Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the birth of Charles Darwin 205 years ago tomorrow and to call attention to a resolution I have introduced with a number of other Members marking his birthday as ceremonial Darwin Day.

Through his work, Darwin discovered that the drive for survival of each species produces an evolution by natural selection. This discovery fundamentally changed our understanding of the world. It paved the way for innumerable advancements in the fields of medicine, technology, and education. Without his recognition that natural selection enables increasing complexity, our comprehension of the world around us would be vastly poorer.

To me, Charles Darwin represents much more than a discovery or a theory. He represents a way of thinking, a philosophy. His approach to life and to the world around him should be celebrated as much as his discoveries. It was his thirst for knowledge and his scientific approach that led to new truths that enabled him to uncover the theory of evolution. This lesson is as valuable as the discovery he made and the explanations he gave.

Thinking like a scientist is all too absent from our public dialogue, and this is why we should continue to celebrate Darwin as a master of clear, evidence-based thinking. We, in this House, would do well to emulate his vision and his thinking, and I urge my colleagues to join me in marking Darwin Day.

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

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

Sportsmen are among the first to notice the effects of our changing climate as changes in seasonal distribution of game and diminished natural habitats becomes more evident. As the climate continues to change, we will experience worse drought, flood, wildfire, and extreme weather events.

For public lands and recreation there, climate change will mean changes in hunting seasons, migratory patterns, and the native and invasive species populations. We will experience sea level rise, wildfire, drought, and other manifestations of climate change. All of these are altering the landscape and changing the existing opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreation on public lands. These should be considered. These will have a greater effect on sportsmen and on fishermen and hunters than all of the other things we have been talking about today.

More than 75 percent of the Federal lands are open now for recreational

hunting, fishing and shooting, but climate change would transform irreversibly, and in fact is transforming irreversibly, our public lands in ways that will limit the ability of sportsmen to enjoy recreational activities in these areas.

So this amendment says the Department should consider those things. In fact, it is even more limited than that. It says nothing will prevent the Department from considering these things. That is what this amendment is. I would hope that the House will accept this. I have been joined by a number of members of the House Sustainable Energy Coalition in offering this amendment. It is supported by Defenders of Wildlife and the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the time remaining on each side.

I thank the Chair.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), who is a leader of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition Caucus and a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time just to address a couple of points that my friend, the chair, from Washington has raised.

There is nothing in this amendment that gives the Secretary any new authority. It simply says that the Secretary should consider climate change in policies for managing these lands.

Climate change is the problem that needs to be addressed. You can deny it all you want, but climate change will do more to restrict hunting and fishing and recreation on public lands than these imagined administrative reductions or restrictions or lawsuits or restrictions on lead shot or any of those things.

There are a variety of adaptation strategies to promote resilience of fish and wildlife populations and forests and plant communities and freshwater resources and ocean resources. These are being studied by academic and scientific and, yes, government and nonprofit organizations.

A great deal of thought is going into this. We want to make sure that there is nothing that restricts the Secretary from using these best adaptation strategies, these best management practices, to take into account what is real. It is not imagined. The climate is changing. It is affecting the ecology of all of these public lands.

I urge support of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House will consider the Agriculture Act of 2014. While I appreciate the work that has gone into the crafting of this legislation, and the delicate compromise that this bill represents, I will not support the bill before us today because I refuse to support a bill that will increase hunger in America.

Throughout this process I have stood fast with many of my Democratic colleagues in strong opposition to attempts by the House majority to bleed as much money as possible from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The first draft of the House farm bill, which failed, would have cut $20 billion from SNAP. In the next iteration of the legislation, the Republican response was to simply remove SNAP from the House bill and pass it without a single Democratic vote. When a Republican stand-alone nutrition bill finally came up it was no surprise that the bill proposed a cut of $40 billion to SNAP.

The bill before us today would cut $8.6 billion from SNAP. Significantly less than the House Republican proposal, but still more than twice what was proposed in the Senate farm bill initially. Rather than working with Democrats to craft a real strategy to address hunger in America, my Republican colleagues are insistent on stripping funds from this country's most comprehensive and successful anti-hunger program.

According to the most recent USDA data, about 47 million people benefit from SNAP nationally. Last year, on average, 876,266 people in New Jersey participated monthly in SNAP. In New Jersey's 12th Congressional District more than 40 percent of households receiving SNAP have children under 18 and more than 40 percent have at least one person over 60.

Since November 1, 2013, these families have been dealing with cuts to SNAP benefits because of an expiring provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that had

provided for a benefit increase. The SNAP cuts we are debating today come from ending a policy called ``Heat and Eat.'' New Jersey is one of 17 states that choose to participate in ``heat and eat'' which can help states improve access to SNAP while reducing administrative burdens by allowing states to link a beneficiary's receipt of low-income heating assistance to their SNAP benefit. What this means is that New Jersey's SNAP beneficiaries will be among those principally affected by the changes to SNAP that are proposed in this farm bill.

As a country we must end our obsession with debt and deficits, especially when these reductions are coming at the expense of the less fortunate and the hungry. This legislation continues to favor the largest farmers and agri-business over family farms. The bill achieves significant savings by ending direct commodity payments, but then redirects these savings to fund new subsidized programs to pay the same farmers when crop prices or revenues fall below certain levels-- continuing wasteful programs that benefit the largest farms and agri- businesses. We should be doing more to find greater savings by strengthening caps on commodity support programs and federal crop insurance subsidies that, under this bill, continue to enable some of the largest farms and agri-businesses to receive millions of taxpayer dollars year after year. While the bill moves us towards an agricultural safety net based primarily on crop insurance, we fail to make any real reforms to the crop insurance system. Agri-business is still heavily subsidized while the federal government guarantees very favorable profit margins for insurance companies while continuing to pick up the tab for all administrative and operating costs.

While some policy improvements are made for conservation, funding for these programs is still cut by about $6 billion dollars as acreage in the Conservation Reserve Program is reduced steadily over the next 5 years. Additionally, the lack of reform to the U.S. sugar program threatens manufacturing jobs in New Jersey and around the U.S. This program cost taxpayers almost $300 million last year alone, and will continue to create artificially high prices for consumers on the foods we enjoy every day. New Jersey farmers deserve a better farm bill. If we made real reforms to crop insurance and commodity support programs we could invest further in conservation, specialty crops, organic agriculture, small and beginning farmers, and of course, nutrition.

Following passage of the House farm bill I urged my colleagues in Leadership and in the Agriculture Committee to work towards a compromise that would eliminate the SNAP cuts and allow for the passage of a farm bill that supports agriculture without hurting hungry families. The Agriculture Act of 2014 is a success in many ways. The bill ends direct commodity payments to farmers, includes conservation compliance for crop insurance, and invests in specialty crops, organic foods, and sustainable agriculture. Unfortunately, the bill fails to complement these policies with a similar investment in the people who could use it most, the children, seniors and veterans who rely on SNAP for one of the most basic of needs--something to eat.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.

Now, instead of taking up critical issues, we are here today considering a radical bill that failed several years ago. It has been resurrected by the majority so that they can continue their war on women and their vendetta against the Affordable Care Act.

It is a deceptively named bill. It is not about unauthorized use of taxpayer dollars. The purpose of this legislation is to make the Federal Government interfere with a woman's decision to use her private dollars for legal health services.

It will restrict women's access to safe reproductive health; and because it would rule out standard insurance policies now available to women, it will leave even more women without health care coverage.

So instead of taking up an ideological, mean-spirited lost cause, let's turn our attention to helping women get comprehensive health care, excellent health care for themselves and their families. Let's help women get excellent affordable child care, help women get pay equity and fairness. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7, another thinly veiled attempt to limit American women from being able to access comprehensive health care.

It may be a new year, but 2014 clearly has not inspired new beginnings for the Majority leadership in this House of Representatives. Last year, under Republican leadership, we did not take up immigration reform, we did not overhaul No Child Left Behind, and we did not vote on legislation to create jobs, or help those who have been struggling to find work. In fact, Congress's failure to extend unemployment benefit left millions of Americans, including 90,000 New Jerseyans, without their benefits.

But instead of taking on these critical issues, we are here today considering a radical bill that failed in 2011, but has been resurrected by the Majority so they continue to pursue their war on women and their vendetta against the Affordable Care Act.

This deceptively named ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act'' is not about unauthorized use of taxpayer dollars. The purpose of this legislation is to permit the federal government to interfere with a woman's decision to use private dollars on legal health services. This dangerous legislation would jeopardize the availability of safe reproductive health care services for all American women. In addition to intentionally interfering with women's access to health services, this bill would result in higher taxes for small businesses, and permanently bar military service women, civil servants, D.C. residents, and low-income women from abortion coverage.

For 2014, I propose a New Year's resolution for this Congress. Let's cease the tired partisan ploys, and work together on legislation that expands--not limits--Americans' access to quality health care coverage. Let's work together to craft legislation that accelerates job growth, and let's work together to ensure that Americans get their unemployment benefits.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to today's measure, the consolidated appropriations act, which is a bill that funds our government under the agreement reached by Budget Committee Chairs Representative Ryan and Senator Murray. I do appreciate the long hours and cooperative work that the Budget Committees put into the agreement, and I appreciate the hard work of the appropriators to turn the agreement into dollar figures for each of the twelve subcommittees. I particularly appreciate the $40 million for veterans' suicide prevention and $508 million for the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences that I sought to have included.

However, while this bill funds some good programs, it is premised on the deep, deep cuts of the sequester. The truth is that this bill is not a compromise--far from it. And it is not a good course for America to be on. To understand why, we must remember the history that led us to this moment.

In the summer of 2011, Republicans held hostage America's economy. Republicans told the public that, unless Congress and the President gave into their unreasonable demands to extend the Bush tax cuts and slash spending, they would default on America's debts and thus destroy our nation's credit rating.

In the face of such unconscionable threats, the President and many Members of Congress reluctantly agreed to sequestration--a policy that imposed blunt, stupid, across-the-board cuts in almost every federal program.

No true compromise was possible in those 2011 negotiations because they occurred in the midst of a hostage crisis. No compromise is possible now because we are still operating within the framework created by that hostage crisis. This bill locks in place one of the greatest cuts in government services we have seen.

So rather than accepting this bill because the appropriators are pleased with the ``compromise,'' I believe we must take a step back and ask: Does this bill take us to a future worthy of our great country?

It does not. This bill is premised on the sequester. This bill allows most of the sequester cuts to take effect now and follows the budget agreement in allowing the full sequester to take effect two years from now. Even over the next two years, more than three-fourths of the sequestration cuts remain in place--cuts that gut research, education, health care, infrastructure and other investments necessary for a vibrant economy for the present and the future. This bill is the continuation of a pessimistic vision of our country, one with a drastically shrunken government, a shredded safety net, and a diminished ability to seize the opportunities and to address the challenges that lie before us.

I have an optimistic vision for our country. Americans deserve a more optimistic vision for our country. We should match the amazing potential of our entrepreneurs and engineers with the support of an infrastructure that isn't crumbling. We should invest in research that enables our scientists and innovators to find cures for diseases, create new technologies, and develop alternative sources of energy. We should send the message that in the wealthiest nation on earth a child's education is paramount, that even in fiscally constrained times we won't deny access to Head Start or after-school programs, and that society will stand by workers on Main Street who face unemployment due to misdeeds on Wall Street.

Instead, today this House embraces pessimism. Education, infrastructure of commerce, and scientific research? ``Oh,'' say the proponents of this pessimistic view, ``we cannot afford these things now and must take the bitter medicine of austerity.'' Soon I fear these cuts will run so deep they will be unable to heal.

I am opposed to this bill because I believe that we can, and should, do more. There is no limit to what we can achieve if we only commit to achieving it. This positive approach has carried this country through good times and resulted in an amazing success story.

I hope that in the coming months, we can return to an optimistic vision of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus.

After 12 months of the 113th Congress, Republicans continue to push their anticlean energy, antienvironment, climate-denying agenda. Although we have taken very few votes in this Congress over the past year, we have taken more than 100 votes that are antienvironment. Those included:

20 votes that would weaken the Clean Air Act;

20 votes that would prevent Federal efforts to curb greenhouse gas carbon pollution;

51 votes to protect oil and gas special interests;

37 votes to weaken the Clean Water Act;

27 votes to slash funding for clean energy and energy efficiency.

I don't enjoy pointing out that protecting our air and our water has become a partisan issue, but I must point out that Republicans are still sacrificing the climate and our environment for the benefit of a few wealthy special interests.

It is cold outside today in much of the U.S., and some are saying that this is proof that global warming is a hoax. How misinformed that is. The cold wave in the midlatitudes of North America is a result of warm patches in the oceans and the atmosphere diverting the jet stream and driving arctic air southward.

Climate change doesn't mean warmer air everywhere, every day. It means more fluctuations, in other words, droughts, storms, and temperature changes. They are--and will be--greater.

It is going to be warmer tomorrow and the next day and for the next 100 years, on average, until we get serious that this is the most pressing environmental threat on our planet--global climate change.

The way we produce and use energy is the greatest insult to our planet, not only causing injury and death through pollution, but adversely changing the world's climate with very dangerous, deadly results.

We should support the President's climate action plan.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Ocean Energy Safety and Technology Improvement Act of 2013, a bill to facilitate the development and use of technology to make offshore drilling safer for workers and the environment.

A little more than three and a half years ago, the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank off the coast of Louisiana, killing eleven workers, and allowing its unfinished well to pour millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico until it was finally capped several months later. This event--the greatest single environmental disaster in American history--exposed as a myth the idea that such tragic offshore events, such as the Montara explosion in Australia, the Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea, or the Ixtoc blowout in Mexico, could not happen in the United States.

There was no question that the industry had gotten complacent. And the regulators had gotten complacent. And even Congress had gotten complacent. The only debate before the Deepwater Horizon tragedy was where drilling should occur, not how safe it would be. Those of us whose states depend on clean beaches and clear water to fuel a multi- billion dollar tourism industry were assured that technology had reached the point that there was no risk whatsoever: that offshore drilling could coexist with clean beaches, that vacationers and merchants would never have to fear oil-soaked seabirds dying on their shores, or tarballs staining the coasts for years to come.

Those assurances, we learned in April 2010, were completely false. The technology the industry boasted of was about drilling deeper and faster, not about being cleaner or safer. And while there is a requirement in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for companies to use the ``best available and safest technology,'' in reality companies were allowed to simply meet regulatory minimums. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, or BSEE, recently proposed to close that loophole and ensure that companies really are using the best and safest technology; naturally that proposal was met with the predictable wails from industry.

But despite those complaints, this is clearly an idea whose time has come. In October, the National Academy of Sciences released a report with recommendations on how to implement a true requirement for using the best available and safest technology available in the offshore industry. The Academy endorsed BSEE's formation of an Ocean Energy Safety Institute, but said that the institute needed more funding, more stability, and more authority.

That is what my legislation does. It adopts the National Academy's recommendations by giving BSEE the authority to stand up a robust, permanent Ocean Energy Safety Institute with a steady source of funding. The Institute will facilitate collaboration between academia, regulators, and industry, serve as a center of excellence for offshore safety research and education, and most importantly, help BSEE identify the best available and safest technologies currently in use, and facilitate the development of better and safer technologies.

This legislation also implements other recommendations from the Academy, including providing the authority for the review of drilling plans and permits to be prioritized if they would use particularly innovative safety technologies, and promoting safety research by small businesses, where many of the best innovations arise.

Let me be clear: I do not believe that offshore drilling can ever be made safe enough to put the beaches and tourist economy of New Jersey at risk. There will always be the chance of equipment failure or human error that produces a catastrophic result, regardless of the level of technology employed. No amount of oil or gas is worth the potential destruction of the state's lifeblood. I also believe that a continued dependence on offshore oil and gas, from any part of the country, keeps us from addressing the real issue that we should be focusing on: how to move to a renewable energy economy and ensure long-lasting energy and climate security.

However, I acknowledge that we cannot get there overnight, and offshore drilling will continue in places like the Gulf of Mexico, at least for the time being. But while it is happening, we should ensure that it is being done with the absolute best safety and environmentally responsible technology available, and I urge my colleagues to join me in getting to that point by supporting the Offshore Drilling Safety Technology Improvement Act of 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, the so called Kids First Research Act.

The bill that we are considering here today has been brought up under the pretense of providing funding for pediatric research at the National Institutes of Health by redirecting the funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund to the amount of $12.6 million per year.

As I am sure my colleagues know, I have always been a strong supporter of research at the NIH.

But the legislation before us is nothing more than a duplicitous attempt by Republicans to act as if they are providing support to the NIH. Yet in reality, NIH has seen its budget attacked and slashed in recent years. In 2011, the Republican budget proposed a $1.6 billion cut to the NIH in a single year. I wonder where the compassion for children was then.

This very day the Republicans are bringing forward a budget agreement they want us to support that cuts $172 billion in discretionary spending from levels President Obama and Democrats proposed in 2011. This so called compromise will maintain a majority of cuts imposed by sequestration.

When sequestration went into effect, the NIH saw a $1.55 billion cut to its budget. Of that, sequestration cut $255 million from the NIH's cancer institute and $66 million from the child health institute. Where was the outrage when those cuts went into effect?

If we truly cared about research at the NIH, we would not be proposing a $12.6 million dollar increase in funding, we would be talking about restoring the $1.55 billion cut by sequestration and then some.

The Kids First Research Act has a nice name and a noble intent, but no substance, and thus I cannot support this sad pretense.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this new Ryan-Murray budget agreement because it is a strong continuation of an anti- government, pessimistic policy that has been plaguing Washington in recent years.

Make no mistake about it; this budget agreement is the direct result of the Budget Control Act, which I strongly opposed when it was being debated 2011, and this agreement takes us backwards. I knew then sequester would wreak havoc on our economy, threaten our quality of life, and squeeze the most vulnerable among us.

Here we are, over two years later, and the worst of it is coming true. The sequester has cut research, education, infrastructure, Medicare, and a number of other critical investments that are vital to a growing economy. It is robbing America of the opportunity to rise from the Great Recession as a stronger, more vibrant nation. Instead, the sequester is continuing to weaken our country with a shrunken government that is hampered by deep cuts to the safety net and hobbled by a refusal to invest in our future. This budget agreement from Congressman Ryan and Senator Murray is a way to partially and minimally reverse cuts that should never have happened in the first place.

It is a compromise in a narrow, Washington kind of sense: It will gain some votes from Democrats and some votes from Republicans. But let's remember how the BCA came to be enacted: In 2011, Republicans held hostage America's credit rating by threatening to default on our debts if they didn't get what they wanted. No true compromise was possible then because the negotiations were conducted in the midst of a hostage crisis. No compromise is possible now because we are still operating within the framework created by that hostage crisis.

The question we should ask ourselves is, ``Where are we trying to go as a country?'' We should be striving toward an optimistic future--one where we invest in research, education, infrastructure, and more. By that measure, this is a bad deal.

The agreement--not really a compromise--slashes discretionary spending and tinkers with a few other things like raising fees on airline tickets, decreasing reimbursement to Medicare providers, and lowering military retirement pensions. How could we actually think this is the kind of path forward for our country?

There is no attempt to close tax loopholes on corporate jet or on expenses of oil and gas companies, and makes no effort in asking the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share to live in an orderly, humane, equitable society. Favored corporate interests, millionaires, and billionaires will continue to receive special tax breaks as far as the eye can see while unemployment insurance expires, leaving millions struggling to find work out in the cold just weeks after Christmas. That is not the sort of fair, balanced deal that Americans have asked for and expect from their leaders.

Mr. Speaker, the time to reform our broken immigration system is long overdue. Our system does not meet the needs of families or businesses. I have met with people throughout our district to understand what our uneven, unfair, and unjust immigration system costs our businesses, our families, and our society at large--a cost to our national ideals, as well as a cost in dollars and cents. I have joined the group of dedicated activists who have for nearly a month been fasting on the National Mall, in the shadows of the Capitol, to call attention to the plight of the 11 million individuals who are Americans but for a piece of paper. The time is now to bring them out of the shadows.

My colleagues may have noticed, as have various advocacy groups, that I have not signed on as cosponsor of H.R. 15, the legislation that has recently taken shape as the leading immigration reform bill. The fact of the matter is that we can, and we should, do better. I do support strongly the legislation authored by my friend and colleague from Arizona, Representative Raul Grijalva. It is a strong, progressive approach to reforming our broken system.

In fact, the Grijalva bill is superior to H.R. 15. It targets and prioritizes border enforcement in an intelligent way to where and how it is needed most--to protect us from serious criminals and terrorist threats. It improves conditions for immigrant detainees and protects family unity by prohibiting separation of families with children. It protects workers' rights and keeps immigration enforcement in the hands of the appropriate authorities--the federal government, not local police.

Whatever legislative vehicle immigration reform takes, it must contain a legal, controlled pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants who keep our economy moving and to repair a tear in our social fabric. It must promote family reunification by reducing two decade-long family backlogs and reuniting spouses, parents, and children to together pursue the American Dream. It must build on the success of President Obama's Deferred Action program and incorporate DREAMers--those who were brought to the U.S. at a young age through no wrongdoing of their own--into the mainstream of American society so they can continue to make beneficial contributions not only to our economy, but to our diverse society. It must satisfy the needs of American employers. And it must ensure smart, targeted, and reasonable immigration enforcement that protects American society from serious criminals and real threats.

H.R. 15 is not the bill I would have written--nor do I believe it is the bill that will ultimately become law--do not want to appear to be delaying reform. I call upon Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership to immediately bring to the floor for our consideration legislation to reform our immigration laws.

When it comes to something as important as fixing our broken immigration system, we should not settle for less than the American people deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

As is the case every year for the past decade, this bill contains many provisions I do support, including two I wrote.

The first is meant to increase suicide prevention and outreach services for key segments of our Guard and Reserve, specifically members of the Individual Ready Reserve and Individual Mobilization Augmentees. These are specific pools of reservists who, when not assigned to active duty units, live and work among us in our communities in their civilian occupations. Accordingly, they do not have ready access to the kinds of mental health resources available to their active duty counterparts. My amendment would allow the Adjutant General of any state to request from the Pentagon address data for IRR/ IMA members in his or her state for the purpose of conducting suicide prevention and outreach activities. I am pleased the committee has included this provision, as it gives us one more tool to prevent suicides among our veterans.

The second amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a top-to-bottom review of programs in the Department designed to recruit and retain the scientists, technology experts, mathematicians, and engineers our national security community will need to meet current and future threats. This amendment is a direct outgrowth of my work on the National Commission on Research and Development in the U.S. Intelligence Community, which published its final report this summer. It is imperative that American find, train, and retain world-class talent in these fields. The security of our nation quite literally depends on it.

Unfortunately, this bill--as it has for years now--continues funding for the war in Afghanistan. It also freezes in place current force levels, continues the acquisition of the flawed and hugely overpriced F-35 fighter, and provides authorization for continued work for plutonium pit production for nuclear weapons. On balance, this bill continues a large number of unnecessary and wasteful Cold War era weapons programs, and maintains our discredited ``war on terror'' posture. Finally, the bill does nothing to address the surveillance excesses committed by the National Security Agency, which is a combat support agency of DoD. For all of these reasons, I cannot support this bill and call on my colleagues to join me in opposing it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

For many years, David Goldman was my constituent, so I am intimately familiar with both the case and the incredible pain and heartbreak David endured after the kidnapping of his son, Sean, by David's estranged, Brazilian-born wife who illegally took Sean back to

Brazil. I will not recount now all of the details of the five-year long ordeal David endured to secure the return of his son. What I will say is that my experience in helping him bring Sean home helped me understand that the issue of parental child abduction needs greater attention from our government.

In his efforts to get his son returned to him, Mr. Goldman at least benefited from the fact that both Brazil (where the boy was being held illegally) and the United States are parties to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Hague Convention creates an international legal framework for resolving such parental kidnappings. The treaty is anything but perfect; it lacks any genuine enforcement mechanism, which means that many of these cases drag on for years, just as the Goldman case did. However, the situation is far worse for parents whose spouse kidnaps their child and returns to their country of origin when that country is not a party to the Hague Convention. In those cases, the remaining parent has virtually no recourse to secure the return of their abducted child. The bill before us seeks to change that situation.

I especially support the language in the bill that directs the Secretary of State to engage in negotiations with non-Hague signatory nations where large numbers of American children remain illegally held by the offending parent to secure their release. Seeking the creation of a bilateral memorandum of understanding to help resolve these cases is an important interim step on the road to a larger, more enduring solution. I do have concerns about the language in this bill requiring the President to impose an escalating series of sanctions against nations who refuse to address parental kidnappings of American children. In my view, the language as written could potentially interfere with the President's ability to conduct effective diplomacy on this issue. However, once this bill reaches the Senate I am sure there will be opportunities to amend it in such a fashion that it will be able to accomplish the intended goal (the return of abducted children) without permanently damaging diplomatic relations with other nations.

One thing is clear: existing American parental child abduction cases are not being resolved expeditiously, and I agree with those who argue that the United States needs to send a clear message that the status quo on this issue cannot stand. Accordingly I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today is Transgender Day of Remembrance. On this

day, we remember those who have been killed as a result of anti- transgender violence and take note of the continued violence directed at the transgender community.

Sadly, violence and bullying against the transgender community is common. According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, which recently celebrated its 10th anniversary, nearly 80 percent of transgender students have been harassed in the K-12 school setting. That discrimination continues into the professional work environment. Transgender people are twice as likely to be unemployed compared to the general population and 90 percent have been mistreated at work. In September this year Erycka Morgan, a student at Rutgers University and LGBT advocate, was killed in a New Brunswick boarding house. Public reports and press releases identified Erycka as a male and authorities identified her by her birth name and gender, despite being advised of her transgender identity and her preferred name.

As we remember those who have been killed or wounded by hate and violence, we also should commend the transgender community for working hard to educate Americans on the inequality they face. They are making great strides. Two weeks ago the Senate passed a fully inclusive Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The Senate-passed ENDA would prohibit employers from discriminating against an individual due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill passed by a strong bipartisan vote of 64-32. It is time for Speaker Boehner to bring that bill to the House floor.

A few years ago, the House considered a version of ENDA that did not include gender identity. Although I strongly oppose employment discrimination against all people, including gays and lesbians, the fact that the bill did not include gender identity is why I could not support the legislation then. I expect that when we finally achieve an ENDA law, perhaps this year, it will be inclusive.

Finally, I want to commend the LGBT advocates in New Jersey who have worked hard to achieve full equality in New Jersey. I share the excitement and sense of pride felt by my fellow New Jerseyans when the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to prohibit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. We have a way to go towards full equality, but we are on the right path, a path that bends towards justice. In honor of Erycka Morgan and all those whose lives have been cut short due to violence rooted in ignorance, we will get there.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.