Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3697 is yet another exercise in false advertising by the Majority. Named the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act,'' this legislation is so overbroad that it would lead to the deportation of immigrants with absolutely no criminal record and would apply to individuals with no connection to gangs.

In short, this blatantly anti-immigration legislation casts a wide and dangerous net in furtherance of President Trump's mass deportation agenda. I say this for several reasons.

To begin with, H.R. 3967 authorizes the Trump Administration to brand a group of immigrants a ``gang'' without requiring a conviction or even an arrest.

In fact, it would allow individuals to be deported or denied admission based on a mere ``belief''--however tenuous--of their connection to unlawful activity.

In addition, the bill's definition of a ``gang'' is so broad that it would apply to individuals who clearly are not members of criminal gangs.

I doubt that my Republican colleagues really believe that 5 Christian ministers providing shelter to undocumented immigrants constitute a criminal gang.

But by voting for this measure, that's precisely what lawmakers would turn them into. The bill instantly places such religious workers throughout America--from nuns to rabbis, imams to priests--into the same classification as MS-13.

Finally, we are rushing this deeply flawed legislation through the House today while nearly 800,000 young people--800,000 law abiding members of our communities--are facing deportation in as little as 6 months.

These are young people who are as American as any of us. They have grown up in our communities, attended our schools, and have become our neighbors, our teachers, first responders, doctors, and lawyers. But because of action taken by President Trump last week, they now are living in fear and uncertainty.

There is a bipartisan bill with overwhelming support across the country that would allow these young people to remain in the United States the only home most have ever known--and continue contributing to our communities and our economy.

But that bill, the DREAM Act, has languished for years.

Nevertheless, instead of taking up the DREAM Act, we are rushing H.R. 3697 through just days after it was introduced and without any hearings, markups, or the opportunity for amendment.

This House should stop jamming through pieces of the Trump mass deportation plan and instead recommit itself to lifting up the young people of our communities by passing the DREAM act.

It is what's right for our economy, our Nation and it is our moral responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3697.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Joseph Ehrenkrantz for his dedicated service to the House of Representatives. Over the past two years, he has diligently served the House Judiciary Committee.

A 2014 graduate of the University of Maryland, Joe majored in English and Political Science. He began his career with the House Judiciary Committee Democrats shortly after graduation--initially as an intern and subsequently as a Professional Staff member.

Joe has worked tirelessly on the full range of issues that come before the Committee. These include civil rights and voting rights, state and local taxation, constitutional issues, and investor visas. Joe was also charged with keeping track of innumerable legislative and oversight details concerning the Committee. He has performed all of these tasks with his customary energy and enthusiasm.

Joe has also served the Committee with regard to a number of administrative matters. These include coordinating briefings, staffing hearings, organizing Minority forums, providing information technology assistance, clerking markups, helping coordinate the intern program, and providing general office management. His knowledge of Committee proceedings and procedure, coupled with his dedication to progressive priorities, has made him an integral member of our staff.

We thank Joe for his many outstanding contributions to the House Judiciary Committee and the U.S. House of Representatives, and wish him well as he begins law school at Georgetown University this fall. He will surely be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a great public servant and a brilliant jurist, Judge Damon J. Keith. Throughout his 50 years on the federal bench, Judge Keith has steadfastly and courageously protected the constitutional and civil rights of all Americans, and I am pleased that he will be honored tonight in a special event at the Supreme Court celebrating his outstanding career, and his service to the United States.

Judge Keith was born on the Fourth of July in 1922. From an early age, he stood out as a scholar and an athlete. He graduated from Northwestern High School in Detroit, where he excelled in track and he went on to become the first in his family to earn a college degree, graduating from West Virginia State College in 1943. After serving in the U.S. Army for three years, he continued his education and earned his law degree from Howard University Law School in 1949.

Judge Keith started his legal career in Detroit with the African- American law firm of Loomis, Jones, Piper & Colden, and he was one of six Detroit attorneys invited to the White House in 1963 by President John F. Kennedy to discuss the role of lawyers in the civil rights struggle.

In 1967, he was appointed to the federal bench by President Lyndon Johnson, becoming only the second African-American to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and in 1975, he rose to become Chief Judge of that court. During his tenure on the District Court, Judge Keith delivered several key civil rights rulings on such important issues as school desegregation, employment and housing discrimination, and affirmative action.

In 1971, Judge Keith issued a landmark civil liberties ruling in U.S. v. Sinclair, which found wiretap surveillance absent a court order in domestic security cases to be unconstitutional. This case came to be known as the ``Keith decision'' and it was unanimously upheld by the United States Supreme Court. His ruling is also widely acknowledged as contributing to passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1975, which placed important restrictions on government surveillance of Americans.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Keith to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where he has served with distinction. He took senior status in 1995, but he continues to be a vital member

of that Court. Just last year, his impassioned dissent in a voting rights case gained national recognition, as he recounted the ugly history of voter suppression in this country, and he stood up for the rights of all Americans to have their voices heard at the ballot box.

Judge Keith is well deserving of the numerous honors and awards he has received throughout his career, including: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's highest award, the Spingarn Medal, in 1974; the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Award in 1997; the Edward J. Devitt Award for Distinguished Service to Justice in 1998, presented by a panel comprised of a United States Supreme Court Justice, a federal circuit court judge, and a federal district court judge; and honorary degrees from Harvard University, Yale University, Georgetown University, the University of Michigan, Tuskegee University, and over thirty other institutions.

Tonight, a distinguished panel that includes former Attorney General Eric Holder will bestow one more honor, in recognition of his lifetime of service as a defender of the Constitution and the civil rights of all people. I am proud to call Judge Keith a mentor, a friend, and an inspiration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 92.

This Resolution would grant Congress' consent to certain amendments to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact Authority pursuant to legislation enacted by the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, respectively.

Congress originally consented to this Compact in 1960 and--from time- to-time--the Compact has been amended with Congress' consent, as needed.

The current necessity for H.J. Res. 92 is prompted by the enactment of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015.

In pertinent part, this Act gave sole authority to the Secretary of Transportation to appoint federal directors to the board of directors of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact.

To implement this directive, each of the Compact participants had to enact legislation amending the Compact.

H.J. Res. 92 grants Congress' consent to these amendments to the Compact as approved by each of the participating states and the District of Columbia.

This bipartisan measure, which effectuates Congress' directive of 2015, is cosponsored by all of the Congressional Members representing jurisdictions affected by the Metrorail system.

I support this commonsense measure and I urge its swift passage. I commend Representative Comstock for her leadership on this important legislation and I thank House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte for facilitating its timely consideration by both the Committee and the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 76.

This resolution would grant the consent and approval of Congress for Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact establishing the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission.

I support this bipartisan measure for several reasons.

Most importantly, this Commission will help improve the safety of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority--also known as WMATA, which provides transportation services for millions of people each year.

Last year alone, nearly 180 million riders traveled on WMATA's commuter rail system. In fact, more than 760,000 riders used that system on just a single day in March of last year.

Unfortunately, there have been a series of serious safety violations at WMATA in recent years, some of which have tragically led to deaths and injuries.

Even though such dangerous conditions are obviously inexcusable, they nevertheless have persisted for many years. There are numerous causes, which range from aging infrastructure, years of neglected maintenance, uncertain funding, and poor oversight and management.

In response to these critical concerns, the District of Columbia-- together with the states of Virginia and Maryland--have each passed legislation agreeing to enter into an interstate compact establishing an oversight commission dedicated to improving the safety of WMATA.

Clearly, this undertaking will help ensure WMATA's passengers and workers--as well as the many communities that WMATA serves--have a safe, efficient, and reliable mass transit system.

In addition, H.J. Res. 76 warrants our support because it implements Congress' 2015 directive to the states to establish legal and financially independent state oversight authorities responsible for the safety of fixed rail transit facilities within their respective jurisdictions.

By granting our consent and approval of the interstate compact to be established pursuant to this Resolution, we are fulfilling our responsibility to help ensure the safety of our Nation's rail system.

Finally, prompt consideration of H.J. Res. 76 is imperative not only because of ongoing safety concerns, but also because of financial concerns that serve to exacerbate the safety concerns.

When Congress issued its 2015 directive, it did so with strings attached. A state's failure to comply with this directive would result in a suspension of federal rail transit funding.

Accordingly, the Transportation Department's Federal Transportation Authority suspended its distribution of federal transit funds to the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia earlier this year and it continues to do so until the new safety commission is established.

Thus, every day that goes by without action on this Resolution, is another day that these jurisdictions are deprived of critical federal funding.

So, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the immediate passage of H.J. Res. 76.

The safety and reliability of our Nation's commuter rail transit system should be the standard for other metropolitan areas to aspire to. Unfortunately, much improvement is necessary to reach this critical goal.

H.J. Res. 76, however, will hopefully provide an important opportunity to address the system's safety shortcomings.

In closing, I want to thank Representative Steny Hoyer, the esteemed author of this critical legislation. His commitment and leadership are to be commended.

Accordingly, I strongly support this bipartisan measure and urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to Dr. John Edward Hasse on his retirement as Curator of Music at the National Museum of American History, a position he has served in since 1984.

Dr. Hasse is a recognized leader in the field of jazz scholarship and education, distinguishing himself through publications, programming, lectures, and public service. Most notably, Dr. Hasse conceived and founded Jazz Appreciation Month, which was endorsed by the U.S. Congress in 2003. Today, Jazz Appreciation Month is celebrated each April in all 50 states and in over forty other countries.

Dr. Hasse also worked with me to found the Smithsonian Jazz Masterworks Orchestra, the jazz-ensemble-in-residence at the National Museum of American History, now in its 26th year of domestic concerts and international tours for the U.S. State Department.

In addition to his work at the Smithsonian, Dr. Hasse is an accomplished writer, contributing chapters to a number of books and articles in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, eight academic journals, and eight encyclopedias. He has lectured on music, the arts, and leadership in 20 countries on six continents, advancing cultural diplomacy, often on behalf of the U.S. State Department. He has served on a number of boards, including the federal New Orleans Jazz Commission, the board of the International Association for Jazz Education, and as a founding member of the Jazz Educators Network. He has been a consultant with the U.S. Postal Service, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, and UNESCO.

Dr. Hasse earned a B.A. cum laude from Carleton College, M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Indiana University, and a Certificate in Business Administration from The Wharton School. His honors include appointment as Herb Alpert Scholar-in-Residence at the Berklee College of Music, two ASCAP-Deems Taylor Awards for excellence in writing about music, two Grammy Award nominations, and two honorary doctorates.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincerest thanks to John for many years of friendship, and I know I speak for the entire Smithsonian Institute when I say Dr. Hasse will be sorely missed in his current capacity at the Smithsonian. However, if there is one thing I know about John, it is that he will never be far from the musical community he has fostered for the past few decades. We cannot thank him enough for the many years of service he has offered, and we look forward to seeing what the next stage of life holds for him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear at the outset of this debate that this legislation does nothing to make our communities safer, and it does nothing to improve our immigration system. Instead, H.R. 3003 will trample the rights of States and localities to determine what is in the best interest of their public safety, and it will conscript law enforcement to enforce Federal immigration law.

The ultimate experts on community safety are communities themselves, and hundreds of them have determined that, as community trust increases, crime decreases. This is because immigrants will come out of the shadows and report crimes to local law enforcement when they are not threatened with deportation. In fact, a recent study found that community trust jurisdictions are actually safer than their counterparts.

Against this considered judgment, H.R. 3003 forces localities to abandon community trust principles and mandates the conscription of local offices into Federal immigration enforcement. Some localities, of course, would rightfully resist this conscription. As punishment, H.R. 3003 would rob them of vital law enforcement funding that they depend on to prevent crime, prosecute criminals, and boost community policing ranks.

Localities, therefore, would face a losing choice: they can abandon community trust policies and leave their communities in danger, or they can leave community trust policies in place but forgo law enforcement funding, leaving their community in danger.

It is important that we consider that this is more than just bad policy. It is also likely unconstitutional for multiple reasons. First, H.R. 3003 likely violates the 10th Amendment by commandeering States to comply with detainer requests that drain their resources.

In addition, the bill's changes to the Department of Homeland Security's detainer authority exacerbate the current Fourth Amendment concerns associated with immigration detainers. The bill does not require any particularized finding about the individual that may form the basis of a probable cause determination and fails to provide for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.

The bill further compounds constitutional concerns by eliminating the ability for a detained individual to obtain an independent, individualized review of his or her bond determination by a neutral decisionmaker.

For these reasons--and there are others--I urge my colleagues to please oppose this dangerous, mean-spirited, and constitutionally suspect legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who is a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), a gentleman on the committee who has worked tirelessly with myself and Ms. Lofgren to make this measure more understandable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Intellectual Properties Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), our Democratic Caucus chair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a former justice to the Texas Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a dedicated civil rights leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3003 is not making our communities safer. If it was, the bill's sponsors would have heeded the strong opposition of organizations like the National Fraternal Order of Police, who stated that, ``withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies-- which have no policymaking role--hurts public safety efforts;'' and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, who cautioned, ``H.R. 3003 is a bad bill for our cities and their residents and for our Nation. It would jeopardize public safety, preempt local authority, and expose local governments to litigation and potential findings of damage.''

Instead, this legislation is a down payment on the President's and the Republican majority's mass deportation plan.

This bill, and the one that we will debate later today, is a portion of the mass deportation bill known as the ``Davis-Oliver Act,'' which has been cited as a priority for the Trump administration, and is supported by anti-immigrant groups, such as NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies.

I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3004 is an anti-immigrant enforcement-only proposal that represents yet another step in President Trump's mass deportation plan.

This legislation significantly expands the Federal Government's ability to prosecute individuals for illegal entry and attempted reentry into the United States.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this bill is about protecting us from criminals. But don't be fooled about the ultimate effect of this bill. It does far more than target immigrants with criminal histories.

For the first time, this legislation would make it a felony for an individual who has been previously removed or merely denied admission to come to an official port of entry to ask for reentry into the country legally. This is true even if the individual has no criminal history whatsoever.

For instance, the expanded offense would apply to persecuted asylum seekers voluntarily presenting themselves at a port of entry to request asylum under our own immigration laws.

It would reach desperate victims of sex trafficking who approach the Customs and Border Protection officer to seek protection.

It would even extend to persons asking to enter on humanitarian parole to donate lifesaving organs to United States citizen relatives.

Under H.R. 3004, all of these individuals could face up to 2 years in prison simply for coming to an official port of entry to request immigration benefits provided under our immigration laws.

Finally, this bill perpetuates the fiction that immigrants are somehow inherently criminal. Nothing could be further from the truth. Numerous studies examining this issue conclude that immigrants actually commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than native-born Americans.

Given this legislation's defects, it comes to us as no surprise that organizations across the Nation join with me in opposition. They include:

The conservative Cato Institute, which called H.R. 3004, ``a waste of Federal resources'' that fails to safeguard ``Americans against serious criminals.''

Cities For Action, representing over 150 mayors and municipal leaders, warned the bill would place asylum seekers at further risk.

And the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, which described how this measure, H.R. 3004, will punish victims of domestic and sexual violence merely for requesting protection.

H.R. 3004 is not what its sponsors would like us to believe. In truth, it is a mean-spirited bill that would have far-reaching consequences by making it a crime to ask for benefits that our immigration laws provide.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), our senior Representative on the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of opposition to H.R. 3004, namely, the Federal Defenders of New York and 407 local, State, national immigrant civil rights, faith, and labor organizations.

Federal Defenders

of New York, Inc.

New York, NY, June 29, 2017.

Re H.R. 3004, Kate's Law

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chair, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a former member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I ask unanimous consent that she may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1215 will do little to protect Americans' access to safe and affordable healthcare. Instead, it will deny victims of medical malpractice and defective medical products the opportunity to be fully compensated for their injuries and to hold wrongdoers accountable.

This legislation imposes various restrictions on lawsuits against healthcare providers concerning the provision of healthcare goods or services that would apply regardless of the merits of the case, the misconduct at issue, or the severity of the victim's injury.

There are so many problems with this bill, but to begin with, this bill would cause real harm by severely limiting the ability of victims to be made whole. For instance, the bill's $250,000 aggregate limit for noneconomic damages, an amount established more than

40 years ago pursuant to a California statute, would have a particularly adverse impact on women, children, the poor, and other vulnerable members of our society.

These groups are more likely to receive noneconomic damages in healthcare cases because they are less able to establish lost wages and other economic losses. Women, for example, are often paid at a lower rate than men, even for the same job. Also, they are more likely to suffer noneconomic loss, such as disfigurement or loss of fertility. Imposing a severe limit on noneconomic damages, therefore, hurts them disproportionately.

Finally, this bill is particularly harmful for veterans, members of the military, and their families. Because the bill prevents State tort law in any healthcare-related lawsuit that includes any coverage provided by a Federal health program, all cases arising from substandard care received in a Veterans Administration facility or a military hospital would be subject to the bill's restrictions.

As a diverse coalition of veterans organizations noted in their letter of opposition, H.R. 1215 would limit the ability of veterans and military families to hold healthcare providers, drug manufacturers, and medical products providers accountable for pain and suffering and death that result from substandard care, preventable medical errors, and defective drugs and devices.

For these and other reasons, I implore and urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1215.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the most active Member in the 115th Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

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

I just have to add here that H.R. 1215 deeply intrudes on States' sovereignty. In particular, H.R. 1215 preempts State law governing joint and several liability, the availability of damages, the ability to introduce evidence of collateral source benefits, attorneys' fees, and periodic payments of future damages.

Members should not be fooled by assertions that the bill preserves State law. In fact, the rule of construction contained in the bill expressly states that it preempts State law, except in very limited circumstances where State law is more favorable to defendants.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Chairman, I refer my colleague, the floor leader on the other side to section 9 of the bill. We have just looked at it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Numerous consumer, labor, veterans, and legal groups all oppose H.R. 1215, including the AFL-CIO, the American College of Physicians, the Consumers Union, Public Citizen, Vietnam Veterans of America, 12 other national veterans organizations, and the Liberty Caucus.

H.R. 1215 is an extremely flawed bill that will deny access to justice for victims of medical malpractice and especially those who are the most vulnerable among us. It would deny full compensation for injuries suffered by veterans and military families, children, the elderly, and the poor.

I hope my colleagues will join us in opposing this very unnecessary, mean-spirited bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1393, the ``Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2017.''

I agree with the bill's sponsors that a uniform framework specifying when an employer must withhold state income tax could help ensure simplicity and be more administrable than the current varied state standards. However the means by which H.R. 1393 achieves this result would lead to significant state revenue losses and could actually encourage income tax avoidance.

To begin with, rather than promoting uniformity, H.R. 1393 would have a significant adverse impact on income tax revenues for certain states.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, for example, New York could lose between $55 million and $120 million annually if this measure was signed into law.

Other states that would be adversely impacted include Illinois, Massachusetts, and California.

And, as a result of the lost revenues from non-resident taxpayers, these states could be forced to make up their losses by shifting the tax burden to resident taxpayers or levying new taxes.

And states may even have to cut governmental services, such as funding for education and critical infrastructure improvements.

Another problem with H.R. 1393 is that it essentially provides a roadmap for state income tax liability avoidance.

By allowing an employer to rely on the employee's determination of the time he or she is expected to spend working in another state during the year, the bill prevents the employer from withholding an employee's state income taxes to a non-resident state.

This would be the result even if the employer is aware that the employee has been working in a state more than 30 days, as long as that state cannot prove that the employee committed fraud in making his annual determination and that the employer knew it.

Rather than proceeding with this flawed bill, the House should be considering a fair and uniform framework to allow states to collect taxes owed on remote sales.

By staying silent since the Supreme Court's 1992 Quill decision, Congress has failed to ensure that states have the authority to collect the sales and use tax on Internet purchases.

Placing brick and mortar businesses at a competitive disadvantage hurts main street Americans and means fewer local jobs and fewer opportunities.

Lost tax revenues mean that state and local governments will have fewer resources to provide their residents essential services, such as education and police and fire protection.

We owe it to our local communities, our local retailers, and state and local governments to act this Congress.

I am disappointed that rather than moving the bipartisan eFairness legislation that our communities need, we are considering H.R. 1393 instead.

Accordingly, I oppose H.R. 1393.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Representatives Debbie Dingell and Brenda Lawrence, to recognize the outstanding service that Rev. Patrick Oliver Lindsey has provided to the Greater Bibleway Missionary Baptist Church in Detroit, Michigan, over the past 25 years.

For years, this church has been a pillar in the Detroit community, providing more than just spiritual guidance. At the helm has been stalwart lead Pastor Lindsey, who has served tirelessly to ensure the needs of his congregation are met. In June 1992, when Pastor Lindsey assumed the pastorate, he was charged with cultivating the congregation's spiritual growth and development, while overseeing the implementation of the ministry's strategic plan and directing the administration of the church's ecclesiastical and business affairs. Pastor Lindsey successfully spearheaded Phase 1 of the church's building project--a complete renovation of the existing facilities, and he founded the Rev. CJ Henderson Scholarship, which provides students with financial support in their pursuit of higher education.

Pastor Lindsey has been a tireless servant, not only to his church, but to the entire Detroit Metropolitan Community. Pastor Lindsey volunteers his time to serve in a multitude of leadership roles in community organizations such as: Vice Moderator of the Pleasant Grove Baptist District Association, Board Chair of Community-in-Schools of Metropolitan Detroit, and is a board member of the Urban League of Detroit and Southeast Michigan. He is also a member of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., and the University of Michigan Alumni Association.

Pastor Lindsey was born to Deacon John (deceased) and Ida Lindsey, and raised on the eastside of Detroit. He was educated in Detroit and Highland Park Public School systems and matriculated to the University of Michigan where he graduated in 1981 with a Bachelor's degree in Political Science. He is married to another spiritual servant, his wife Kathy, and they have two wonderful children: Kendall (a junior at University of Michigan) and Kaylyn (a sophomore at Wayne State University).

Pastor Lindsey currently serves as Vice President of Government and Community Affairs at Wayne State University. In this position, he oversees the federal and state affairs offices, which support the University's goals and strategic plan by working with key stakeholders to ensure adequate funding for the institution's more than 27,000 students enrolled in its 13 schools and colleges.

As you can see, Pastor Lindsey's reach has no bounds. His is truly, first of all, a servant of all. On Saturday, June 10, 2017, he will be honored by the Greater Bibleway Missionary Baptist Church. Today, we urge our colleagues to join us in honoring Pastor Lindsey's selfless leadership in the church and in his community over the past 25 years.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise as both the Dean of the House and as a former employer of Brian Cooper to congratulate him an his impending retirement from the House of Representatives after 35 years of service, and to thank him for his years of dedicated service to the House.

Brian is a Baltimore native and the youngest of seven children of his parents Deloris and Ellsworth Cooper. Brian loves the Charm City so much that he has lived in the same house his whole life.

He is a proud graduate of Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore (the very same high school attended by Supreme Court Justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall). After high school Brian received a scholarship to the Community College of Baltimore, now known as Baltimore City Community College, where he received his degree in commercial and graphic arts.

Brian's first Capitol Hill job began in the fall of 1982 when he began work in the stock room for Publications and Distribution Services. Thereafter, in the 1980s and early 1990s, Brian worked for the House Post Office, the House document room, the Small Business Committee and the Government Operations Committee. At Government Operations, Brian served under both Jack Brooks and myself as Chair (the latter frame 1991 through 1994). In that capacity Brian worked as staff assistant, handled filing and archiving of committee materials, and prepared documents for committee hearings and markups. I can personally testify that Brian's work was respected and appreciated by Members an both sides of the aisle.

In 1995, Brian joined the Office of the House Parliamentarian as Clerk where he spent a full 22 years, rising to become Chief Clerk to the Parliamentarian in 2009. Brian's mast visible duties included assisting presiding officers during sessions of the House and handling timekeeping and legislative paperwork at the rostrum. In addition, Brian provided invaluable assistance in creating the first office computer network, supervising House pages, and preparing for joint meetings and joint sessions. It is no understatement to say that Brian observed and participated in a great swath of American political history during that time period.

Brian remains active in many artistic endeavors--including watercolor, oils, photography, and architectural design--which I understand he plans to continue in his retirement. Brian also plans to use his well-deserved retirement to travel to Italy and spend more time with family (including his many nieces and nephews).

As a devoted Baltimore sports fan, Brian has enjoyed the highs and suffered the lows of the local teams. He is a particularly avid fan of the Baltimore Orioles, and I am sure he appreciates the good start they are off to this year.

I know from personal experience and observation that Brian is the consummate professional. Members and staff on both sides of the aisle know Brian to be committed to an orderly and accurate legislative process observed in a fair, nonpartisan manner. In this age of increasing polarization and legislative gridlock, Brian is a committed institutionalist. He is the rare individual consistently striving to continue the customs and traditions of the House, and committed to pass on his institutional knowledge to his successors.

The House and the Congress will greatly miss Brian's services, but we will greatly benefit from his work and legacy.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1973, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act, for several reasons.

Most importantly, this is a reasonable bill and is intended to help protect young athletes from abuse and preserve the sanctity of sports associated with the U.S. Olympic Committee, the organization responsible for preparing and training young athletes who might one day represent their country competitively all over the world.

Children deserve to fully enjoy the innocence of their youth--by exploring the curiosities of the world, taking pleasure in the arts, and participating in sports--free from hurt, harm, or danger.

Involvement in sports, and instruction and guidance from adult coaches, can positively influence a young person's growth and development, as well as his or her potential for future success into adulthood.

The sexual abuse of children and youth is intolerable in any text, and we must take appropriate measures to eliminate it from youth sports. Such exploitation betrays and harms young people, sometimes severely and irreparably.

Young people look to adults to protect them and keep them safe. We all have a responsibility to do so.

With H.R. 1973, we have an opportunity to ensure that individuals abide by this duty. Existing Federal law requires certain professionals, such as

doctors, dentists, social workers, psychologists, teachers, and daycare workers, who regularly interact with children, to report suspected abuse to law enforcement.

While our discussion of this legislation today may focus primarily on sexual abuse, H.R. 1973 will require adults who interact with young athletes, in connection to national governing bodies of various sports, to report suspected abuse of any kind.

The need for this legislation is best illustrated by an ongoing scandal of widespread abuse and exploitation of young gymnasts over the course of 20 years within USA Gymnastics, a prominent governing body of the U.S. Olympic Committee.

Many complaints of sexual and emotional abuse went unreported, allowing coaches, instructors, and doctors to repeatedly victimize gymnasts as young as 6 years old. The shocking failure of anyone to report accusations through law enforcement, or even keep track of complaints internally, made it possible for some of these predators to commit horrific acts at several gyms in several states.

For example, a cloud of allegations of abuse surrounded one particular physician in Michigan going back as far as 1997. Regrettably, allegations against him were not reported to law enforcement until recently. Following the first public complaint against him in 2015, more than 100 women have filed complaints accusing him of sexual abuse, and he now faces more than 20 criminal charges in both Federal and State courts.

While the USA Gymnastics scandal is unfortunate, let it be an example and incentive to prevent such pervasive abuse elsewhere.

Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to join me and my chairman in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member on the prime subcommittee on the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, let me close by saying that protecting young victims from sexual abuse is a necessary measure that will help ensure that young athletes in this country are able to pursue their athletic dreams in a safe environment and free of exploitation and abuse.

This bill imposes an affirmative duty on coaches, trainers, instructors, doctors, and the like to protect the young athletes who have been entrusted to their tutelage. This bill establishes remedies for those who might be harmed, and this bill mandates training and oversight to encourage compliance, vigilance, and protection.

I thank Chairman Goodlatte for facilitating the prompt consideration of this bill, and the Judiciary Committee. I also want to recognize the leadership of Senator Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who authored the Senate version of this bill and who has been the leading voice in Congress in demanding we address these issues.

Finally, I note that this important bipartisan legislation is supported by many advocacy groups including the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children; the National Children's Alliance; the National Center for Victims of Crime; Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network; and the United States Olympic Committee, as well as several of its national governing bodies.

For the foregoing reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1973, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the bill or the amendment.

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

I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman and point out that this amendment addresses the provisions in the bill concerning one-on-one interactions between young athletes and the adults who work with them.

The existing version of the bill requires the national governing bodies instruct coaches, instructors, doctors, and the like to avoid one-on-one situations with the young athletes that cannot be observed or interrupted by another adult. Under the proposed change, national governing bodies will be required to institute and enforce reasonable procedures designed to avoid one-on-one interactions between young athletes and their coaches, instructors, and doctors that cannot be observed or interrupted by another adult.

Mr. Goodlatte's amendment also harmonizes language used in the bill with language in the underlying statute and makes technical and conforming changes.

I support this amendment and the changes it makes to enhance H.R. 1973, and I look forward to further discussions of these provisions with the Senate, with the goal of producing a consensus bill for enactment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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