Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I proudly stand today in support of H.R. 1808, the Improving Support for Missing and Exploited Children Act.

This bipartisan legislation reflects both Democrats' and Republicans' desire to protect and care for our greatest resource: our children.

In my home State of North Carolina, the trafficking of young women has become an epidemic. There were 181 human trafficking cases reported in North Carolina in 2016, and Charlotte was home to more of them than anywhere else.

That figure gave us the dishonor of being ranked among the top 10 States in the Nation in the number of trafficking reports, and that doesn't even account for those children who have not yet been identified as victims of this shameful practice.

In North Carolina, lawmakers have sponsored efforts to establish pilot programs to help victims and train law enforcement to recognize the signs of trafficking. It is time Congress does its part and passes H.R. 1808 to support States in their efforts.

This bill would improve efforts by both law enforcement and the general public to combat trafficking, and it would enhance the identification and location of missing children and their abductors.

It would protect children from being victims to online predators and keep a promise that was made 33 years ago, when Congress first passed the Missing Children's Assistance Act and we vowed to assist the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in protecting and recovering our missing and vulnerable youth.

I am a parent, I am a grandparent, Mr. Speaker, and I am a concerned member of my community; and my district and my State have been torn apart by human trafficking.

This is an opportunity for us to come together as Americans and support an initiative that could save lives. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 1808 and prove that we can all put politics aside when it comes to protecting our children.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly represent North Carolina's 12th Congressional District, leader in transportation and infrastructure.

We have Norfolk Southern's state-of-the-art intermodal yard connecting trucking, rail, and air to East Coast seaports. We are home to the Charlotte Douglas International Airport, eleventh busiest in the Nation, nearly 700 American Airlines flights departing daily.

I-85, I-77, Route 21, and Highway 115 move our 800,000 residents and products from businesses like International Paper and Coca-Cola Consolidated. Our LYNX and rapid bus transit lines are making our cities greener. And as we say in Charlotte, we've got a lot.

I am committed to ensuring we remain a national leader. I am hosting a regional transportation summit to help promote Route 21 and Highway 115 projects, continue developing our rapid transit systems, move our Red Line project forward, and to ensure that our airport can complete its new terminal and runway projects.

We are ``One Meck.'' Transportation has made us an economic powerhouse and southern hub of cultural diversity. During National Infrastructure Week, I urge my colleagues to work to make greater investments in our Nation's infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, on May 9, President Trump abruptly fired FBI Director Comey, who was leading the investigation into ties between his administration and Russia.

On May 10, the President met with the Russian Ambassador in the Oval Office, and the White House changed their reasoning for firing Comey.

On May 11, in an interview with Lester Holt, President Trump admitted that the Russia investigation was a factor in firing Comey.

On May 12, he appeared to threaten Comey, saying he had ``better hope that there are no `tapes' '' of their conversations.

On May 15, we learned Trump shared code word classified intelligence with the Russian Ambassador.

On May 16, Comey's memo of his conversation with President Trump quoted him saying: ``I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go.''

Every day brings a new scandal.

The appointment of Director Mueller as special prosecutor is a good first step, but it shouldn't be our last. We need an independent commission, free of meddling from the Trump administration. Our democracy depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

After his latest failed attempt to roll back the ACA, Speaker Ryan declared to the American people ``ObamaCare is the law of the land.'' Less than 50 days later, Paul Ryan shamefully is going against his word trying to ram TrumpCare down our throats.

It is an embarrassment that we are wasting taxpayer dollars to again consider TrumpCare--or as I called it ``Trump don't care''--a reckless plan that does nothing to make health care better.

TrumpCare gives the rich and big corporations a $600 billion tax break. It forces families to pay higher premiums and deductions, placing health care out of their reach. TrumpCare forces seniors to pay higher costs and changes Medicare as we know it. It strips essential health benefits and protections for people with preexisting conditions.

What a pitiful display of partisan politics. TrumpCare is so bad, Republicans have exempted themselves from it. They don't want TrumpCare. The medical industry doesn't want TrumpCare. Democrats don't want TrumpCare.

Why don't House Republicans listen?

The people don't want it, and I won't support it.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the economic engines of our economy.

There are over 800,000 small businesses in North Carolina, generating $800 million annually, accounting for half of all private sector employment in our State, and regularly creating more than 20,000 jobs a year.

We have seen a 38 percent increase in minority-owned businesses in the last decade, and across the U.S., 85 million people rely on 25 million small businesses for employment.

As vice ranking member of the Small Business Committee and ranking member on the Investigations, Oversight and Regulations Subcommittee, I recognize the impact that small businesses have on our communities. Lawmakers must continue to encourage innovation and support legislation that allows local companies to grow.

I am proud to introduce the Score Act of 2017 during the 54th annual National Small Business Week, legislation that authorizes the SCORE program, connecting experienced businessowners with budding entrepreneurs for advice and mentorship, and it ensures its funding for at least 3 years.

Small businesses make the American Dream possible, and I am committed to standing up and speaking out on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1180.

H.R. 1180 encourages overwork by encouraging workers to spend more time at work in order to earn paid time off, which employers may or may not allow them to use in the future.

Many hardworking families throughout the 12th District of North Carolina need overtime pay just to make ends meet each month. They should not be compelled by their employer to accept comp time when their monthly budget depends on how much overtime they receive in their paycheck. Overtime pay can be the difference between paying for sending a child to college or going into debt. Parents who earn an hourly wage need overtime, not comp time, to care for their families.

Nothing in the Working Families Flexibility Act strengthens existing workplace protections or promotes workplace flexibility. That is why I offered an amendment last week when H.R. 1180 was considered in committee to exempt comp time arrangements from mandatory arbitration agreements.

This amendment would have ensured protections for employees that H.R. 1180 seek to take away. Unfortunately, the majority decided not to support my amendment or any other amendments offered by my fellow Democrats on the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Instead of today's bill, the House should consider legislation that would create good jobs with family sustaining wages and benefits. I strongly oppose H.R. 1180, and I encourage by colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank my colleague from Missouri, Representative Clay, for his concern, for his courage, for standing up and speaking up to ensure that his constituents' and others' First Amendment rights are protected by this Congress, and for organizing this Special Order hour this evening.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to join Representative Clay, and I proudly stand with him and my other colleagues to speak in defense of the First Amendment rights afforded to citizens of the Constitution of the United States.

As the 12th District Representative from North Carolina, as a practicing professional artist and art educator, as a curator, as a retired 40-year college arts professor, I am pleased to join with Representative Clay in expressing my support for freedom of visual expression and creativity, especially when it comes to supporting talented young students.

I have learned through my professional arts education and management careers that, yes, the arts are nice, but, beyond being nice, they are absolutely necessary and essential in helping enrich our lives. The arts are unique to our being, and they are what make us human.

Artists connect the past to the present, they convey our unique experiences, and they are presented in many forms--sometimes familiar, other times unfamiliar. The arts are a universal language that speak to people everywhere to help them to understand diversity, cultures, and some of the most complicated of issues. Therefore, having the freedom to make art is essential to creative expression.

Freedom of expression is everyone's freedom. And our Founding Fathers enshrined the expressions of freedom of speech in all forms--in music, in written and spoken word, in theater, and through visual imagery and composition--in the Bill of Rights.

Under the First Amendment, all art forms and all artistic expressions are constitutionally protected. Our Founding Fathers who created our country and launched our Nation as the world's role model in democracy believed that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were important enough to guarantee protection in our country's

founding documents. If our Founding Fathers, the brightest minds of that generation, thought that artistic expression was important enough to protect in our Bill of Rights, then what right do we have to take this away and censor the artistic community?

The ACLU said: ``. . . a free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he or she wants--or does not want--to receive or create. Once you allow the government to censor someone else, you cede to it the power to censor you, or something you like. Censorship is like poison gas: A powerful weapon that can harm you when the wind shifts.''

As a nation, we face many threats, both internally and externally. We are a Nation of diverse thought, diverse people, and strong diverse principles. However, when we stand by and allow our artistic community to be censored or allow threats to silence our press, we become our own greatest threat. And when we reject facts and censor artistic expression just because it makes us uncomfortable or because we don't like it, we are becoming the tyrants that our Founding Fathers risked their lives to protect and escape from.

So the question of what is appropriate art is not a new question. Since the beginning of our country, our citizens have wrestled with what to do when they are offended by a work or art in any form. Court case after court case has tested governmental censorship of artistic expression, and the Supreme Court has continued to uphold our founding principles of freedom of expression and speech.

In the 1931 case, Stromberg v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment. The ruling ensured that all art forms, music, paintings, plays, and other artistic expressions are protected by the First Amendment.

In the 1982 decision, the Board of Education v. Pico, the Supreme Court ruled that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they disliked the ideas contained in those books. Like the removal of the books from libraries, the removal of Mr. Pulphus' painting was a blatant violation of his First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment guarantees that our government cannot make substantive decisions about the content of a work of art. Expression can only be limited if, and only if, that expression will cause direct and imminent harm such as yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater.

Our government's role is not to censor but to ensure that artists are able to freely express themselves without fear of censorship. Our government did not protect this young man's First Amendment rights. Instead, it acted as a retroactive censor on his work.

Here is an example of our government making a decision based on content they disapproved of and preventing this work because of its subject and because some legislators weren't knowledgeable enough about it to understand it from being displayed in a public place.

Justice Louis Brandeis, in his defense of free speech, wrote:

It is hazardous to discourage thought and hope and

imagination; that fear breeds repression, and that repression

breeds hate, and that hate menaces stable government. The

path to safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely

supposed grievances and proposed remedies.

Justice Brandeis' words were written in 1927, 90 years ago, almost a century, but they still echo true today. Censorship out of fear, out of misunderstanding or pain or dislike of a work is fundamentally anti- American and unconstitutional.

For more than 4 decades as a visual arts professor, I taught my students that you are going to see a lot of art throughout your lifetime. Some images you will like and some you won't especially like. And some will be disturbing and some confusing. But I reminded my students that their responsibility as viewers was to make every attempt to be able to say that you don't like it because you at least understand it.

Mr. Speaker, knowledge is power. Mr. Pulphus' work did not create direct or imminent harm, but his work did depict an uncomfortable reality that is pervasive across our country.

Unfortunately, violence is a way of life in many communities throughout America. As a matter of fact, it is too prevalent. But for this young man, violence in his community was a life that he knew most of his life. It was a life he was intrinsically as an artist compelled to visually talk about on his canvas.

As a matter of fact, he had a right to talk about it, and, in reality, he needed to talk about it. I admire him for his courage. As a teacher, I can tell you that, visually, his utilization of compositional elements and principles and forms showed an extraordinary talent.

In my estimation, we failed as viewers to do our part, and we didn't make an effort to really see, but we just merely looked at the work. But most especially, we didn't seize the opportunity to learn so that we could enhance our capacity to build and reinforce positive relationships in our community.

This painting offered us a chance to have a real conversation about race and police and community violence and institutional racism. But instead of seizing this opportunity, we have to continue to fight to protect this young artist's First Amendment rights.

Heated debate and discussion is the hallmark of our democracy. However, when arguments are censored, when the artists are told what they are able to produce, when expression is silenced, our democracy is then threatened.

And since this incident, as you have heard, the Congressional Institute has changed the rules for the Congressional Art Competition. Work submitted to the competition depicting contemporary political controversy or sensationalist or gruesome nature are not allowed.

But I am not here to criticize the work of the Congressional Institute, but as a professional artist myself, only to ask this question: What benefit can come from limiting our young artists from creating?

A democracy works when people stay engaged, when people participate. But by censoring what is in our public spaces, we are creating barriers for political discourse and we are creating fear of retaliation.

Artists are visual storytellers and we are entrusted with a unique responsibility to use the power of the arts to inform, to educate, and to empower our communities.

Noted African-American artist and scholar Dr. Samella Lewis of California said that ``African-American artists have a primary obligation to community, to understand, and to use the elements of their cultural heritage to produce an art that is diverse, reflecting our diverse interests, materials techniques, and to communicate those messages to the audiences we want to reach.''

Removing this young man's work was a degrading and insensitive action, which signaled to this young, aspiring, gifted student that his work is valueless, that his story is not worthy to be told. But most especially, it put into question the right and the responsibility that he has as an artist to express himself in visual imagery and symbolic competition.

It is not up to the government to decide what work has value or whose story should be told. The removal of Mr. Pulphus' work sets a dangerous precedent. Congress is now making content decisions on works displayed in the U.S. Capitol and is limiting what types of art will be exhibited. To some, this issue may not seem important, but the scope of the actions that have taken place in the U.S. Capitol is tremendous.

Just because somebody's sensibility is offended doesn't give that person the right to ban or censor a work. In fact, the First Amendment prevents that.

However, as this gross overreach of power in removing his work proves, just because the Constitution prevents something doesn't always mean that it won't happen. But it is our duty to hold our government responsible for protecting the sanctity of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That is why I am honored, as a 40-year arts educator, as a member of the Congressional Art Caucus, and as a professional artist to join Representative Clay and all of my colleagues in speaking today about the importance of the First Amendment as it relates to the creative and the professional obligations and rights of the visual artist.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his dedication to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and for organizing this Special Order today.

As the 12th Congressional District Representative from North Carolina, as a practicing professional artist, as an arts educator, a curator, and a retired 40-year visual arts professor, I am pleased to join with all of my colleagues expressing my support for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. I want to associate myself with the previous comments made by my colleagues from North Carolina and New Jersey as well.

I have learned throughout my professional arts education and arts management careers that, yes, the arts are nice; but beyond being nice, they are absolutely necessary and essential to enriching our lives.

Artists connect the past to the present. They convey our unique experiences. And they are presented in many forms, sometimes familiar and other times unfamiliar.

A universal language, the arts speak to people everywhere to help them understand diversity and cultures and some of the most complicated issues.

The arts and humanities are critical for adding value to our shared culture. They are not just used to mark celebrations, but to challenge perceptions of society.

Museums function as tools to house and preserve our collective history as a nation and bind us together as one community. Visual artists reflect on our society and they force us to reconcile our past. Writers record history and expose and challenge readers to different ideals presented in our society. Musicians transcend social and cultural boundaries to connect the listener through the sound of their instruments.

Time and time again, we have made a conscious decision to fund the arts and the humanities, signaling that we intrinsically value the arts as being crucial to our collective identity.

The NEA and the NEH have been and continue to be necessary to the success of the arts and humanities in my home State of North Carolina. As a Representative of Charlotte, one of the largest cities in the South, I understand how important the NEA and the NEH is to Charlotte's unique and thriving art culture.

In 2016, the NEA invested $60,000 in grants in Charlotte for programs such as the Children's Theatre of Charlotte Inc.'s performance of the ``Journey to Oz'' and the McColl Center for Art and Innovation's exhibition and residency featuring Latino and Hispanic artists. NEA grants make these cultural events possible not just in my State, but in States throughout this Nation.

The arts not only provide entertainment, but they also encourage us to think critically. Advocates and researchers have shown that the arts have a positive impact on a young person's development. And because of this understanding, the arts and music were included in the Every Student Succeeds Act as part of a well-rounded education.

The NEA is a critical component to ensuring strong arts education in our schools. Through direct grants, the NEA is able to support crucial preschool through 12th grade education projects.

By establishing partnerships with our colleges and universities, the NEA is able to engage with our institutions of higher learning to provide necessary grants to preserve and restore historic works of art.

As a college art professor, I had the privilege of working with the NEA to secure a matching grant, which allowed the college to preserve and restore a historic painting by Aaron Douglas, the father of the Harlem Renaissance.

In order to continue to ensure that our students remain competitive in a global society, we must continue to fund the arts.

In addition to the cultural and educational impact of the arts, they play an important role in helping our veterans transition to civilian life and combat physical and mental illnesses. Through the NEA Military Healing Arts Partnership, the NEA has worked with the Department of Defense to create an art therapy program to treat servicemembers with traumatic brain injuries and associated psychological health issues at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. This program places art therapy at the center of a multidisciplinary treatment approach.

Through art therapy, our brave servicemen and -women are able to receive specialized treatment that enable them to heal both their physical and their mental wounds. Participants in the program have found relief and have seen vast improvements in sleep, communication, pain, and their ability to confront emotional challenges. This program has also invested in critical research on the impacts and the benefits of this treatment.

The NEA's budget for fiscal year 2017 was $148 million, just .004 percent of the Federal budget, a small amount.

Through a relatively small investment in the arts, we are able to yield large returns. Not only do the arts serve us culturally in terms of being significant, but the nonprofit arts and the cultural sector is an economic driver, supporting about 4.13 million jobs and contributing to a gross domestic product of 4.2 percent, or about $729 billion.

The arts are crucial. They are critical to our culture. They are crucial to our education and to our economy. And in all respects, it is the arts that make us human. So funding for NEA and the NEH must remain in the Federal budget.

I would urge my colleagues to support us in that effort to keep the arts as a viable part of our budget, which means that it will be a viable part of our communities.

I thank the gentleman so much for putting together this Special Order and for allowing me to have input today.

Mr. Speaker, it is Equal Pay Day. I rise to support not only women but the American family and the economy.

Women drive our economy. We buy more goods. We own more small businesses, and we earn more degrees. Despite this, we still earn less than men. This should embarrass every lawmaker in this Chamber and every person listening.

In 2017, Mr. Speaker, how can we justify underpaying women across this Nation? Women still earn 20 percent less than their male counterparts, and it is even worse for Black and Hispanic women.

Shortchanging women shortchanges our children and our economy. When women succeed, we all succeed. Women and our families demand paycheck fairness. We stand boldly united today embracing the words of Florynce Kennedy who said: We won't agonize. We will organize. We will show up and cut up until Molly earns the same pay as Billy.

As Susan B. Anthony said: ``Men, their rights and nothing more. Women, their rights and nothing less.''

I urge you to call your Representatives, demand that we support you by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act.

As an African-American woman and a Member of Congress, I know I stand on the shoulders of giants.

My election would not have been possible without the efforts of Maya Angelou, Shirley Chisholm, Fannie Lou Hamer, Sojourner Truth, Rosa Parks, and many other sheroes who came before me. These women championed civil rights and women's rights and fought oppression so that African-American women could have a voice in politics.

When I was elected, I became the 100th woman to serve in the 114th Congress, the 20th woman in the Congressional Black Caucus, and only the second African-American woman to represent North Carolina in Congress. That night was a historic win for women, but it was particularly special for African-American women.

Shirley Chisholm once said: ``Women must become revolutionary. There cannot be evolution but revolution.''

At a time when the President's Cabinet does not include a single African-American woman and just one African-American woman in the Senate, we are reminded that there is still much work to do.

If this administration will not make a place for us, we will make one for ourselves. It is time to stand up, speak up, and make our voices heard.

Mr. Speaker, 2015: ``Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.''--Governor Mike Pence.

2016: ``A religious test for entering our country is not reflective of our fundamental values. I reject it.''--Speaker Paul Ryan.

2017: Acceptance from both Pence and Ryan.

What has changed?

This unconstitutional executive order and its hasty implementation has created chaos and confusion at our Nation's airports. With the stroke of a pen, President Trump negligently and shamefully turned his back on thousands of desperate men, women, and children who were fleeing war zones. Green card holders and visa card holders who have been denied entry and detained for hours have dominated our news.

This is not who we are.

This ban will make America safer. That is an alternative fact. This ban emboldens our enemies, serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and puts our servicemembers in the Middle East in greater danger. That is fact.

I urge my Republican colleagues to speak out just like they did in 2015 and 2016. We can't afford your silence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on women like the 77- year-old held at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport as she tried to see her son and his family for the first time in years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.

A woman's right to choose shouldn't depend on her location, income, or insurance. It is just 2 days since the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and Republicans are, once again, attacking women's health care.

This legislation would prevent Federal funds from being spent on health benefits that include abortion coverage, causing women and families who depend on ACA to lose their coverage.

A woman who can't afford an abortion and needs one should not be stripped of her constitutionally protected right to one because of her insurance.

We have to stand up and fight for our sister's right to choose and her right to control her own body. It is not the Federal Government's business. It is personal. It is my business.

I will continue to challenge any attempt to infringe upon women's rights and strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in protecting that right.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Saint James Presbyterian Church of Greensboro, North Carolina.

As the third oldest African American church in Greensboro, Saint James is rich in history and tradition. Under the leadership of Reverend Dr. Diane Givens Moffett, Saint James embraces the theme: 150 Years, Celebrating Our Walk-in Faith and Service.

It is rare but wonderful to find a group of individuals who have thoroughly enriched their community through dedicated service and good works. It has been my unique honor to represent the good people of Saint James Presbyterian both in North Carolina and in the Congress for more than 30 years. Saint James has helped make Greensboro a more just and peaceful community, and for that, I am immensely proud.

Congratulations, once again, Saint James, on your anniversary--a century plus five decades. I look forward to witnessing the many ways in which Saint James will continue to thrive during its next 150 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express strong opposition to any attempted repeal of the Affordable Care Act. In North Carolina, more than 552,000 people have gained affordable health care through the Affordable Care Act. One of those residents is Mrs. Darlene Harris of Charlotte, North Carolina, who was born with a hole in her heart. Each and every breath she has taken has been a miracle.

When her heart was beats away from rupturing, her husband's insurance saved her life. Following his death, Darlene tried to cope without that insurance, gambling with her own life. Thanks to the ACA, she is free from that awful burden.

A repeal of the Affordable Care Act would condemn millions of hardworking Americans and their loved ones to the nightmare of the past when preexisting conditions were not covered. It is imperative that we not ignore the pleas of our fellow Americans. It has and will continue to save the lives of our family, neighbors, and friends. I urge my colleagues to absolutely object to any repeal of the Affordable Care Act.