when considering major legislation. Houston, being a music hub with its Grammy Award winning orchestra and Grammy nominated rappers including my dear friend Bun B from Underground Kingz, will certainly benefit from this legislation becoming law. The exemplary efforts exhibited by the music industry in this instance, with the goal of solving problems and addressing a wide variety of stakeholder concerns, are a model that this committee and this Congress should use as inspiration to best serve the American people. The need for this legislation is clear; much of the current licensing system was established in an analog era, with non-digital physical recordings done song-by-song, using compulsory licenses first established in 1909. In addition, artists who recorded works prior to 1972 do not receive any digital performance royalties under federal law, and current statute does not ensure that non-recording artists such as producers, sound engineers, and mixers receive revenue from webcasts of their work. The inconsistent patchwork that governs the industry is in dire need of reframing and the MMA 2018 addresses that patchwork and specifically under Title II, finally gives just compensation to those artists who recorded works prior to 1972. With the MMA, Congress is fulfilling its duty to provide order and guidance to the faulty program currently in place. The United States has the most innovative and influential music culture in the world, but its legal framework for music licensing dates back to the age of the Victrola. There is a widespread perception from across the industry that this complex framework is under strain and needs updating. The last general revision of the Copyright Act took place in 1976 following a lengthy and comprehensive review process carried out by Congress, the Copyright Office, and interested parties. Congress significantly amended the Act in 1995, with the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (``DPRSRA''), and 1998, with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (``DMCA''), to address emerging issues of the digital age. While the current Copyright Act reflects many sound and enduring principles, and has enabled the internet to flourish, it could not have foreseen all of today's technologies and the myriad ways consumers and others engage with music in the digital environment. First and foremost, the MMA is a proposition that is supported by both a majority of songwriters and publishers and the (Digital Service Providers)--two groups who rarely agree. Secondly, it ``modernizes'' the process and brings music licensing into the 21st century. Instead of bulk Notices of Intention--the environmentally unfriendly process of sending actual physical letters of intent to each publisher for each share of each song--the licensing will be done electronically. Third, it puts unclaimed royalties in the hands of the content community, rather than sitting with the Digital Service Providers. Fourth, it finally creates a comprehensive database. While various companies and services have a version of a database, U.S. publishers have not agreed on one that is both comprehensive and accurate. As part of the MMA, the digital service providers will pay for the creation and maintenance of a database that will finally put all mechanical licensing information in one place that is accessible to all. Finally, it provides streaming services with confidence that, if they follow the process, they can accurately and comprehensively license all the musical works on their service without fear of billion dollar lawsuits against them. And confidence grows markets and boosts economy. A number of interested music industry groups have come together to create a consensus bill that makes several major changes including: Title I--Music Modernization Act. The Music Modernization act creates a formalized body, run by publishers, that administers the ``mechanical licensing'' of compositions streamed on services like Spotify and Apple Music (these companies are referred as Digital Service Providers or DSPs). The bill reflects how modern digital music services operate by creating a blanket licensing system to quickly license and pay for musical work copyrights. It changes the procedure by which millions of songs are made available for streaming on these services and limits the liability a service can incur if it adheres to the new process. Discusses music litigation that generates legal settlements in favor of simply ensuring that artists and copyright owners are paid in the first place without such litigation. The MMA funds the creation of a comprehensive database with buy in from all the major publishers and digital service providers. Ends the flawed U.S. Copyright Office bulk notice of intent system that allows royalties to go unpaid. The bill also creates a new evidentiary standard by which the performance rights organizations American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) can argue better rates for the performance of musical works on DSPs. It implements uniform rate setting standards to be used by the Copyright Royalty Board for all music services. The bill shifts the costs of the new licensing collective created by the bill to those who benefit from the collective--the licensees. The MMA updates how certain rate court cases are assigned in the Southern District of New York. Title II--Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act provides a public performance right for pre-1972 recordings. Title III--The Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act ensures that record producers, sound engineers, and other creative professionals receive compensation for their work I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the MMA.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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