Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of H.R. 3731 today to strengthen the resolve of our men and women in the Secret Service to continue performing their essential duties in protecting the President while receiving the appropriate compensation for their efforts which go beyond normal working hours. This legislation ensures that a pay cap is no longer a barrier to paying Secret Service agents who stand watch at all hours of the night, often racking up significant overtime. The current pay cap restricts the Secret Service from paying their employees what is due to them.

Director Alles believes this legislation to be such an important initiative to pass that he personally came to discuss it with me as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee with oversight of the Secret Service. I am glad that we are, in a bipartisan way, enabling the men and women of the Secret Service to now receive the necessary compensation for the significant overtime work they perform.

The GAO reporting requirement in the legislation will also provide to Congress important analysis of how well the Secret Service has implemented the recommendations of the Protective Mission Panel. Knowing these results will help in conducting crucial oversight of the agency.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Stopping Abusive Female Exploitation, or ``SAFE,'' Act addresses the internationally-recognized human rights violation of female genital mutilation (FGM). The Center for Disease Control estimates that approximately 500,000 women and girls in the US have undergone the procedure or are at risk of having it inflicted upon them, and it has only grown in prevalence over the last two decades. FGM provides no health benefits for women and girls, and has long- lasting and harmful physical and psychological consequences.

While FGM is rightly a federal crime under current law, the current penalty is insufficient. It does not reflect the barbaric and medieval nature of the crime; nor does it reflect the harm caused to these young girls. That is why we are considering the SAFE Act today.

As a father and grandfather, I can think of no more important work than protecting our children from those who seek to do them harm.

I commend Representative Dave Trott, an alumnus of this Committee, and Representative Carolyn Maloney, for introducing the SAFE Act and for their tireless efforts on behalf of FGM victims. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Eva Lynne Disbro of Collegedale, Tennessee, on her retirement after nearly 40 years at McKee Foods Corporation. Ms. Disbro retires from the position of Vice President of Human Resources to the family-owned bakery of snack cakes, granola, and many other baked goods. In her current role, she manages over 6,000 employees across Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia, and Arizona. During her time at McKee Foods, she helped launch the company's Government Relations team and oversaw the establishment of a new bakery in Stuart's Draft, Virginia, which now employs about a thousand people in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. It is truly an honor to represent McKee Foods and its dedicated employees in Virginia's Sixth District.

Ms. Disbro's future plans include participating in church mission trips and serving as an active member of the Board of Trustees to Laurelbrook Academy in Dayton, Tennessee. She is also determined to write at least two books in the coming years. Throughout her retirement, she also plans to spend ample time with her grandchildren and extended family.

Thank you to Eva Lynne Disbro for her decades of dedication to her colleagues and community. I wish her a healthy and joyous retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2228) to provide support for law enforcement agency efforts to protect the mental health and well-being of law enforcement officers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2228, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today we are voting on H.R. 2228, the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act. This bill is designed to equip local law enforcement agencies with information and resources to address mental health challenges faced by officers.

Our policemen and -women report for duty every day, facing and responding to danger on our behalf. We often see them and we always appreciate them. However, we often don't consider the mental aspect of the challenges facing our officers who put themselves in harm's way to protect our communities.

Today we consider the toll their jobs take on their psychological well-being. Every day, these brave men and women face some of the highest stress situations one can imagine. When officers hang up their badges at the end of a shift, they cannot easily hang up the lingering effects of their high-stakes encounters. As this stress accumulates, it can lead to serious physical and mental health problems. Research has shown time and again that police officer occupational stress is directly correlated to heart disease, divorce, alcohol abuse, and major psychological illnesses, including acute stress disorder, post- traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety disorders.

Over 900,000 men and women serve as sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. Each year, more of them die from suicide than from gunfire and traffic accidents combined. Many departments have started mental health programs as preventative measures. These programs have been successful in reducing the number of police officer suicides from 300 in 1998 to 126 in 2012. But in departments where mental health and wellness programs remain absent, these problems continue. We must address this gap.

H.R. 2228 directs the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, to equip local law enforcement agencies to address mental health challenges faced by police officers. It also permits DOJ's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to award grants to peer mentoring pilot programs, and it directs the Attorney General to make recommendations on how to make these and other programs more effective.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the profound challenges faced by law enforcement in this country. Today we also acknowledge the unseen toll that these challenges can take on the health of these brave men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Brooks from Indiana for introducing this bill, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this important step in providing law enforcement agencies with the resources to treat severe mental and physical stress. Our men and women in blue deserve the appreciation and support of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to again thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings) for their leadership on this issue.

I will say again how much I appreciate the work of the gentlewoman from Texas on a whole host of law enforcement and criminal justice reform issues; and it is my hope that we will move a great many of these reforms through this House in the very near future. The gentlewoman certainly has my support for working together in a bipartisan way to accomplish that. This piece of legislation is a great step in that direction.

You can't expect law enforcement to keep all of us safe if we are not looking out for their mental health, which I

can only imagine how stressful the job is. I have had the opportunity to do several ride-alongs over the years with police officers in my district, and they have my utmost respect.

I hope that every Member of this House will vote for this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it. The Congress is charged with writing the laws, the President with executing the laws, and the judiciary with interpreting them.

The Constitution divides powers between the branches in this manner in order to guard against the abuse of power by any one branch. The separation of powers is at the core of the fundamental premise of our constitutional design that a limited government, divided into three branches exercising enumerated powers, is necessary to protect individual liberty and the rule of law.

Unfortunately, over the last several decades, Congress has allowed its powers to gradually be chipped away at by the other branches. By allowing its powers to be diminished, Congress, especially this House, effectively is permitting the people to be deprived of their most responsive voice in the Federal Government. Through the legislation before us today and other legislation that the House has actively pursued in recent years, we can begin to

reestablish and enforce the limits on the authority of the other two branches.

Although no package of bills by itself can rebuild Congress' institutional strength and restore the Constitution's integrity, it is absolutely necessary that Congress begin reasserting the powers that it has ceded to the other branches. This package of bills promotes the restoration of Congress' Article I powers.

The first bill in the package addresses executive branch negotiated regulatory decrees and settlements. Over the past several decades, consent decrees and settlement agreements increasingly have been used in Federal litigation to allow the executive branch to write new law in ways that give short shrift to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other laws by which Congress has prescribed how agencies must conduct rulemaking.

While the executive does have some regulatory authority, these settlements and consent decrees have been used to aggrandize that authority and shift regulatory priorities under the cloak of judicial authority. This subverts the boundaries both the Constitution and Congress have placed on administrative authority.

The Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act limits the ability of the executive branch to collude with plaintiffs to abuse consent decrees and settlement agreements in a manner that allows the executive to thwart laws written by Congress and increases the power of the judiciary beyond its constitutional limits.

The second bill in the package, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, increases transparency over Federal spending by requiring the Treasury Department to publish data on settlements and court-offered judgments entered against the Federal Government.

One of Congress' core powers is the authority to authorize and appropriate money from the Treasury. In order to properly exercise this power, Congress needs to know how the bill it has appropriated is being spent.

This bill will allow Congress to better scrutinize and understand where Federal taxpayer dollars are going. Only through the transparency this bill provides can Congress make the executive and the judiciary more accountable for the money that comes out of the Judgment Fund.

The final bill in the package, the Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, makes clear Congress' ability to defend and assert its institutional interests in litigation that puts the powers and responsibilities of Congress into question.

Currently, when the executive branch declines to pursue litigation in defense of an act of Congress, it is not required to give Congress notice sufficient to allow the House or Senate to defend the lawsuit before court filing deadlines have expired. In addition, the House of Representatives, unlike the Senate, does not have a statutory right to intervene or file amicus briefs in cases questioning congressional authority. This legislation ensures that both Houses of Congress have adequate time and a right to intervene in litigation that questions congressional authority.

We cannot continue to abdicate our powers and responsibilities to the other branches of government, weakening the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution and threatening the very liberty divide powers were designed to protect.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 732.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last Congress, the House Judiciary Committee commenced an investigation into the Obama Justice Department's pattern or practice of requiring settling defendants to donate money to third-party groups. In its final 2 years, the Obama DOJ directed nearly $1 billion to third parties entirely outside of Congress' spending and oversight authority.

All along, the Obama Justice Department strained to deny the obvious problem: that mandatory donation provisions create opportunities to play favorites. Deputy Associate Attorney General Geoffrey Graber testified that the Department was not ``in the business of picking and choosing which organization may or may not receive any funding under the agreement.''

But internal DOJ documents tell a different story. They show that, contrary to Graber's sworn testimony, the donation provisions were structured to aid the Obama administration's political friends and exclude conservative groups.

From the outset, Graber's boss, Associate Attorney General Tony West, was keenly interested in choosing the organizations that would receive settlement money. In the lead-up to the first troubling settlement, West's deputy emailed the Office of Legal Counsel asking: ``Can you explain to Tony the best way to allocate some money toward an organization of our choosing?''

Explaining the final settlement to the press team, West's deputy wrote that the donation provisions require banks to ``make donations to categories of entities we have specified, as opposed to what the bank might normally choose to donate to.''

Sure enough, Congress received testimony, in 2016, that the donation beneficiaries were Obama administration allies. These include the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, whose director calls himself a bank terrorist.

But aiding their political allies was only the half of it. The evidence of the Obama DOJ's abuse of power shows that Tony West's team went out of its way to exclude conservative groups.

On July 8, 2014, 6 days before DOJ finalized its settlement with Citi, Tony West's top deputy circulated a draft of the agreement's mandatory donation terms. A senior official from the Office of Access to Justice, who had been working closely with Tony West to direct settlement money to legal aid organizations, responded, requesting a word change.

She explained that the rewording would achieve the aim of ``not allowing Citi to pick a statewide intermediary like the Pacific Legal Foundation,'' which she explained, ``does conservative property-rights free legal services.'' The change was made.

It is not every day in congressional investigations that we find a smoking gun. Here we have it.

Unfortunately, the chief architect of this outrage was lauded, not punished. The recipients of the donations, from which PLF was excluded, circulated an email seeking ways to recognize ``Tony West who, by all accounts, was the one person most responsible for including the donation provisions.''

One organization replied: ``Frankly, I would be willing to have us build a Tony West statue and then we could bow down to this statue each day after we get our $200,000-plus.''

Mr. West's abuse of power stands in stark contrast to the reassertion of integrity by the current Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Attorney General Sessions shut down the use of mandatory donations to benefit outside groups, barring the practice through a policy directive issued earlier this year.

This legislation, however, remains necessary because history shows that we cannot rely on the current DOJ policy remaining in place. In point of fact, in 2009, the incoming Obama administration reversed course from previous DOJ guidance that had started imposing limits on settlement payments to nonvictims. This reversal led to the abuses I highlighted.

H.R. 732 is a bipartisan bill that would make the ban on settlement payments to nonvictim third parties binding on future administrations. The bill makes clear that payments to provide restitution for actual harm directly caused, including harm to the environment, are permitted.

It was obvious, from the outset, that mandatory donation provisions create opportunities for abuse; that such abuses actually occurred is now proven.

Mr. Chairman, I call on my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this good governance measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017 prohibits settlements that provide for payments to nonvictim third parties. But what happens to leftover money if the settlement does not specifically provide for its disposition?

It turns out that this situation is ripe for abuse.

In 2013, a shocking New York Times expose revealed that the Obama administration bilked over a billion dollars from the taxpayer-funded Judgment Fund and handed it to special interests. The case, called Keepseagle, concerned claims against the Department of Agriculture.

The settlement, spearheaded by then Assistant Attorney General Anthony West, vastly overstated the number of claims against the government. One result was a $60 million windfall for the plaintiff's lawyer, who was on President Obama's transition team the year before.

The other result was $380 million in funds left over. This was taxpayer money. But instead of demanding it back, the Department of Justice agreed to direct it to nonvictim third parties to be selected by the same plaintiff's lawyer and member of President Obama's transition team. This, quite rightly, troubled the presiding judge.

My amendment would close this loophole by requiring that money left over after all victims have been compensated must be returned to wherever it came from.

This amendment also clarifies that permitted remedial payments must go to victims who suffered the injuries on which plaintiffs' claims are based. This prevents situations in which a payment is classified as remedial but is directed to an intermediary.

The abuses of power that I outlined today in the settlement context are truly disturbing. This is our opportunity to stop the abuse. We should be as comprehensive as possible.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment which strengthens the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, although the power of Congress to investigate is not set forth in any particular clause in the Constitution, congressional investigations trace their roots back to the earliest days of our Republic. In fact, what is thought to be the first congressional investigation occurred in 1792, when the House appointed a select committee to investigate the massacre of American troops under the command of Major General Arthur St. Clair. The resolution authorizing that investigation stated that the committee shall ``be empowered to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.''

Upon learning of the investigation, President Washington assembled his cabinet to seek their counsel. His cabinet, which included Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, unanimously concluded that the House had every right to conduct its inquiry and request papers from the President. President Washington directed that the relevant papers be provided to the House and the War and Treasury Departments provided voluminous records to the committee.

Unfortunately, not all congressional investigations are met with the cooperation the first investigation received. Rather, sometimes Congress and its committees must rely on another inherent power derived from the Constitution to investigate effectively--the congressional subpoena power.

As the Supreme Court has observed, although ``there is no [constitutional] provision expressly investing either house with the power to make investigations and exact testimony . . . the power of inquiry--with process to enforce it--is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . Experience has taught that mere requests for information often are unavailing . . . so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.''

That means of compulsion is often a subpoena issued by a congressional committee backstopped by a civil action filed in federal district court. In recent years, the House and its committees have pursued two such civil actions, including one filed by this Committee, to enforce compliance with congressional subpoenas.

The legislation we are considering today, the Congressional Subpoena Compliance and Enforcement Act, codifies and strengthens the existing civil enforcement mechanisms thereby reinforcing the powers granted Congress in Article I of the Constitution. This legislation creates a statutory framework for compliance with and enforcement of congressional subpoenas through a few targeted changes to federal law.

First, the bill puts in place a statutory requirement that recipients comply with congressional subpoenas. Second, the bill statutorily requires subpoena recipients to provide a congressional committee with a privilege log if they assert a legal privilege as a reason for withholding subpoenaed materials. Finally, the bill provides that congressional subpoena enforcement cases are to receive expedited review in the federal courts and that a congressional committee may request that a subpoena enforcement case be heard by a three-judge panel of the district court, with direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

While it is true that some of what is addressed by the bill is currently covered through negotiation with subpoena recipients and is recognized in the precedents of courts in the D.C. Circuit, the current statutory requirements related to compliance with and enforcement of a committee subpoena are limited. Indeed, the existing civil subpoena enforcement statute only covers the Senate and does not apply to Senate subpoenas issued to the Executive Branch. It is time that we put in place a statutorily created, expedited civil enforcement mechanism for congressional subpoenas. Relying on the existing framework to enforce congressional subpoenas has proved to be an inadequate means of protecting congressional prerogatives.

I thank Mr. Issa for introducing this legislation and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. This bill is a necessary step to strengthen Congress's ability to exercise its Article I legislative powers.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with my colleagues, Representatives Robert J. Wittman, H. Morgan Griffith, Dave Brat, Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., and Scott Taylor, rise today to honor the life and service of Lacey E. Putney, a dear friend and the longest-serving state legislator in Virginia's history.

Born on June 27, 1928, Lacey passed away on August 26, 2017, at the age of 89. He was born and raised in Big Island, Virginia, and remained a well-respected member of the community his entire life. After earning his undergraduate degree in 1950 from Washington and Lee University, Lacey enlisted in the United States Air Force where he served for four years. He later graduated from the Washington and Lee University School of Law and went on to practice law for more than 55 years in Bedford.

Lacey was first elected to represent the 19th District in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1961. During his time in office, he held many important leadership positions, including Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Chairman of the Privileges and Elections Committee, and as acting Speaker of the House in 2003. Lacey was a true force in the state legislature, and he knew how to get things done. Anyone who worked with him witnessed that firsthand, and his hard work can be seen throughout western Virginia. He was instrumental in establishing the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine and Research Institute in Roanoke and the Virginia Horse Center in Lexington, creating the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, and restoring Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest. He led many successful legislative initiatives during his tenure, including the creation of the Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant program, the Virginia Retirement System, and the Virginia community college system. In 2013, Lacey retired from public service after 52 years. It was only fitting that upon his passing Lacey lie in state in the rotunda of the State Capitol.

Lacey's legacy is one of service, kindness, and action. He was trusted by the people he represented and respected by his colleagues. He exemplified the role of a citizen legislator and set an example for all of us through his passion for serving his fellow Virginians. We are honored to have known Lacey Putney over the years, and the Commonwealth of Virginia is better because of individuals like him. With his passing, Virginia lost one of its greatest treasures.

We offer our condolences to his beloved wife, Carmela, as well as the entire Putney family. Our prayers are with them as they mourn this loss and celebrate his life. May God give them comfort and peace. While he may be gone from this earth, there is no doubt that his legacy will live on.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman organizing this hour of Special Order remarks, and your leadership on these three important issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the importance of bolstering enforcement of existing immigration law and securing the border. The interior enforcement and border security are vital to enhancing public safety, keeping the door open to law-abiding immigrants, protecting our borders, and restoring the rule of law.

Under President Obama, interior enforcement deteriorated dramatically as his administration refused to enforce immigration laws, rewrote the law through executive action, and implemented policies that enabled millions of unlawful and criminal aliens to remain in the United States free from any possibility of removal.

The Obama administration's policies had--and continue to have-- disturbing consequences. The rule of law was undermined as hundreds of thousands of Central American unaccompanied minors and families arrived at the southwest border during the Obama years and were released into the U.S. Too many Americans were killed or seriously harmed at the hands of aliens who joined gangs or committed crimes.

Fortunately, the Trump administration has begun to reverse the Obama administration's disastrous policies and is enforcing the law as written by Congress. President Trump has issued executive orders to strengthen interior enforcement and implement strong border security measures. The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are already executing these executive orders, and there have been quick results.

Illegal border crossings at the Southwest border dropped dramatically at the beginning of the Trump administration due, in large part, to consistent enforcement of the law and the strong message that the U.S. no longer tolerates illegal immigration.

However, illegal border crossings are rising again despite the best efforts of the Trump administration, demonstrating that the President should be granted additional, long-needed legislative tools. The House Judiciary Committee has been hard at work to improve our Nation's immigration laws and has already approved bills that are crucial to enable our country to gain control of our immigration system.

The Davis-Oliver Act is the keystone of our interior enforcement efforts and is named after Placer County Detective Michael Davis, Jr., and Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver, two California law enforcement officers who were murdered by an unlawful immigrant in October 2014.

The bill improves the enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws to enhance public safety. Specifically, the Davis-Oliver Act provides tools to crack down on dangerous sanctuary city policies and contains much-needed changes to protect American communities from unlawful immigrants who commit crimes in the United States, or are gang members.

The Davis-Oliver Act also enhances national security by improving our Nation's first line of defense, the visa issuance process. It provides thorough screening of foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States in order to prevent terrorists from entering our country. The bill also ensures the rule of law and removes the ability of any President to unilaterally shut down immigration enforcement by granting States and localities the authority to voluntarily assist in the enforcement of Federal immigration law and to enforce their own immigration laws consistent with Federal practices.

The House Judiciary Committee has also approved several bills to reform the asylum and refugee programs to curtail rampant fraud, while ensuring that our Nation continues to be a safe haven for those persecuted around the world. The surge of Central American unaccompanied alien minors and family units seeking to enter the U.S. illegally at our southern border put a strain on manpower and resources. It also exposed loopholes in our Nation's immigration laws that are being exploited by smugglers and others seeking to game the system.

The Asylum Reform and Border Patrol Act makes a number of improvements to our Nation's laws to prevent fraud and abuse in the system and assure that asylum is reserved for those truly fleeing persecution in their home country.

Further, the Protection of Children Act makes sure that unaccompanied alien minors who make the dangerous journey to the United States are swiftly and safely returned home. For those who stay with a sponsor in the United States while awaiting their immigration hearing, the bill provides for greater transparency and safety to these minors to ensure that they are not inadvertently delivered into the hands of criminals or abusers.

The Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act reforms the refugee program by curbing fraud and strengthening public safety and national security. It also provides State and local governments the power to decide if refugees are to be resettled within their communities and gives Congress, not the President, the authority to set the overall refugee ceiling for each year.

The House Judiciary Committee also plans to bring up a bill that protects jobs for citizens and legal workers, the Legal Workforce Act. This bill requires all U.S. employers to check the work eligibility of all future hires through the tried and tested E-Verify system. E-Verify quickly confirms 99 percent of work-eligible employees and takes less than 2 minutes to use.

Over 740,000 American employers currently use E-Verify, and 83 percent of America's employers support a mandatory electronic verification system. While many aspects of our Nation's immigration system need to be improved, including our guest worker program for American agriculture, we must strengthen the enforcement of our immigration laws. Immigration enforcement is crucial to maintain our sovereignty, to protect national security, and to restore the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I call on Congress to take up the House Judiciary Committee's immigration enforcement bills soon.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 782) to reauthorize the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 782, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today that we are voting to reauthorize the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to

end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, or the PROTECT Act.

The PROTECT Act authorizes local law enforcement task forces to combat crimes against children online. These internet crimes against children, or ICAC, task forces have been absolutely crucial in the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of internet crimes against children. The program was developed in response to the increasing number of children and teenagers using the internet, the proliferation of child sexual abuse images available electronically, and heightened online activity by predators seeking unsupervised contact with potential underage victims.

Since the ICAC program's inception in 1998, more than 589,000 law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other professionals have been trained on techniques to investigate and prosecute ICAC-related cases. More than 709,000 complaints of alleged child sexual victimization have been reviewed resulting in the arrest of more than 73,000 individuals. There are now 61 coordinated task forces representing over 4,500 Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies.

The need for these ICAC task forces has never been greater. The use of the internet by children is only increasing, and so are the crimes committed against them. Law enforcement officers are encountering new types of crimes such as sextortion, that create new complexities in their investigations.

I would like to take a moment to commend Ms. Wasserman Schultz from Florida and Mr. Smith from Texas for introducing the companion bill in this House. During his tenure as Judiciary Committee chairman, my friend, Lamar Smith, was a tireless advocate on behalf of our Nation's children.

Children are our must precious resource, and we must be vigilant in ensuring their protection. As a father and grandfather, I can think of no more important role we can play than protecting our children.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their strong bipartisan support and our staff on both sides of the aisle for their outstanding work on this very important legislation to reauthorize a program that I am very, very familiar with.

The sheriff of Bedford County, Virginia, has been a leading advocate for this program and has provided services in his sheriff's department that have protected thousands of children not just in our immediate region in southwest Virginia, but all across the country.

I am very, very familiar with the work that goes on, day in and day out, of training law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and others, as well as the detection and prosecution of individuals who would commit these heinous crimes. This bill has done as much as any I know to keep children safe on the internet.

This law and this bill are important to reauthorize for another 5 years. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 178) to prevent elder abuse and exploitation and improve the justice system's response to victims in elder abuse and exploitation cases.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 178, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 178, the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, takes several steps to protect American seniors from financial exploitation and physical abuse. This legislation promotes the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators who prey upon seniors, enhances data collection, and provides resources for robust elder abuse prevention programs.

Some estimate that approximately 1 in 10 senior citizens are abused annually, but only 1 in 23 cases of elder abuse are reported to authorities each year. At least $2.9 billion is taken from older adults each year due to financial abuse and exploitation.

The abuse of these vulnerable victims causes devastating physical, mental, emotional, and financial consequences to the victims and their loved ones, and we must combat this injustice.

This bill requires each U.S. Attorney's Office to appoint an elder justice coordinator and requires the FBI to provide specialized training to agents relating to the investigation of elder abuse crimes. It mandates that both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission designate an elder justice coordinator.

It strengthens criminal laws to ensure that offenders who seek to exploit seniors through fraudulent email marketing are appropriately punished, and it enhances data collection on crimes against senior citizens so we can one day understand the full scope of this problem.

I believe it was Mahatma Gandhi who said: ``A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.'' We must ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect our senior citizens, and that is precisely what this bill aims to do.

This bill passed the Senate unanimously, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in similar fashion.

I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the committee, for his work on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to again thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on this important legislation to help protect senior citizens from crime.

I know, from experience, that there are many, many senior citizens who become victims of online, on-telephone, and other forms of fraud perpetrated upon them; and this legislation helps to provide resources and appropriate punishments, to detect the people who perpetrate these crimes and to bring them to justice, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, medical knowledge regarding the development of unborn babies and their capacities at various stages of growth has advanced dramatically.

To give you a sense of how much technology has advanced, the issue of The New York Times announcing the Roe v. Wade decision, in 1973, contained ads for the latest in technology, including a computer the size of a file cabinet that you could rent for $3,000 a month that only had a fraction, thousandths, of the memory of a modern cellphone, and a basic AM radio that was as big as your hand.

At the time, there was nothing like the stunningly detailed images of unborn children that are so commonly celebrated on social media today.

Close to 45 years later, in the age of ultrasound pictures, the same newspaper reported on the latest research on the pain experienced by unborn children, focusing on that of Dr. Sunny Anand, an Oxford-trained neonatal pediatrician who held an appointment at Harvard Medical School.

As Dr. Anand has testified regarding abortions: ``If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain.''

Congress has the power, and the responsibility, to acknowledge these developments in our understanding of the ability of unborn children to feel pain by prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks' pregnancy postfertilization, the point at which scientific evidence shows the unborn can experience great suffering. The bill before us does just that, and, in doing so, it saves lives.

In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is so confident that this bill would save lives that it took the rare step of estimating the number of lives that would be saved if this bill is enacted. The CBO conservatively estimates that this bill would

save over 2,000 lives each year, giving America the gift of thousands more children with all the wondrous human gifts they will bring to the world in so many amazing forms for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Judiciary Committee member Trent Franks for introducing this vital legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill both on behalf of unborn children and on behalf of the voters you represent, who overwhelmingly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho and the chair of our subcommittee for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act.

Transnational criminal gangs have declared war on the United States. Their tactics of intimidation and unspeakable mutilation and killing have permeated most every part of our country, including multiple instances in my own district. Most recently in Bedford County, Virginia, a young man was killed by alien members of MS-13.

The Department of Homeland Security reports an ever-growing number of criminal aliens joining international gangs, such as MS-13, which alone has over 10,000 members within our borders. Whether these criminals came to this country illegally as unaccompanied minors, adults, or have valid visas or even green cards, it is time to send the message that this behavior will simply not be tolerated.

Yet current immigration law includes no provision allowing for the removal of criminal gang members based on their membership in dangerous gangs or participation in gang activities. The result is unconscionable. ICE must sit on the sidelines and wait for known gang members to be arrested and convicted of specific offenses before removal proceedings may commence. Of course, with many victims and witnesses too petrified of retaliation against them and their families to cooperate with police, many gang members are never convicted of their crimes.

This legislation provides a crucial tool so that ICE can seek to remove alien gang members before they are able to extort businesses and murder innocent Americans.

In addition, this bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate organizations as criminal gangs utilizing the same transparent procedures used by the Secretary of State to designate foreign terrorist organizations. Finally, the bill ensures that criminal alien gang members cannot receive asylum and be released back onto our streets able to resume their criminal activities while being eligible for a vast array of Federal benefits.

Eradicating the death grip that transnational criminal alien gangs hold over many of our communities, especially immigrant communities, is an important piece of immigration reform. I am pleased that this bill, which stems from legislation that the House has approved in the past and which has been approved by the Judiciary Committee in multiple Congresses, is being considered today.

Now, I want to address the allegation that this bill targets priests, nuns, and garage band members. It is preposterous. This bill deliberately includes the longstanding Federal criminal offenses for alien smuggling as predicates for criminal gang activity. Coyotes and other criminal gangs make billions of dollars and put countless lives at risk through their alien smuggling activities.

As former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who emigrated to the United States from Latin America as a child, stated: ``Smuggling aliens across our borders is a dangerous business. All too often, people entrust their lives to smugglers, only to die in the broiling desert, or suffocate in the back of locked, airless trucks while the smugglers profit.''

``These smuggling rings, which facilitate illegal entry into the United States and mercilessly exploit human beings for money, are a danger to immigrants and a threat to our national security. . . .''

The Democrats are engaging in a huge amount of obfuscation. In the past, House Democrats claimed the House passed legislation that would have strengthened Federal alien smuggling laws, would have had the effect of putting priests and nuns at risk of prosecution. The Democrats' clear implication was that these problems didn't exist under then-current law which remains current law.

Let me quote. Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee, including John Conyers, Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, and Sheila Jackson Lee, they stated that the bill then under consideration goes far beyond increasing penalties for alien smuggling and jeopardizes the well-being of millions of Americans, neighbors, family members, faith institutions, and others who live and work with undocumented immigrants.

Former Speaker Pelosi, the current minority leader, stated: ``Under the guise of an expansive definition of smuggling,''--the bill--``it could make criminals out of Catholic priests and nuns, ministers, rabbis, and social service workers who provide assistance and acts of charity to those in need.''

The Democrats can't have it both ways. They can't argue one day that we can't change current law because that would result in putting priests and nuns at risk and argue the next day that, without any evidence, current law already puts them at risk. To add to the hypocrisy, the House Democrats supported an amendment which passed by voice vote.

So to add to the controversy, the House Democrats supported an amendment which passed by voice vote to add human smuggling to the list of predicate acts under the Federal money laundering statute.

The Department of Justice and Immigration and Customs Enforcement simply do not target clergy and others who do not make distinctions based on immigration status when serving those in spiritual or material need.

The use of such laws against religious organizations and other humanitarian groups has been practically nonexistent. Of course, as in the sanctuary movement in the 1980s, when religious organizations engage in the smuggling of illegal aliens into the United States, they would be subject to prosecution, just as anyone else would be.

This bill is based upon the same precedent that has been passed through this House by voice vote dealing with human smuggling. It is time to apply the same standard to alien gang members who are perpetrating violence not just on people traveling to the United States, as in the case of human smuggling, but on the citizens of virtually every State in the Union.

The murders that have been outlined by Mr. King of New York, Mrs. Comstock of Virginia, Mr. Labrador of Idaho, and others are taking place all across the country because we simply are not removing from this country as expeditiously as possible members of gangs like MS-13. It is time to get about doing that, and this bill does that.

I want to commend Representative Barbara Comstock; Representative Peter King; and the chairman of our Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, Representative Raul Labrador, for their work on this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3697.

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 494.