Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Congressman Dave Brat to the people's House and to the Virginia delegation. Our congressional delegation has a long history of working together. Our former longtime dean, Senator John Warner, set the standard for working together in a constructive manner.

While we may not always agree on every issue, we will always try to work together for what is best for Virginia and our Nation. It is the Virginia way.

Dave will be replacing Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and at the end of this Congress, our delegation will also lose two of its more senior Members, Frank Wolf and Jim Moran.

With their departure, our delegation's clout may wane a bit, but I know it will be reinvigorated by new Members like Congressman Brat, committed to working together for our Commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, Dave comes to Congress after a career as an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College. He has been appointed to State boards and commissions by several Virginia Governors, including the Joint Advisory Board of Economists. I know he will put these experiences to good use.

I welcome Dave and his family to Congress, and I look forward to working with him on issues critical to the Richmond region and the entire Commonwealth of Virginia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to pass S. 1086, as amended. This bill represents a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant, or CCDBG, which is the largest funding source for child care programs. It has been almost 20 years since this CCDBG was reauthorized, and working families and young children should not have to wait any longer.

This block grant provides Federal resources to States to help low- income families pay for child care while a parent works or is in an educational or job training program. This program supports self- sufficiency and promotes workforce stability.

Just as important, this funding offers children vital early learning experiences that set them on a path toward success in school, in the workforce, and the rest of their lives. However, the current law, besides being outdated, has some limitations in ensuring low-income children access to this important program.

For example, the law currently has very few specific requirements on the quality of child care, and States have significant latitude to set quality standards. This results in a great deal of low-quality child care being funded. Recent research has found that about only one-third of child care programs funded by the block grant is actually of good quality.

Access is another concern. Only one in six children eligible for the program is actually enrolled.

This reauthorization seeks to address these problems by improving child care access, making critical new investments, and helping to ensure that children are safe and receive quality care.

For example, this bill increases the number of funds that States must spend on activities to improve the quality of child care, including care for infants and toddlers. It also requires States to conduct a statewide assessment of their needs for quality improvement and to align their quality initiatives with the results of that assessment.

The bill provides States with nearly a dozen proven initiatives that they can deploy to improve quality, ranging from training and professional development to quality rating systems and health and nutrition policies.

The bill also adds State requirements on training and professional development for child care providers, for child-to-staff ratios, annual inspections for providers that receive Federal assistance, coordination with other federally funded early childhood programs, the development and maintenance of early learning and development guidelines, and background checks to keep violent and sexual offenders away from our Nation's children.

This bill expands the requirements for health and safety, and consumer education, including funding for a toll free hotline and a Web site to report suspected child abuse or safety violations.

This legislation also improves access to care by expanding the eligibility of participating families to at least a year, regardless of changes in their income or work schedules or training or educational status. It prioritizes services for families with the lowest incomes. It eases enrollment requirements for homeless children. It helps families connect with quality programs and reduces expulsions from early childhood learning programs by training providers about positive behavior supports and interventions with young children. Finally, it enhances the transparency of the cost of care.

This important legislative update to the CCDBG is long overdue. Improvements made by this legislation are critical for millions of children and their families, and for the future of our Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

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

Before we close, I want to thank my colleagues in both the House and the Senate for their hard work on this legislation. In the Senate, I am particularly grateful to Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, Senator Mikulski, Senator Burr, and their staffs.

I want to thank Ranking Member Miller and our committee staff members who have helped to steer the passage of this bill, particularly Scott Groginski, Jamie Fasteau, John Hammond, and Brian Levin.

I would like to thank Chairman Kline and his staff members who worked hard on this bill, including Cristin Kumar, Mandy Shaumburg, and Kathlyn Ehl.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, Congressman Danny Davis, for his strong efforts to reduce early childhood expulsions, and the many advocates and stakeholders who weighed in on the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I enter for the Record additional letters of support.

Results for America,

September 15, 2014.

Results for America Statement on CCDBG Reauthorization

RFA's Michele Jolin Hails Effort to Set Aside Funds for Research and Evaluation, Bipartisan Support for Using Data, Evidence and Evaluation

to Improve Outcomes

Washington.--Today, following the passage of the Child Care

and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act in the House of

Representatives, Results for America managing partner Michele

Jolin issued the following statement. Jolin praised a

provision in the legislation that would set aside .5% of

funds for evaluating programs to improve the access to,

quality, and safety of childcare services, calling it a

``Moneyball'' approach to government that improves outcomes

for young people, their families, and communities.

Results for America applauds the passage of the Child Care

and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act by the House,

following the passage of a similar bill in the Senate earlier

this year. The inclusion of dedicated funds for research and

evaluation will provide vital information for improving the

effectiveness of childcare. The strong bipartisan support for

this bill shows that lawmakers across the aisle support

leveraging less than a penny on the dollar to improve how the

rest of the dollar is spent.

``Congress and the Administration are increasingly using

data, evidence and evaluation to improve the lives of

children, their families and communities, what we call a

Moneyball approach to government. Today's reauthorization of

CCDB shows that investing in what works is clearly a

bipartisan way to address long-term challenges and is another

positive step toward improving outcomes,'' said Michele

Jolin, Managing Partner, Results for America.

Finally, I would like to thank all of the Members of the House Education and the Workforce Committee and their staffs for their continued commitment to the well-being of American families.

Mr. Speaker, both Chambers and both parties have come together on a bipartisan basis to improve the Child Care and Development Block Grant. This bill is a strong example of what Congress can achieve by working together. The critical updates in the program will give American families the more support that they need and will better prepare our children for the future.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 105, which proclaims Bernardo de Galvez to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously and recognizes his contribution in aiding the American colonists in the fight for independence against the British.

Although he was born in Spain, General Galvez led masterful military campaigns against the British and played a crucial role in securing land and seaports on behalf of the American colonists. He additionally helped negotiate the terms of the treaty that ended the American Revolution and secured America's independence from British rule.

This is only the eighth time that Congress has bestowed posthumous citizenship, most recently in 2009, when we honored Casimir Pulaski, a Polish military officer who, like General Galvez, fought alongside American

colonists during the Revolutionary War.

This honor is reserved for only the most highly-deserving individuals, but it should be noted that it is purely symbolic and does not have any substantive effect on the immigration status of surviving family members.

In closing, General Galvez played an important role in the American Revolution, and he was recognized for his efforts by George Washington. The time has come for Congress to now recognize him by granting him posthumous citizenship.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of the passage of S. 1799, the Victims of Child Abuse Act Reauthorization Act of 2013.

This bill passed the Senate last month and provides important services and funding to protect and heal the most vulnerable of all crime victims: our children.

During their participation in the Federal criminal justice system, it will provide and improve the resources available to assist children who are victims of crime. Child victims will be supported through this often lengthy and difficult process by designated victims' coordinators, specialists, and advocates. Surplus funds in the Crime Victims Fund will be used for a Victim Notification System, which preserves and protects the rights of those victims to be involved at important steps during the criminal justice process. In addition to these services and programs, the bill also authorizes appropriations for the children's advocacy program, the development and implementation of multidisciplinary child abuse investigation and prosecution programs, and grants to provide training and technical assistance to attorneys and others who are instrumental during the criminal prosecution of child abuse cases in State and Federal courts.

In these fiscally lean times, it is important to note that the bill authorizes the inspector general of the Department of Justice to audit grant recipients to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. This will also ensure that all of the funds are used to protect our most vulnerable people in the process: crime victims.

In closing, as we have repeatedly recognized, children are the most vulnerable in our society and warrant unique treatment. As a country and as a people, we have a constitutional, statutory, and moral obligation to provide them with the protection, resources, and support they need even under the best circumstances. Our responsibilities and moral imperative to act are at the apex when these children are victimized and are at our mercy. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

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

Mr. Speaker, Friday, July 25th, marks the 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation, which was established by Congress in 1974, with bipartisan support, including that of President Richard Nixon. LSC is a private, nonprofit corporation, funded by Congress. Its mission is to ensure equal access to justice under the law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. LSC funds 134 local legal aid programs, with nearly 800 offices serving every state and U.S. territory.

I have long been a supporter of legal assistance for low income Americans and of the LSC dating back to the 1970s, when I led the effort to establish the LSC funded Virginia Peninsula Legal Aid Center, Inc. So I know from first-hand experience that LSC-funded legal aid programs make a critical difference to low income Americans by assisting with their most basic civil legal needs.

Many Americans are helped by this organization. Three out of four legal aid clients are women, and legal aid programs often identify domestic violence as one of their top priorities. LSC funded attorneys help women seeking protection from abuse, mothers trying to obtain child support, families facing unlawful evictions or foreclosures that could leave them homeless, veterans seeking duly earned benefits, seniors impacted by consumer scams, individuals who have lost their jobs and need help in applying for unemployment compensation and other benefits, and parents seeking to obtain and keep custody of their children.

Today, 63.5 million Americans are eligible for LSC services, which is the highest number in LSC history. Unfortunately, LSC grantees are forced to turn away more than 50 percent of eligible clients who seek their assistance because of lack of adequate funding. With the growing number of Americans eligible for services and increased demand for legal services, the need for legal aid attorneys has never been greater.

Mr. Speaker, on this 40th anniversary, I salute the Legal Services Corporation and LSC-funded attorneys for the vital work they do every day on behalf of millions of Americans who need qualified, competent legal counsel. Every day that a legal aid attorney protects the safety, security, health, and economic well being of our most vulnerable citizens, they bring this nation closer to living up to its commitment to equal justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4983, the Strengthening Transparency in Higher Education Act. It is critical that prospective students have access to information on institutions that they may be interested in attending, and the bill before us would provide the platform for these students to gather this information.

This information is essential to ensuring that students will be able to make an informed decision on which institution to attend.

While providing students with additional information on institutions of higher learning is important, none of the bills before us actually will do anything to actually ensure that every student is given every chance possible of receiving an education past high school level.

Studies have consistently shown the value of higher education, and have also shown that two-thirds of the jobs in the future will require some sort of education past the high school level.

Unfortunately, many students today find higher education unaffordable and out of reach due to the increasing cost of attending college and high student loan interest rates. Currently, the Federal Government makes a significant profit on student loans, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that the Federal Government will profit $135 billion over the next 10 years off of student loans.

We must continue to ensure that college remains affordable and accessible to all that seek it, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee towards that goal.

On the bill before us today, however, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4983, the Strengthening Transparency in Higher Education Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5076, the Enhancing Services for Runaway and Homeless Victims of Youth Trafficking Act of 2014. I am honored to have joined my colleagues, Mr. Heck and Mr. Kline, and appreciate their leadership on this important issue.

Our bill makes an important change in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act so that victims of trafficking can be better served. We know that trafficking and youth homelessness often affect similar populations. Young people that have run away or are homeless are particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and trafficking, and programs targeted towards runaway and homeless youth should be simultaneously equipped to support victims of trafficking when there is such an overlap.

Research consistently confirms the correlation between running away and becoming exploited through prostitution. For example, according to a 2006 FBI Uniform Crime Report, girls who run away from their homes, group homes, foster homes, or treatment centers are at high risk of being targeted by a trafficker and becoming exploited.

Street Outreach Programs were created to provide services to ``runaway, homeless, and street youth who have been subjected to or are at risk of being subjected to sexual abuse.'' Every year, 25,000 of these young people find shelter as a result of these programs.

The legislation being considered today ensures that Street Outreach Programs can rely on funding already available through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.

This allows the Department of Health and Human Services to provide street-based services such as individual assessments, treatment, counseling, or access to emergency shelter for runaway and homeless youth who are also victims of trafficking. Because of the overlap that often occurs with homelessness and trafficking, this just makes good sense.

Additionally, it is important that we provide the necessary resources to States, organizations, and other entities to train staff working with these victims. This additional training, authorized by this bill under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act research grants, will allow service providers to successfully address and respond to the behavioral and emotional effects of abuse and assault.

Our bill ensures that staff training will also include ways to recognize and respond to the unique needs and circumstances of trafficking victims. This is a simple change but an important one necessary to improve services available.

It is my hope that we can continue to work in this spirit of bipartisanship and work together to improve and strengthen programs that support our Nation's children, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5135, the Human Trafficking Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Act of 2014. This bill is vital to identifying best practices and effective strategies to deter individuals from committing trafficking offenses and to prevent children from becoming victims, and it, therefore, enjoys bipartisan support in the House.

This bill will encourage Federal, State, and local governments to work together as an Interagency Task Force to investigate and enforce the existing laws. This task force will emphasize prosecution of the purchasers of sex with children as child rapists. These purchasers are usually referred to as ``johns'' who pay for sex with children, but insofar as children cannot consent to sex, the johns are legally committing rape and should be prosecuted as rapists.

The bill encourages law enforcement coordination with intergovernment organizations and academics who will put into practice what research and data demonstrate will work to prevent these crimes.

The GAO will submit a report on how the Federal grant programs' funds have been used to combat human trafficking or to assist victims of trafficking. An Interagency Task Force will submit a report to Congress on its findings.

The bill will also provide housing to protect and assist children in recovering victims of trafficking. To date, the number of victims, especially child victims, greatly exceeds the number of available shelter beds.

Without a safe place to stay, many rescued victims will end up running away and returning to their abusers due to the unique trauma bond that occurs in these cases.

Along those lines, we must do more to rescue child victims and expand the services they need. Our country has a moral imperative to protect and help these children who are vulnerable, warrant special protection, and need these services, even in the best of circumstances.

This vulnerability is compounded amongst children who have been victims of sexual exploitation, physical violence, trauma, and extreme poverty. With our protection, support, and assistance, we can help them survive.

I commend my colleague from Virginia, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for working to bring the bill to the floor, and I commend our colleague from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem) for introducing the legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in prosecuting those who rape children, protecting and rescuing child victims, and providing the victims with the support that they need.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. As our Nation continues to recover from the Great Recession, we must continue to prepare our Nation's workers for the jobs of the future.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act will make long-needed improvements in workforce investment programs and services, including many that will benefit those who are often left behind. The legislation contains an enhanced definition of ``individuals with barriers to employment'' that explicitly includes workers over the age of 55 as well as the long-term unemployed. This means State and local workforce plans must include goals and strategies for serving these and other disenfranchised groups.

Additionally, the bill requires that 75 percent of youth funding in the bill support out-of-school youth. Once a juvenile falls off of the right track, he or she will face a range of problems that taxpayers will be on the hook for, especially social services and possibly incarceration. By investing in out-of-school youth, we are investing money on the front end so we won't have to end up paying the bill on the back end.

This bill represents a good faith compromise, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Raymond H. Boone, Sr., who passed away on June 3, 2014. Ray devoted his entire life to fighting for justice and equality, becoming one of the most trusted voices in news in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Born in Suffolk, Virginia, Ray earned a bachelor's degree in journalism from Boston University and a master's degree in political science from Howard University. Ray's first foray into the newspaper business was as a reporter for the Quincy, Massachusetts Patriot-Ledger and later he worked for the Suffolk, Virginia News-Herald. He also worked as a reporter for the Norfolk, Virginia Journal and Guide. He eventually made his way to Richmond, where he became the editor of the Richmond Afro-American Planet, a position he held for 15 years.

Ray temporarily left Richmond to be the editor and vice president of the Baltimore-based Afro-American Newspaper Group. He also served as a correspondent for the National Newspaper Association where he reported from Germany, Finland, the former Soviet Union, Israel and Cuba. And for nine years, he was an associate professor of journalism at Howard University in Washington, DC.

In 1992, after returning to Richmond, Ray founded the Richmond Free Press, a progressive weekly newspaper that gave a voice to Richmond's voiceless. Under Ray's leadership as editor and publisher, the Free Press quickly emerged as an honored newspaper in the Richmond region. The Free Press has become a critical source of news and information for the Richmond community, often covering issues and stories left unnoticed by larger media organizations.

For his reporting and writing, Ray received the Oliver W. Hill Freedom Fighter Award, the DaimlerChrysler Entrepreneurial Award, a first-place Virginia Press Association editorial writing award, the International Toastmasters' Leadership Award, and the A. Philip Randolph Messenger Award. The Free Press also won eight national awards for journalist excellence from the National Newspaper Publishers Association.

Throughout his life and career, Ray received numerous other awards, including the Dominion Resources Strong Men and Women Excellence in Leadership Award, the Metropolitan Business League Entrepreneur of the Year Award, the National Conference for Community and Justice Humanitarian of the Year Award, and the United Negro College Fund Flame Bearer for Education Award. He was also honored by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg, Florida for his ``outstanding teaching in journalism.''

Ray will be missed, not only by family and friends, but also by the many people who enjoyed his analysis on the day's news. As a reporter, correspondent, editor, newspaper executive and publisher, Ray always had a unique perspective and a thoughtful approach to disseminating the news to the African-American community and the public at large. A fixture in the Virginia Press Corps for decades, Ray was recognized numerous times, not only for his contributions to the community and the media, but also for excellence with his craft. His legacy lives on in the award-winning and influential paper he leaves behind, the Richmond Free Press. His legacy can also be found in the thriving African- American media landscape which blossomed as a result of his contributions and hard work.

On a personal note, I will always cherish Ray's friendship. Ray was a newsman first and he never allowed our friendship to prevent him from covering me in an objective manner. I will always cherish our many interviews and editorial board meetings and I will miss talking politics and policy with him. Most importantly, I will miss his thoughtful approach to presenting the news. The Virginia Press Corps and the Commonwealth of Virginia have lost a powerful and unwavering voice.

Mr. Speaker, Raymond H. Boone, Sr. will be sorely missed by his family and friends, and by the countless people he gave a voice to through his writing and reporting. My thoughts and prayers are with Ray's wife, Jean, their children, Regina and Raymond Jr., and the staff and many devoted readers of the Richmond Free Press.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I join the author of the bill, the gentleman from Wisconsin and chair of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Mr. Sensenbrenner; my colleague from Virginia, the chair of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte; the gentleman from Michigan and ranking member, Mr. Conyers; Mr. Nadler; and my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for proposing this amended version of the USA FREEDOM Act. I commend my colleagues for working together to develop a bipartisan approach to addressing some of the shortcomings in our foreign intelligence surveillance statutes.

As recent revelations about the way that some of these statutes have been used have come to light, members of the Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the statutes, studied the issues, proposed solutions, and worked together to find a way forward. We have also worked with our colleagues from the Intelligence Committee to find common ground in order to bring meaningful surveillance reform to the floor today.

The bill, as amended, addresses abuses, enhances privacy protections, provides more rigorous review of critical questions of legal interpretation, and increases transparency so our citizens will know what is being decided and done in their name.

While the administration has already indicated that it will change its procedures, to paraphrase President Reagan, I think the best course is to ``trust but codify.''

While this version of the USA FREEDOM Act does not accomplish all that we had hoped for, it is, in fact, a significant step in the right direction. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, we come together today at the end of Sexual Assault Awareness Month to address sexual assault in its most harrowing context, the rape of a child.

After our recent hearing on domestic minor sex trafficking, H.R. 3530, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, is an important step in combating the crisis of child sex trafficking in our country and helping survivors begin their lives anew.

Victims of child sex trafficking have suffered the worst trauma imaginable. As a result, they require comprehensive and tailored services to assist their recovery, but funding for the comprehensive care that survivors need is lacking. For example, only 20 beds exist for more than 2,200 children trafficked annually in New York City.

This bill is a step in the right direction, providing $5 million in grants for the comprehensive services that victims of trafficking need and correcting an administrative barrier that keeps domestic victims of trafficking from the services given to foreign victims.

While the rescue of trafficking victims is necessary, so is the prosecution of child rapists and traffickers. Federal courts have interpreted the existing statute to cover the acts of patronizing and soliciting.

Therefore, the addition of these terms under this bill is a mere clarification. Individuals who patronize and solicit already have been held criminally liable under the language of the existing law-- specifically under the provision criminalizing those who obtain those services in the original section 1591.

The Justice for Victims Trafficking Act ensures that law enforcement receives funds necessary to train, investigate, and prosecute more cases, which will send the message that the rape of a child is a crime that can be punished by local, State, and Federal officials.

Child rapists will find refuge in no jurisdiction. This bill will aid in the coordination of investigations among Federal, State, and local law enforcement and enhance reporting data for missing children.

Human trafficking is the second fastest-growing criminal industry in the world, generating over $32 billion annually, and H.R. 3530 is the most comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with this issue in years.

I want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for introducing the legislation and want to commend him and our full committee for working together across the aisle to reach compromise on the spending and foreign impacts of this legislation to streamline its passage.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3530.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the lead cosponsor on the legislation who has introduced many bills on this issue and who has really been a fighter for those who have been trafficked.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee, a former judge and hard worker on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), who has been working to help these victims, particularly those in foster care.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 3530, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act of 2014 is another weapon in the bipartisan war against sex trafficking in this country.

I commend my colleagues, Representative Paulsen and Representative Moore, for introducing the legislation, which contains important victim-based initiatives to combat sex trafficking.

One of the initiatives, the national safe harbor law, is essential to making sure that child victims of sex trafficking are not treated as prostitutes and criminalized, but, rather, are diverted into Child Protective Services. Only 12 States have passed safe harbor laws for minor victims of sex trafficking.

Now, Madam Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, there is no such thing as a child prostitute. Children cannot consent to any sex act; therefore, any sexual act involving a child is child rape.

As my colleague, again, has pointed out, paying for the sex does not diminish the crime. Children who are bought and sold for these services are not prostitutes, but are victims. Those adults who sexually exploit them should not be called johns, but instead be called what they truly are: child rapists. We should punish those who prey on the vulnerable, and we cannot continue to criminalize the victims.

In an effort to help this recovery, H.R. 3610 empowers victims with a national hotline to request help, and it empowers them with restitution grants and with the eligibility for Job Corps programs.

The bill leads to an annual report by the Department of Justice on the amount of restitution ordered to victims in these cases. It will also include information about the number of convictions the Department has secured under all statutes that criminalize sex trafficking.

It will provide important information on the focus of investigative and prosecutorial efforts. It will ensure that victims of sex trafficking are treated as victims across all geographical and jurisdictional boundaries. So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3610.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), one of the chief sponsors of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Bass).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), one of the leaders on this issue.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3610.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, while I support the bipartisan efforts we are taking today with several bills to enhance our effort to prevent, investigate, and prosecute acts of sex trafficking, I must raise serious concerns about H.R. 4225, the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act of 2014, which I cannot support in its present form.

To be sure, the bill has the laudable goal of prosecuting those who knowingly facilitate sex trafficking by advertising certain prohibited sex acts. However, I must object to the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions which this new offense would trigger under existing statutes.

Under the sex trafficking statute, as amended by this bill, a conviction for advertising of sex trafficking would result in a mandatory penalty of 10 or 15 years of imprisonment, depending on the age of the victim and other circumstances of the crime.

While the acts prohibited by the legislation will usually warrant such long sentences, mandatory minimum sentences are the wrong way to determine punishment under this or any other criminal statute.

Regardless of the nature or the circumstances surrounding the offense, the role of the offender in the particular crime or the history or characteristics of the offender, H.R. 4225 will require a judge to impose a 10- or 15-year sentence.

Even if everyone in the case, from the arresting officer, the prosecutor, the judge, even the victim believes that the mandatory minimum would be an unjust sentence for a particular defendant in a case, this bill still requires the sentence to be imposed.

The imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence is particularly troublesome when one considers the possible scope of defendants who could be prosecuted under this bill.

Notably, the prohibition on advertising does not only apply to the sex trafficker who places the ad, but also applies to individuals and entities who facilitate or have a minor role in publishing the ad, such as someone who works for an Internet Web site which is involved.

Those who are employed by a venture that benefits financially from the ad, but whose role in the organization does not place them in the chain of command with respect to acceptance or publishing the illegal ads could therefore be prosecuted under the bill.

Specifically, there may be circumstances in which all of the employees of a communications company, including receptionists or computer maintenance workers, know that the venture publishes such advertising, but chose to look the other way.

They should be held liable under the provisions of this bill, but many of them would certainly not warrant a mandatory sentence, in certain circumstances, of 15 years, not all of them.

During the Judiciary Committee's markup of the bill, I offered an amendment to remove the application of the mandatory minimum provisions of this new bill and, instead, allow a judge to apply an appropriate sentence under the circumstances of the case, up to a statutory maximum of life imprisonment.

Given the complicated nature of the Internet communications networks and other forms of advertising which would be affected by this bill, the role of the judge in evaluating each case is particularly important. While long sentences may be appropriate under the facts of a particular case, Congress cannot know the facts of every case in advance.

Removing mandatory minimums, while still permitting the lengthy statutory maximum penalty of life imprisonment, as my amendment would have done, will provide the appropriate spectrum of sentences for culpability and proportionate punishment.

Mandatory minimum penalties are already a major issue of concern for our criminal justice system, and we should not make matters worse by passing a new one with this bill. Studies of mandatory minimums have concluded that they fail to reduce crime, they waste the taxpayers' money, and they often require judges to impose sentences that simply violate common sense.

Therefore, I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee's bipartisan Over-Criminalization Task Force is working diligently to assess our Federal criminal code and make recommendations for improvements. The penalties, including mandatory minimums, in the Federal code are among the issues the task force will consider. And while these issues are under review, we should not be passing new mandatory minimum sentences. In fact, if we ever expect to eliminate mandatory minimums from the code, we must first stop passing new ones.

Now, mandatory minimums did not get into the code all at once but one at a time, each in a bill that otherwise made good sense. So if we are going to stop increasing the number of mandatory minimums, we must oppose bills that contain them.

So while I strongly support the efforts to do more to combat the serious problem of sex trafficking by taking steps such as strengthening our laws and providing additional resources for law enforcement and victims, I must, unfortunately, oppose this bill in its current form because it creates new mandatory minimums which can be expected to require a judge in the future to impose a sentence that violates common sense.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, mandatory minimums have resulted in bizarre sentences being imposed today. Girlfriends of drug dealers are serving decades behind bars because their sentences were based on the weight of the drugs involved in their boyfriend's drug dealings. Many other people are serving times clearly longer than required because of mandatory minimums.

Under this bill, if a Web site is raided, this bill could require the judge to impose 15-year sentences on each and every employee, from the receptionist to computer maintenance personnel, no discretion, no consideration of an individual's role in the enterprise, everybody gets 15 years.

So if a sentence violates common sense, mandatory minimums require the judge to impose it any way, so if we are ever going to try to address the problems created by mandatory minimums, we have to stop passing bills like this one that can require sentences of at least 10- 15 years, regardless of the facts in an individual case, even when the bill is otherwise worthy.

This is how so many mandatory minimums got into the code to begin with, one by one, each one in an otherwise worthy bill. The only way to begin to put an end to mandatory minimums is to stop passing new ones.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nevada for calling this special occasion to give us the opportunity to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court case of Brown v. The Board of Education.

As a representative from Virginia, I take personal pride in celebrating this anniversary because Virginia played such a prominent role in that case. In fact, one of the four cases that were combined into the Brown decision was Davis v. School Board of Prince Edward County, in Virginia. Two of the Nation's premier constitutional lawyers were involved in the case: Oliver Hill and Spottswood Robinson, both from Virginia.

In the Brown decision, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down the legal footing for racial segregation in public schools in this country. The decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, a 1996 case that held that a State could maintain separate but equal public accommodations.

In Brown, the court highlighted the importance of education and language that still rings true today. The court said:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of

State and local governments. Compulsory school attendance

laws and the great expenditures for education both

demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to

our democratic society. It is required in the performance of

our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the

Armed Forces. It is a very foundation of good citizenship.

Today it is a principal instrument and a awakening your child

to cultural values in preparing him for later professional

training and helping him to adjust normally to his

environment. In these days it is doubtful that any child may

reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the

opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the

State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be

made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of

children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even

though the physical facilities and other ``tangible'' factors

may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of

equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

The court then concluded that:

In the field of public education, the doctrine of

``separate but equal'' has no place. Separate educational

facilities are inherently unequal.

Unfortunately, although the decision was a victory for minority students, not everyone was eager to comply. Virginia led the resistance to the Brown decision. Ironically, Virginia used the language in the Brown decision as its legal grounds for what they called Massive Resistance, where it said such an opportunity, where a State has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made to all on equal terms.

Virginia reasoned that it could avoid integrating the schools by having no schools at all. So, in Prince Edward County, they closed the schools for several years. Schools were also closed in Norfolk and Front Royal and Charlottesville. We overcame Massive Resistance after several years and those schools eventually reopened.

But now here we are six decades after Brown. Thankfully, we have made progress, but we still have work to do.

The promise of equal educational opportunities envisioned by Brown remains unfulfilled.

For example, equal educational opportunity does not occur when one jurisdiction spends substantially more per student than an adjacent jurisdiction because of the relative differences in wealth between the two jurisdictions.

Unequal funding results in unequal educational opportunities when you consider that studies have shown that one-half of low-income students who are qualified to attend college do not attend because they can't afford to. In fact, today, a high-income, low-achieving student is more likely to attend college than a high-achieving, low-income student.

Another example of educational inequality is the current debate over publicly financed school vouchers, which can be used at private schools, which might provide educational opportunities to a privileged few, but which would definitely deprive the public schools of desperately needed resources.

The supporters of vouchers frequently claim that this is a choice, when, actually, all it is is a chance. If you win the lottery, you have a chance to go to the private schools, but if you lose the lottery, then you are stuck in the public schools, with fewer resources, because all of the money is spent on vouchers.

Obviously, we have a lot of work to do to complete the promise of the Brown decision. The 60th anniversary of the decision offers us an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to achieving these lofty ideals.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada for the opportunity to speak.