Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 1 minute p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 27, 2017, at 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to recognize the life and dedicated service of one of the Lord's most humble servants, Dr. James Durell Tuberville. He made it his life's work to help others during difficult times, and he was a beacon of light and a towering figure in the life of countless many people, including my own family. His lasting influence on our community cannot be expressed enough. I am humbled to rise and pay tribute to his life, his resolved stewardship and unwavering commitment to the people of Northwest Louisiana.

James Durell Tuberville was born on October 25, 1958, in Shreveport, Louisiana and on Sunday, August 13, 2017, he left this world to be with our Lord. After graduating from Southwood High School in Shreveport, Dr. Tuberville continued his education at Grawood Christian School and Southwestern Assemblies of God College. He majored in pastoral ministry at Southwestern University and received a master of arts in counseling from Louisiana Tech University.

He did all things for the glory of God, and brought care and compassion to multitudes. Dr. Tuberville served his early ministry as a youth pastor in Luna and Natchitoches, Louisiana. He later served as pastor of Bethel Assembly of God in Shreveport for more than II years, before becoming counselor on the pastoral staff at Shreveport Community Church, and president of Personal Solutions, Inc. He selflessly aided those suffering through some of the largest disasters of our lifetime, including the horrific earthquake in Haiti, the Oklahoma City bombing and the great tragedy on September 11, 2001.

Known and loved by all, Dr. Tuberville also served selflessly as chaplain for the Caddo Parish Sherriff's Office, Caddo Fire District 3, and as National Chaplain of the firefighters' Brother's Keepers Motorcycle Club. It is difficult to imagine our community without the larger-than-life, always encouraging presence of Dr. Tuberville. His legacy and example are an enduring lesson for all of us. We are comforted to know he has been received by the Lord with that ultimate affirmation, ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, it is a privilege to honor Dr. James Durell Tuberville and to celebrate a life exceptionally well lived. My wife, Kelly, and I extend our prayers and sincerest condolences to his wife and soulmate, Susan, and two sons, Joshua Durell and Dustin Bruce, to the entire Tuberville family and all those whose lives were changed by this giant of a man.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a member from my home state, Major General Joanne Sheridan, for her steadfast service to the safety and security of the people of Louisiana in the Louisiana National Guard. Five years ago, Major General Sheridan became the first female general in the Louisiana National Guard, and today, I would like to commend her for raising the bar again and becoming the first female Two-Star General in the Louisiana National Guard.

Originally from Maine, Major General Sheridan moved to Leesville, La., when the Army stationed her father, Command Sergeant Major Joe S. Fernald, at Fort Polk. There, she attended Leesville High School and went on to earn her Bachelor of Arts Degree in sociology at Northeast Louisiana University in Monroe, La., where she received her commission through Reserve Officer Training Corps in May 1983. Later, she received a master's degree in strategic studies from the prestigious U.S. Army War College.

A true solider to her community and country, Major General Sheridan began her impressive military career as an active duty service member in the U.S. Army in February 1984, at Fort Polk Army Base. Throughout her 33-year career, in both her active duty and National Guard service, her leadership has earned her the respect of her peers and included many major accomplishments. She became the first female to command a battalion leading the 41th Military Intelligence Battalion, Commander of the 199th Regiment Regional Training Institute, and the first female to helm a major command when she led the 61st Troop Command. Currently, she serves as the Assistant General for the Louisiana National Guard and is responsible as the principal military advisor to the Adjunct General in assisting in the deployment and coordination of programs, policies and plans for the Louisiana Army and Air National Guard.

The National Guard is unique in defending Louisiana both at home and abroad. Major General Sheridan served as a citizen soldier through Hurricane Katrina, was deployed to Baghdad in support of Operation Iraq Freedom in 2008, and led rescue and recovery efforts in the historic Louisiana flooding of 2016. She previously served as president of the National Guard Association of Louisiana and now serves as secretary of the National Guard Association of the U.S. Her dedication to the National Guard extends past what is required. Twice, Major General Sheridan has battled breast cancer and with her last round of treatment in August, has again won the battle. Her incredible strength and courage serve as a beacon of hope for others.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to honor Major General Sheridan's many accomplishments and to recognize her honorable service to the state of Louisiana and our great nation. She has set a tremendous example, and I hope her accomplishments inspire others to exemplify her excellence. My wife, Kelly, and I thank Major General Sheridan for all she does to defend our community and country, and we wish her continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 391, a bill originally introduced by Representative Chaffetz of Utah, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act being considered this evening and on my amendment No. 22 to require an Army cyber training readiness assessment.

It is vital that we adequately fund our military with the necessary training and tools they need to succeed. Our men and women in uniform deserve the greatest amount of resources we can possibly provide at all times.

If agreed to, my amendment requires the Army to review the combat training centers, or CTCs, and the resident cyber capabilities and training to make certain the needs of prerotational cyber training are fully met.

These CTCs' rotations serve as the premier events to evaluate collective training, and the rotations provide feedback to commanders on how well they have trained their units and their leaders and what they need to do to improve readiness.

Including cyber training is a commonsense step to meet the threats our Nation will face. The Army has testified before Congress that this area is falling short and additional resources are desperately needed for cyber training.

Our Armed Forces must be able to operate within highly defended environments, possibly at the leading edge of a joint force, to control the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domain. My amendment will assist us in this endeavor, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concerns with H.R. 2353, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for 21st Century Act, also referred to as the CTE Reauthorization Act. This bill reauthorizes the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins Act) to help more Americans enter the workforce with the skills necessary to compete for and succeed in high-skilled, in-demand careers. The bill also makes several other changes and funding modifications to the current program.

Louisiana highly values vocational and technical education and includes these skills in all public schools. These contributions are vital to Louisiana's Fourth Congressional District. With more than 25 schools in our district focused on careers in technical education, I am proud to represent many hardworking Louisianians who are skilled in hands-on labor. For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience support this bill knowing it could result in Louisiana losing critical funding over the next several years.

As well-intended as this legislation may be, it will not benefit all states equally. A study conducted by the Congressional Research Service examined the bill's modified formula for allocating grants under the Perkins Basic State Grants Program, and found that Louisiana will lose money in nearly every scenario it calculated. In fact, according to this analysis, Louisiana would face some of the most significant decreases among all states in each scenario examined. Decreasing our state's funding level for technical career education would be a great detriment to our efforts and exactly the opposite of what H.R. 2353 is intended to do.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern that I oppose the current CTE Reauthorization Act. I believe we can do better by the constituents in Louisiana's highly-skilled workforce. Moving forward, I will do everything in my power to work for our students and teachers of the technical education field to ensure they are not left behind and are provided the resources they need to keep our communities strong and our economy growing.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize Evalyn Ormond for 40 years of dedicated service in the health care industry of Northwest Louisiana and for 25 years as CEO of Union General Hospital.

Evalyn graduated from Ouachita High School and Northeast Louisiana University in Monroe, Louisiana. She began her health care career in 1977 at Sterlington Hospital and, with much determination and hard work, became the hospital's administrator in 1988. Just four years later, Evalyn also took on the role as CEO of Union General Hospital in Farmerville, Louisiana. She remained CEO of both facilities for seven years until Sterlington Hospital closed in 1999. The health care industry is constantly advancing with new innovative technologies. Evalyn remains an active force in bringing those innovations to Louisiana and ensuring the people within our community receive the care they need.

Evalyn currently serves on numerous health care boards and committees, devoting her energy to providing quality and stable health care. She has long been a champion for rural health care and regularly travels to Washington, D.C. to vocalize her concerns with Louisiana's elected officials. She is an active member of various organizations including the Louisiana Hospital Association, North East Louisiana Hospital Association, Rural Hospital Coalition and the National Rural Health Association.

In addition to her successful tenure as a health care administer, Evalyn remains an active leader in her community. She has earned recognition by the Union Parish Chamber of Commerce for her service and was the first female invited to join the Farmerville Lion's Club. She currently serves as the organization's president paving the way for other women looking to serve their community.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am honored to congratulate Evalyn Ormond on her many accomplishments. I applaud her service to our community. She has truly been a blessing to the health care community. We are fortunate to have individuals like Evalyn who are committed to helping others through difficult times with kindness and compassion. My wife, Kelly, and I thank her for her service and dedication to the people of Louisiana and wish her continued success.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Conyers, Ms. Jackson Lee, and all of those who have spoken in support of this bill this morning, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act.

It is exactly as it has been described. It is an important moment for us, in a bipartisan consensus that we have reached, to protect our young athletes. It has been articulated well, the purpose behind the bill, and it is a proud moment for all of us as we stand for these young athletes to defend them as they perform and use their God-given talents that make our Nation so proud.

So, without belaboring the point, Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend, again, Mrs. Brooks for introducing this important legislation, and I also urge all of my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Goodlatte, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I am happy to introduce this manager's amendment to H.R. 1973, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act. This amendment is very simple. It defines who is covered by the mandatory reporting requirement in the underlying bill. The definition harmonizes language with the underlying statute, defining this class not by location, but by simply keeping the jurisdictional reference where it belongs: in the national governing body or a member of a national governing body.

The amendment also defines the term ``event'' to include travel, practice, competition, and health or medical treatment. This definition is important as events in USA Gymnastics revealed abuse by USA Gymnastics' team doctor Larry Nassar, who molested dozens of young girls under the guise of medical treatment. Moreover, other allegations of abuse show that it sometimes took place during travel to various competitions.

The amendment also clarifies duties of national governing bodies. Under the amendment, national governing bodies must implement reasonable procedures designed to avoid one-on-one interactions between minors and adults that are not within an observable or interruptible distance.

This amendment assures that the 47 different national governing bodies can implement procedures that make sense, given the sport they cover, the reach of their influence, and the resources available to them.

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

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

Mr. Chair, in closing, I echo what has been

said already, and I appreciate the comments of my colleagues and acknowledge, again, that the manager's amendment is very simple. It simply seeks to clear up language and define these terms. It is a necessary alteration to the bill, and I encourage our colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and his support for this important legislation.

Victims should, of course, have reasonable opportunity to seek justice and face their accusers in court. This bill is a good one and fair to all parties, and I look forward to working with the gentleman to get it to the President's desk.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to this commonsense amendment, as has just been articulated.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. O'Halleran and Mr. Biggs for offering this amendment. It will help to prevent abuse at these national governing bodies and, as stated, it will encourage children to report abuse when they are able to quickly and easily access this information.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

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

I am honored today to speak in support of my legislation, the Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act, which aims to close a court- created loophole, and as the title suggests, further protect our children from predators.

When I first arrived to Congress after almost 20 years of litigating constitutional law cases and drafting legislation for municipalities to control the proliferation of sexually oriented businesses, I was deeply concerned to learn that this particular loophole even existed in current Federal law, which essentially allows a child rapist to admit to sexually abusing a child and yet still evade punishment.

The background is important to reiterate. As my chairman stated moments ago, this comes from a 2015 case, United States v. Palomino- Coronado, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the conviction of a child sex offender simply because the court determined the perpetrator lacked specific intent to record the disgusting images that were found on the offender's smartphone. This is despite the fact that the defendant admitted to sexually abusing the 7- year-old child from next door and memorializing the conduct.

In its opinion, the court decided the lack of purpose or specific intent was enough to overturn the conviction, even though the defendant himself took the photo of the heinous act and subsequently admitted to sexually abusing this child. This is absolutely in clear contradiction of our responsibility and this Congress' intention to protect America's children.

In Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as ``God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.'' I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless.

My legislation presents a simple fix and updates title 18 of the U.S. Code to ensure future defendants are not able to circumvent the law by simply claiming a lack of intent, especially after knowingly creating a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually conduct.

More specifically, my legislation amends section 2251 of title 18 to prohibit the production and transmission of a visual depiction of a real minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Furthermore, it amends current law to include prohibiting the depiction of a minor assisting any person in engaging in a sexually explicit act.

Lastly, to clarify potential circumstances of misinterpretation of the statute and to ensure the statute is not used erroneously to prosecute internet services providers when they have not engaged in wrongdoing, my legislation emphasizes that to be criminally liable under section (a)(3), an internet service provider must have actual knowledge that the child pornography is on its server and that it must intentionally transmit that image or intentionally cause its transmission.

We also take the step of prohibiting any criminal or civil liability for internet service providers who are required to transmit child pornography to law enforcement in response to a legal process, such as a search warrant in child exploitation cases. Of course, we would never anticipate a prosecution of an internet service provider for merely responding to a legal process, but it is my hope that explicitly providing for this immunity in the statute will further enhance the relationship between internet service providers and law enforcement to work together to combat these predators.

In answer to the opposition that we have heard here, it is important to reiterate this legislation does not create new mandatory minimums. However, I would like to address the comments regarding the current law on mandatory minimum penalties under the production of child pornography statute.

There is simply no evidence that Federal prosecutors are abusing this statute. I think we should all recognize that producing child pornography is a horrific crime. It often means luring young children into acts that no one, man, woman, or child, should be forced to do.

It is not a photograph of a nude child. It is something far worse. Each photo is a crime scene. Such a horrific act by the perpetrator requires the maximum amount of legal deterrents.

While mandatory minimums have reached much scrutiny in the drug statutes, in this venue for this statute, there could be no doubt that the penalties that exist under current law are appropriate. Child sexual exploitation is vastly underreported. The number of images of child pornography keeps growing and the images are becoming more and more depraved. The harm is too great to these victims not to have significant penalties available to deter this conduct and punish the producers of child pornography.

Every time an image of child pornography is viewed, the victim gets revictimized. Once an image is on the internet, it is irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever. This permanent record of a child's sexual abuse can alter his or her life forever. Many victims of child pornography suffer from feelings of helplessness, fear, humiliation, and lack of control, given that their images are available for others to view in perpetuity.

These images are becoming more sadistic and violent, and the age of the average victim is becoming younger and younger. It is a horrifying fact that it is not uncommon for even toddlers and infants to now be subjects of these images.

It is also important that there is no confusion about one fact: The very creation of these images is repulsive, regardless of whether or not the abuse was done with a specific intent of creating an image or if the intent to memorialize this conduct was a secondary thought.

Consider the facts of the case that led to this bill. As was mentioned, an adult male had sexual relations with a 7-year-old girl who lived next door and decided to photograph it. That is the production of child pornography. There is no question about it. No one should be permitted to escape responsibility merely by asserting they did not have a specific intent to create the image before they abused the child. The act of taking a photo or making a video is enough to demonstrate intent.

Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill does. It is appropriate that we are doing all this on the day that we recognize as National Missing Children's

Day. I am going to urge all my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just say a couple of important points in rebuttal to what we have heard.

For one thing, there has been no evidence that the cases referenced by the gentlewoman involving conduct between minors are being prosecuted at the Federal level. I have not seen even one that has been cited. The point here is that prosecutorial discretion has been a sufficient buffer.

In committee, our colleagues on the other side have invoked stories of juvenile offenders being charged for consensual conduct and placed on sex offender registries unjustly; however, these are all cases that were prosecuted at the local level. Not one that has been mentioned has been a Federal case.

It is important to note that, for offenders under 18, the Federal Department of Justice policy on charging juveniles means that juvenile prosecutions very rarely occur, and only if no State court can assume jurisdiction. In fact, certification from the Attorney General himself is necessary to proceed against a juvenile.

Again, I know of no such case in which a juvenile has been prosecuted federally under any child pornography statute. So while we appreciate and understand the concerns about mandatory minimum sentencing and its abuse, particularly with the drug statutes, again, it is important to reiterate here, that is not the case with child pornography.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would oppose these arguments and trust that my colleagues will see the wisdom in supporting this very important and timely legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, the concerns stated today are misplaced. The child pornography statutes have never been the subject of abuse by Federal prosecutors, and there is no evidence that that would happen in the future. However, the abuse that is being allowed and that we must address today is that of our children, and that abuse is being allowed because of a loophole that was, sadly, created by a Federal court.

Today we have an opportunity to correct that wrong. We have an opportunity to do what we all acknowledge to be the right thing: to defend the most defenseless among us. It is, indeed, an honor for us to take this action on the week that commemorates National Missing Children's Week and here, even, on this day, National Missing Children's Day.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act. We hope that everyone will do the right thing here today.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, it is not only unnecessary, but it is fashioned in such a manner which may potentially create the type of loophole that we are looking to close.

Under current law, so-called Romeo and Juliet cases, such as those between 19- and 50-year-olds, could be prosecuted under any of the child pornography laws--possession, production, or distribution. That has always been the case.

However, I reiterate that we know of no such instance that has been brought under any of these Federal provisions under the circumstances covered by this amendment, which further supports the fact that Federal prosecutors do not appear to be bringing such cases. There is just simply no evidence that has been produced to suggest otherwise. For that reason, the amendment is completely unnecessary, and it is based upon no evidence at all.

On the contrary, the underlying bill is based upon a real case where a real 7-year-old girl was sexually abused and photographed by a real sexual predator.

Our colleagues on the other side have also continually referred to Attorney General Sessions' recent charging memoranda which suggests that under the policy in his memo prosecutors will suddenly be forced to aggressively prosecute 19-year-olds who are engaging in consensual sexual conduct under this statute. But that notion is preposterous and is also based on no evidence.

As an initial matter, the minority completely ignores the fact that a prosecutor makes an initial determination as to whether to commence or decline prosecution. And this is distinct from the subsequent decision of what charges should be brought, which would only occur if the decision to prosecute is made in the first place.

According to the U.S. attorneys' manual, in making the initial determination to commence a prosecution, a prosecutor must consider whether ``a substantial Federal interest would be served by the prosecution,'' and whether, ``in his or her judgment: One, the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or, two, there exists an adequate noncriminal alternative to prosecution.''

The Sessions memo doesn't change any of that, and it is absurd to think that the memo will cause the Department of Justice to suddenly shift its prosecutions to aggressively go after Romeo and Juliet cases. This is especially ridiculous, as Attorney General Sessions had made clear from the outset, that the priorities of DOJ and this administration are to prosecute violent crimes and violent offenders.

I think that the minority just fundamentally misunderstands and mischaracterizes not only the Sessions memo but this legislation. For that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the Jackson Lee amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my colleagues on the other side, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand her amendment is heartfelt and has the proper motive and attention.

I would just suggest, again, that the risk of this amendment outweighs any potential benefit because it creates the kind of loopholes that we are trying here desperately to prevent.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just briefly remind my colleague on the other side that this does not establish the death penalty for an attempted murder, as was just stated. There must be an underlying capital crime for which the defendant is convicted. That is what this bill does, and nothing more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I would just rise, once again, to correct my colleague. It is an aggravating factor that is to be considered by a jury as one of many factors postconviction.

So what you are saying is not 100 percent accurate. We can engage in semantics, but we will agree to disagree on that point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to correct my colleague. I guess we can do this all day, but I do actually have a copy of the criminal code in front of me, and I would refer him to 18 U.S.C. section 3591(b)(2), where it lists very specifically and expressly that attempts to kill are listed in the sentence of death.

I refer you to that provision, and it is not mandatory. The jury can determine whether the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, or in the absence of any mitigating factors, whether the aggravating factors alone justify a death sentence.

So I feel that we are engaging in an exercise of semantics, but it is important that we don't misportray what this bill would accomplish and what it would do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

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

There are two important very brief points for correction. I respect the gentlewoman from Texas, but she just suggested to us that this would be a duplicative law; thus, unnecessary because, as she cited the Federal criminal code, she says that law enforcement officers are already covered by the law.

However, I would refer her attention to 18 U.S.C. Section 3592(c)(14), and then subsection (d), where it clearly says in a capital letter, ``a Federal law enforcement officer.''

So it is important to note that the existing Federal law does not cover State and local officers, which this bill would and, thereby, is one of the things that necessitates this action.

Also, I want to point out, respectfully, that that same criminal code--just one-page later in section 3593, also in title 18, subsection (f)--says: ``Special Precaution to Ensure Against Discrimination.''

We know that Federal law already provides that a jury must specifically find that a defendant's race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or that of the victim, is not a factor in their decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to speak on the floor today not only in support of H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, but also in honor of all of our brave men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to keep our communities safe.

I am the son of a first responder myself. My father was critically injured and permanently disabled in the line of duty. I know these sacrifices very well.

This country owes our law enforcement officers an extraordinary debt of gratitude for the many services they provide. Our Nation simply would not be what it is today were it not for the sacrifices of all those who take the oath to protect and to serve us.

The Thin Blue Line Act is simple: It seeks to expand on certain penalties to also include the murder or targeting of a State or local law enforcement officer.

Virtually every American--anyone of good conscience--is shocked and disgusted by the recent trend of our local law enforcement heroes being targeted for violent acts.

I am sad to report that, in my home State of Louisiana, we have been named the most dangerous State in America for law enforcement officers. It is shocking. It is true. It saddens all of us. The Thin Blue Line Act is a commonsense response to this epidemic that we are seeing across the culture.

We thank and we stand with our first responders back home in Louisiana and all across our Nation. Those dedicated public servants never question and never hesitate in the face of danger. As many people have analogized this, we consider them our sheepdogs. They protect our communities from the wolves of our society who prey upon the innocent.

To honor those sacrifices, I am proud, today, to support this legislation on the House floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many arguments from the other side of the aisle in opposition to this legislation. Of course, they began by saying how much they support the men and women of law enforcement. But let's consider these arguments and decide for ourselves in closing here.

First, we heard that the legislation is duplicative. It is not. In fact, it closes a loophole that currently exists in Federal law. There is currently no provision in our Federal law stating that the killing of a State or local law enforcement officer shall be an aggravating factor for capital punishment.

Next, we heard that this legislation is unnecessary. It is not, unless you believe that State and local law enforcement officers are not somehow entitled to the same legal protections currently enjoyed by Federal officers. That is what this legislation would correct.

A third argument we heard is that this is a messaging bill. It is clearly not that. Though it may be true that this provision would apply in a limited number of cases because the vast majority of capital cases are prosecuted at the State level, this bill inserts a provision in Federal law that will be vitally important in the cases where it would be applicable, such as in the Boston bombing.

On that point, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have noted that Federal law already contains provisions to ensure criminals who carry out heinous acts such as the Boston terrorism attacks are dealt with appropriately. That is, of course, true, but saying that ignores the suffering of families of fallen police officers who have lost their lives rushing to aid after such an attack.

It also ignores the sacrifice of law enforcement officers themselves, for example. Officer Sean Collier of the MIT Police Department is one example. He was murdered by the Tsarnaev brothers during their flight following their horrific act.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, what these arguments reveal is simply that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this bill because it amends a Federal death penalty statute.

We would point out, in response to the letter that was just entered into the Record, that we have received support letters that are already in the Record from numerous law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association of the NYPD, among many, many others across the country who believe that this is an appropriate step for us to take today.

In light of all that, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the arguments of the other side, to support the men and women who comprise the thin blue line between order and chaos in our society, and to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 20, I attended a meeting at the White House to discuss important issues and policy to my home state with President Donald Trump.

Because of this meeting I missed Roll Call vote 236 on H.J. Res. 99-- Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2017, and for other purposes.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on passage.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 236.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, particularly for not recounting the events of that game. But we are here, Mr. Speaker, to talk about a very important issue to our country and to all of us.

Prior to my election to Congress last December, for nearly 20 years, I practiced primarily in the arena of constitutional law. I had the great privilege of litigating often high-profile cases around the country, defending religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and traditional American values.

I deeply revere our matchless Constitution, and I fought to defend its application according to its plain language and its original intent. I believe our Founding Fathers were divinely inspired to draft our extraordinary founding documents just as they did and to establish for us the framework of a free Republic. It has been the model for, and the envy of, the other nations of the world since its creation.

America is different. America is exceptional. And we are, as the Gipper used to say, ``the shining city upon a hill,'' citing scripture, and ``the last, best hope of man on the Earth.''

For all their merits, however, even the original provisions of the Constitution are sometimes appropriate for modification by the people. The Founders understood this. They recognized that, in spite of their great wisdom, they could not foresee every future contingency and change in our society and our government. So they provided us an orderly process to amend our great Constitution.

I am one who believes the time has come to end a term limits provision, precisely because the form and function of so many aspects of our Federal Government have evolved today into something the Founders could never have imagined two centuries ago.

First, I believe the Founders assumed, I think they assumed that there would be a regular turnover of Federal officeholders. Why do we say that? Well, one of our seminal and foundational principles is the limitation and the separation of powers. It is one of the things that makes us unique in the way that we have set up our government.

The Founders incorporated terms of service and staggered service in the U.S. Senate. Of course, they could have instituted term limits back then, but I think they believed that it was unnecessary.

Look at the statistics of the Founders' era. The rate of reelection and return to Congress back then was roughly 50 percent. You just heard my learned colleague from Nebraska report to you here that the last election cycle, it is much, much higher. Now, in America, the rate of reelection and return to Congress is 97 percent. That is not something I think that the Founders would have ever imagined.

Today, we also have fewer and fewer marginal districts. Incumbents often win by landslides because they have such huge advantages in terms of growing financial support, modern media exposure, and constituent service operations.

Another modern phenomena is that studies show Members tend to support more and more government spending the longer they serve in Congress, and this is true across the political spectrum. That has created a real problem, because the Federal Government has grown so very large now as a result of all that spending. Its scope and power is just simply exponentially greater now than it was in the Founders' era.

At the same time, accountability has gradually decreased over the years as the growing bureaucracy has developed into a sort of fourth branch of government. Over the past several decades, a growing class of nameless, faceless bureaucrats have been allowed to absorb and handle more and more of the authority and to handle more and more of the contentious and most consequential issues that face our Nation.

The problem is the bureaucrats never have to face or answer to the voters. Many who have served in Congress for many decades have become part of what we now refer to as America's professional political class. Those Members have gradually become more detached, and some have fully lost touch with the real concerns of the citizens they represent.

Due to the busy schedule here, Members of Congress now spend far more time in the beltway than they did in the founding era for certain. And one has to strive much harder now to be at home as often as necessary to keep in touch with the folks that all of us represent.

For many, when they are here a long time, their ideals tend to grow old with time, their energy often wanes, and ideas naturally get stale. There is much to be said for fresh faces.

In my home State of Louisiana, we instituted term limits in our State legislature several years ago. I had the honor of serving there for a short time before I came to Congress. And I can testify today, from my own experience, that the turnover process in the Louisiana legislature has been a very healthy thing for our State. There are new faces, new ideas, and new approaches to problems that have beset our State for generations.

As in a State legislature, a term limited Member of Congress would be more willing to do a number of things, including act quickly to fix problems, rather than merely manage them or delegate broad powers to the executive branch and the bureaucracy. They would be more willing to question bureaucracies and the old-established programs. And I think they would naturally enjoy greater independence. Logic simply tells us that term limits would also allow for a greater diversity of people, ideas, and backgrounds in Congress, naturally evolving this legislative body into one that more closely reflects the people and the actual demographics of our Nation, as I think the Congress did in the Founders' era.

Today, there is a real bipartisan disappointment about Congress and its dysfunction. Thankfully, our new President has taken determined steps toward addressing this issue. Some of these actions have already greatly upset Washington and the politically established. But these changes are important because the transparent and accessible government is the very basis of a democracy.

This is why I have made this one of my top priorities while in Congress. I congratulate all of my colleagues who joined me in that resolve. I truly believe the future of our government and how it is run depends upon how we handle important issues like this.

We need to look no further than our last Presidential election to see how out of touch the people believe that Washington can be. Polls say that between 75 and 80 percent of the American people right now support term limits for Congress, and I also believe that it is the right move for our Nation. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I think we have reached that point.

Let's give the people a chance to decide this important matter. Let's go through the constitutional amendment process. Let's put it to a vote of the elected representatives of the people. And let us return to the ideals of accountability, selfless public service, and the model of the citizen legislator.

I will continue to push for reforms in our government and combat corruption and D.C. cronyism as long as I am here. Our Founders intended our government was to be one of the people, by the people, and for the people, as Lincoln famously said. Imposing congressional term limits will help restore that foundational principle, and it will send a strong message to our children and future generations that America is still a country that puts national interests above personal agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this to the floor tonight.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to commend the achievements of Lieutenant Colonel Steve ``Thirsty'' Smith for making United States Air Force history on March 3, 2017 by being the only currently serving member of the United States Air Force to reach 10,000 flying hours in a B-52 heavy bomber, officially labeled a B-52 Stratofortress, and contributing to the backbone of the manned strategic bomber force for the United States.

Lt. Colonel Smith joined the United States Air Force after graduating from the ROTC program at the University of Mississippi. He continued on to graduate navigation school at Mather Air Force Base in 1985 where he earned his wings and received his first assignment for the B-52.

As a navigator with the 93rd Bomb Squadron belonging to the 917th Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, Lt. Colonel Smith has distinguished himself as one of our nation's most experienced navigators. He spent seven years on active duty before becoming a reservist for over 20 years. He has flown 10,000 B-52 hours and 1,819 B-52 sorties including 496 combat hours and 42 combat sorties over the span of four different wars; Operations Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and Inherent Resolve. He was awarded the Air Medal in 1991 and the Aerial Achievement Medal in 2002 and 2004.

His expertise with the B-52 played an instrumental role in modernizing the aircraft with a targeting pod that provides greater accuracy leading to more successful missions. Additionally, he has been an inspiration to many young navigators as a flight instructor, teaching over 180 young weapons systems officers at Barksdale Air Force Base in the same aircraft.

Dating back to World War I, the 93rd Bomb Squadron has repeatedly distinguished itself in its contributions to the security of the United States during deployments around the world. This distinction has continued today with global demonstrations of strategic attack capabilities.

Lt. Colonel Smith is greatly regarded throughout the Air Force and Louisiana communities and is known as a humble man who has selflessly given back to the country he loves so dearly. He has earned widespread respect for his continued commitment to serve in defense of our great nation.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, it is my pleasure to join a grateful community in saluting his outstanding achievements. My wife Kelly and I thank Lt. Colonel Smith for his dedicated services and wish him all the best for continued success in what is an already remarkable career.