Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss two issues and to speak on their impact to the American people.

The first one is the Financial CHOICE Act, which we just debated. I oppose it for the very reason that we passed Dodd-Frank. We passed it to respond to the greatest recession in 80 years, which saw a financial crisis that caused working men and women to lose the greatest amount of wealth they have ever lost. Yet, our colleagues here believe that it is important to choose large corporate interests over working men and women.

At the same time, today we heard the testimony of Director Comey under oath. He gave a list of very troublesome acts and words offered by the President of the United States. Shortly thereafter, the President's lawyer, who was not under oath, came forward to deny, disparage, and suggest that Director Comey was not telling the truth.

That is clearly an indication that the Judiciary Committee should begin an inquiry. That is our jurisdictional duty: to begin an inquiry to discern who is telling the truth. The FBI is under our jurisdiction.

It is time for the House to hold hearings now. The truth must be known by the American people.

Mr. Speaker, it is often difficult when Members represent different aspects or parties to really speak to what is right.

I just came from Europe, meeting with Europeans from a number of countries. I was passing through London in the backdrop of the heinous and tragic London Bridge incident. Many of us saw the courageous mayor of London speak to the people, along with national leadership.

So I must indicate my disappointment in the comments of the Commander in Chief of this Nation to bash in time of trouble Mayor Khan, a Muslim, who has stood against terrorism. Then, of course, the precipitous actions of firing Director Comey and the rumors of either firing or asking for the resignation of Attorney General Sessions gives me great pause for legislation like the Financial CHOICE Act that would take away the independent authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and make the head of that an appointee of the President, so the person who protects consumers will be able to be fired by this President.

With the words against the London mayor, the firing of Comey, and the threatening of Attorney General Sessions, I wonder whether or not we can tolerate any other authority given to this White House to be able to fire people who are to protect the rights of the American people, and to be able to stand for comments that undermine our allies and the friendships that we have established over the decades working to secure the American people. Let us think about it.

Mr. Speaker, I was delayed with constituency matters in a hearing and was not able to be present on the floor on the vote on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no.''

I was also detained on congressional business in a hearing on the Lujan Grisham amendment to H.R. 2213. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 28th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square.

This historic stand against oppression saw several hundred civilians shot dead by the Chinese army during a bloody operation to crush a democratic protest in Beijing's Tiananmen Square.

The Chinese army took the Square with violence against its own people; most of whom were students refusing to move until their demands for democratic reform were met.

Tanks rolled through the capital's streets randomly firing on unarmed civilians.

Millions of people had joined this protest--people from all walks of life who were angered by widespread corruption and calling for democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize former President George H.W. Bush and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who both publicly condemned this atrocious act of violence and stood in solidarity with the men and women who peacefully assembled to demand democracy.

The courage and commitment to democratic governance displayed by the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square 28 years ago will never be forgotten by Americans and freedom loving people everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the lives of the innocent victims of the horrific attack that took place in London this past weekend.

Seven lives were cut short and dozens more people were injured by the outrageous and heinous acts of terror that shocked the people of London and the world.

At this terrible time, our hearts and prayers are with the victims and their loved ones.

Our gratitude and appreciation goes to the first responders, the intelligence community and all those who selflessly risked their lives and worked together to prevent the terror from spreading farther.

We stand in unyielding solidarity with the people of England, which like the United States, stands against the dark forces that put our way of life at risk.

England will emerge from this and other recent attacks as a stronger nation that remains committed to the values and principles that have made the city a key player in commerce, human rights and democracy.

London has been a world leader in the march of human progress in the arts, culture, science, democratic theory and governance, and in embracing the challenges and opportunities of the modern world.

Those who think that they can terrorize the people of England or the values that the western world cherishes underestimate a nation that has a long history of prevailing against far more sinister and lethal adversaries.

And they will again, but they will not confront these adversaries alone.

They will be joined by the United States and the other countries of the civilized world.

As London recovers and responds, I hope its people and the loved ones of the victims can find comfort in the knowledge that the people in the United States stand in solidarity with them.

The attacks in England are a reminder of the common threat the free, democratic, and peace loving nations of the world face from those who violently reject the values and norms of our civilized society.

The attacks highlight the extent to which enemies of our shared values are willing to go to threaten the liberties and freedoms enjoyed by those of us living in free societies.

Those responsible for the attacks should make no mistake; they will be held accountable for their horrific actions against humanity.

And as has been done many times throughout the long and special relationship between the United States and England, we will face and overcome threats to our way of life together.

We will not bow and will never break; we will not falter or fail.

We will respond. We will endure. We will overcome.

The horrible and heinous acts of terrorists are their responsibility and theirs alone, and for which they can be assured that they alone will be held accountable.

But that will come another day; today I ask a moment of silence for the victims killed and injured in the terrorist attacks in London.

Mr. Speaker, today, June 6, marks the 73rd anniversary of D-Day, the Allied Forces' audacious amphibious landing at Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944.

This joint undertaking to liberate the continent of Europe from the clutches of an evil and aggressor enemy was the first and most emphatic demonstration of the invincible strength of democratic nations when acting collectively.

For nearly seventy years, from April 4, 1949 to January 20, 2017, peace in Europe has been secured and no adversary, not the old Soviet Union or the contemporary Russian Federation, has dared to risk war by attacking a European ally of the United States because every American president has made clear that the United States is committed to Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty which holds that an attack on any NATO member is regarded as an attack on all of them.

Mr. Speaker, ``Operation Overlord,'' as D-Day was formally known, was the largest single amphibious assault in the history of warfare.

The success of D-Day, which was far from certain at the outset, led to the liberation of Western Europe, signaled the death knell of the German Wehrmacht, and paved the way to unconditional victory by the Allied Forces over the evils of Nazism, fascism, and Japanese imperialism.

It is no exaggeration to say that D-Day changed the course of human history.

The aim of the meticulously planned D-Day operation was to open a second front in the European war theater from which the Allied Forces could attack the German army and push east to capture Berlin.

With the Russian Army advancing from the east, coupled with the southern front opened by the Allied invasion of Italy from North Africa in 1942, the opening of a western front would set in motion the pincer movement that would catch the German Army in a trap from which there would be no escape.

The formidable German Army expected that the Allied Forces would try to launch an invasion from the western beaches of France.

They just did not know when or where.

So in anticipation of an Allied invasion, the Nazis constructed the infamous Atlantic Wall, an extensive system of coastal fortifications built along the western coast of Europe and Scandinavia.

Under the direction of Field Marshal Rommel, the Atlantic Wall was reinforced by the addition of concrete pillboxes built along the beaches to house machine guns, antitank guns and light artillery.

Mines and antitank obstacles were planted on the beaches themselves and underwater obstacles and mines were placed in waters just off shore.

By the time of the D-Day landing, the Nazis had laid almost six million mines in northern France.

And awaiting Allied soldiers who made their way onto and away from the beaches were gun emplacements and minefields extended inland.

``War is hell,'' said General William Tecumseh Sherman during the Civil War.

And that is an apt description of what awaited the brave Allied warriors who set sail from England to the beaches of Normandy in the early morning of June 6, 1944, at the beginning of what has rightly been called ``The Longest Day.''

But they were buoyed in their resolve by the millions of prayers from Americans and others back home, of all races, religions, and creeds, invoking the Lord's blessing, mercy, and grace.

With the outcome in doubt, President Franklin Roosevelt asked the nation to join him in this solemn prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have

set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our

Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free

a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms,

stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace.

They fight not for the lust of conquest.

They fight to end conquest.

They fight to liberate.

They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill

among all Thy people.

They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to

the haven of home.

The prayers were needed because the cost of D-Day was high; U.S. casualties on D-Day totaled more than 2,499 dead, 3,184 wounded, 1,928 missing, and 26 captured.

Our British and Canadian allies suffered terrible losses on D-Day as well: approximately 2,700 for the British and 946 for the Canadians. German casualties are estimated at 4,000 to 9,000.

In total, the number of combatants killed, wounded or missing in the Battle of Normandy for both sides exceeded 425,000, not including the estimated 15,000 to 20,000 French civilians killed.

But the operation was a success.

More than 156,000 troops or paratroopers came ashore on D-Day, 73,000 from the U.S., 83,000 from Great Britain and Canada.

By the end of June 11, D-Day plus 5, 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies had come ashore.

And with them the seeds for the victory in Europe that would come less than a year later, on May 8, 1945, with the fall of Berlin and the unconditional surrender of the Nazis.

On the eve of the Normandy invasion, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, addressed the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces and said to them that they were about to embark upon a ``Great Crusade,'' and that the ``eyes of the world'' were upon them.

He told them that their task would not be easy because the ``enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.''

But, General Eisenhower said, ``this is the year 1944. The tide has turned. The free men of the world are marching together to victory.''

And march to victory they did, fully justifying General Eisenhower's ``confidence in their courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle.''

Because of the heroism of these men who willingly risked their lives to be the tip of the spear of liberty, the war was won and a world was saved for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, D-Day was, and remains, a day like no other in the history of man's sojourn on earth.

We remember Gettysburg.

There, President Lincoln paid tribute to those ``who gave their lives so that the nation might live.''

It is equally fitting and proper that we never forget D-Day and that we continue to honor those who risked all and gave all so that the world could remain free.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 354, which condemns the violence, on American soil, against peaceful protestors outside the residence of the Turkish Ambassador to the United States and calls for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

On May 16, 2017, the President hosted President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey for an official meeting at the White House to discuss counter-terrorism cooperation and bilateral issues.

That evening, over two dozen protestors peaceably assembled outside the Turkish Ambassador's residence in Washington, D.C., to voice their opposition to Turkish Government policies.

It was not long before unprovoked violence erupted, when pro-Erdogan supporters and individuals from the Turkish Embassy grounds pushed past District of Columbia police officers to brutally attack the peaceful demonstrators.

These Turkish officials violated the First Amendment rights of United States citizens, and multiple armed Turkish officials beat, kicked, and choked unarmed demonstrators.

Multiple video recordings show the violence with which these demonstrators were attacked.

The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and the Department of State confirm that the demonstrators did not instigate the violence.

Two armed Turkish officers attached to a security detail were detained at the scene for physically assaulting Federal agents but were later released and allowed to leave the United States because they held diplomatic immunity.

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond dispute that the life of President Erdogan was never in any danger.

It must be noted that immunity for diplomatic personnel and certain other foreign officials is a core principal but so is the constitutionally protected right to protest peacefully and freely in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third instance of violence perpetrated by members of Turkish President Erdogan's security detail on United States soil.

In 2011, a brawl erupted in the halls of the United States Nations General Assembly between members of Turkish President Erdogan's security detail and United Nations security officers, resulting in one United Nations security officer being hospitalized due to serious injuries.

In 2016, members of Turkish President Erdogan's security detail engaged in unwarranted violence against journalist reporting on an event at the Brookings Institution.

On May 21, 2017, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson affirmed that violence outside the Turkish Embassy was ``outrageous'' and ``simply unacceptable.''

It is imperative that the right to assembly, peaceful protest, and freedom of speech are not abridged because they are the bedrock of democracy.

For this reason, the United States Secret Service and the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of State should review this incident and confirm with the Turkish National Police the standards expected by visiting security details to prevent future violent incidents.

The Department of State should also conduct a review of its own security procedure to determine how to mitigate the likelihood of similar events in the future.

It is the duty of this House to stand for our ideals and take steps to strengthen freedoms for the press and civil society in countries such as Turkey, and oppose efforts by foreign leaders to suppress free and peaceful protest in their own countries.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and as a member of the Congressional Refugee Caucus, I rise in strong support of H.R. 390, the ``Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and Accountability Act of 2017.''

This legislation makes clear that it is the policy of the United States to ensure that assistance for humanitarian, stabilization, and recovery needs is directed toward those individuals and communities with the greatest need, including those individuals from communities of religious and ethnic minorities, and communities of religious and ethnic minorities, that have been identified as being at risk of persecution, forced migration, acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a timely and important response to acts of genocide and other war crimes committed by ISIS in a its continuing effort to subjugate the Yazidi religious minority in Syria and Iraq.

ISIS has targeted and continues to target Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Christians, Yazidis and its reprehensible actions are reminiscent of what we have seen in some of the darkest periods of human history.

For example, according to reports of human rights watchgroups, Shiite Muslims have been killed by ongoing waves of ISIS bombings of Shiite neighborhoods, and Shiite members of Iraq's security forces have been victims of mass ISIS executions.

ISIS is believed to be holding 3,500 people as slaves, and most of the enslaved are women and children from the Yazidi community.

ISIS claimed credit for the twin blasts that struck Christian Egyptian churches during Palm Sunday services, in which at least 47 Christians were murdered.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, in our own country we are witnessing an alarming increase in violence, bigotry, and acts of terror against members of many of our religious minorities:

1. Muslim college students have been shot and killed, execution- style, in their living room and outside of their mosques.

2. Jewish communities are struggling to deal with desecrated cemeteries and waves of bomb threats being called to their community centers and places of worship.

3. Two Sikh men were killed in New York City, a crime police declared to be a hate-shooting.

4. Nine African American parishioners were shot to death during Bible study at a Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

H.R. 390 aims to promote accountability in Iraq and Syria for the atrocities committed against the religious minorities living in those countries.

It also provides emergency relief for victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Iraq and Syria.

Specifically, the bill authorizes the providing of financial and technical assistance to those in need, as well as working with nongovernmental organizations with expertise in international criminal investigations and law to investigate and address crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, and their constituent crimes, occurring in Iraq since January 2014.

H.R. 390 also authorizes United States aid agencies to provide assistance to entities determined to be capable of effectively managing and delivering recovery, humanitarian, or stabilization assistance to Iraqi and Syrian religious or ethnic minorities that have been victimized by ISIS.

Mr. Speaker, the crimes ISIS has committed against Iraqi and Syrian religious and ethnic minorities are horrific.

The victims of this campaign of terror are innocent and in dire need of humanitarian and stabilization assistance.

As the global leader and champion of human rights and human dignity, the United States has an obligation to lead the international effort to defeat ISIS and ameliorate the suffering caused by its heinous acts.

H.R. 390 is a welcome and positive step in the right direction and I urge all Members to join me in voting for this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 355, which expresses the condolences of the United States to the twenty-two innocent victims who lost their lives and the fifty-nine individuals who were seriously injured in the barbaric attack perpetrated by a terrorist in Manchester, United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution's condemnation of this terrorist attack for the depraved, cowardly act that it is.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of the victims.

Moreover, our heartfelt appreciation goes out to the first responders and others who selflessly came to the aid of those affected by this act.

Manchester will emerge from the attack more vibrant and united than ever before with the same resiliency that has enabled it to grow and evolve from the ``birthplace of the Industrial Revolution'' to the modern, progressive, and welcoming metropolis that it is today.

As Manchester recovers and responds, I hope that Mancunians and Britons as a whole will take comfort in the knowledge that the people of the United States stand in solidarity with them.

This attack is a reminder of the common danger that democratic, peace-loving nations of the world face from those who reject the norms of civilized society and abuse the liberties and freedoms afforded them by free societies.

This terrorist attack in Manchester was a horrific act on innocent civilians perpetrated by a depraved individual who had the support of those who misuse the peaceful religion of Islam for their own misguided purposes.

Those who claim responsibility for this crime against humanity should make no mistake; they will be held accountable for their actions.

Today, however, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Manchester, a city that represents everything terrorists despise--that is, a place that welcomes people from all walks of life to live together in harmony.

That symbol is recognizable to Americans, because we are a society formed by diverse individuals intertwined to create a mosaic that is altogether lovely, strong, and unique.

Given our special relationship with the United Kingdom, the people of the United States of America offer our unwavering support to the people of Manchester and of the United Kingdom.

Today, I ask a moment of silence for the victims killed and injured in the terrorist attack in Manchester.

Mr. Speaker, our word is our bond.

The United States, when it engages internationally with our allies and friends, and even our enemies, our word is our bond.

The meetings that the administration had recently in Saudi Arabia, I am sure there were some positive results, but there is no positive result to the disruption that is now occurring between Mideast countries and Qatar.

Qatar has some of our military assets that are enormously important. Rumor has it that the administration may be thinking of a regime change. Yes, we have had our concerns with Qatar. We have been concerned about human rights or concerned about various positions with Al Jazeera, but we have worked with them, and we have realized that the emir, over the years, has worked with us in an honest and decent way and treated their people in a manner of decency.

I hope this is straightened out. They can't be starved. We cannot continue to encourage or be part of any disruption in that region. We need them to collaborate against terrorism. We do not need one being fought by others.

I would ask that the administration straighten this out, working with those of us who are concerned about our friends in Qatar, and to recognize that there is no specializing and isolating and picking friends. We have to work with all of them in that region to fight against the terror in Iran.

I would offer, again, my acknowledgment of D-Day and thank those who sacrificed their lives. God bless them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate LGBTQ Pride Month and the remarkable progress that has been made in making our country more diverse and tolerant and embracing of differences in the 17 years since the cruel murder of Matthew Shepherd, a college student from Laramie, Wyoming.

As a country, America has made and continues to make great progress in the area of social equality, as evidenced most dramatically by the seismic shift in public support for marriage equality over the past decade.

Today, supporters of marriage equality dramatically outnumber opponents by 61-35 percent; a near total reversal from 2004, when opponents outnumbered supporters 58-39 percent.

Our country made progress in bringing our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers out of the shadows with the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' which I was proud to support.

Our nation is now stronger and our people are safer thanks to the sacrifices made by these brave Americans, who no longer need to choose between service and silence.

There have been other changes for the better.

In April 2015, President Obama issued a landmark Executive Order prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ persons in the workplace.

This civil rights victory ensures the tax dollars used to pay government contractors support contractors that are committed to equal employment opportunity for all persons regardless of sexual orientation.

This legislation marks a major shift from a time when the U.S. Civil Service Commission prohibited the hiring of LGBTQ persons to a time when the Secretary of Defense has selected an openly gay man as his chief of staff.

And we are making progress in realizing the goal of making the H.R. 2282, the ``Equality Act of 2017,'' the law of the land so LGBTQ people will finally be guaranteed explicit, permanent protection under the nation's existing civil rights laws against discrimination in vital areas of life, like employment, access to public spaces, housing, credit, education, jury service, and federally-funded programs.

It is unacceptable that in 31 states LGBTQ people can get married on Sunday and remain at risk of being fired or evicted on Monday simply because of who they are.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 48th Anniversary of the LGBTQ Civil Rights Movement, where activists such as Frank Kamney led the struggle for the voices of the LGBTQ community to be heard.

Frank Kamney's courageous demonstrations inspired others to resist mistreatment and we witnessed in 1969 what happens when a community says enough is enough.

Our country has made progress since the Stonewall uprising of 1969, and with the support of equal rights for all communities by leaders such as President Barack Obama, more and more voices are being heard.

Mr. Speaker, although more remains to be done to realize the full promise of America that all are equally treated and protected by the law, it is undeniable that America is closer to realizing that promise than it was during the dark days of Stonewall.

So there is much reason for joy and optimism when my home city of Houston hosts ``Wonderland,'' Houston's Pride Week celebration later this month, from June 18 to 25, 2017.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the 16th largest LGBTQ community in the nation is located in the Houston metropolitan area, which I am privileged to represent.

The Houston LGBTQ community is culturally diverse, economically dynamic, and artistically vibrant.

Houston Pride Week has been an annual event for the last 38 years, since 1979, and promotes the individuality of Houston's ever-growing LGBTQ community.

The Pride Festival and Parade are at the center of a celebration annually attended by more than 600,000 people from Houston and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us, ``Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.''

All Americans should be deeply concerned over the increase in violence and acts of hate perpetrated against members of the LGBTQ community we have witnessed in recent months.

Especially troubling is the rise in bigotry and violent crimes against transgender people, particularly transgender women of color.

According to statistics compiled by the Human Rights Campaign, at least 22 transgender people in the United States lost their lives due to fatal violence, the most ever recorded.

Sadly, we are on pace to break this record in 2017, as 11 transgender persons have been killed in the first five months.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all Americans to visit Houston during Houston Pride Week to observe how we live out our conviction that ``Love Will Conquer Hate.''

Progress is made through the efforts of courageous men and women who actively engage their communities and face adversity to ensure that the rights of all are clearly recognized and protected.

People like the legendary Bayard Rustin, who organized the 1947 Journey of Reconciliation which inspired the Freedom Rides of the 1960s and helped Dr. King organize the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and who was the driving force behind the historic 1963 March on Washington.

Texas natives such as Sheryl Swoopes, a 3-time WNBA Most Valuable Player and champion for the Houston Comets, and former Houston Mayor Annise Parker.

These leaders have set an example of what can happen when we lift the limits of inequality and support our fellow Americans in their pursuits of their inalienable rights.

Other members of the LGBTQ community whose contributions have enriched American culture and made our country better include the great poet Langston Hughes; Mandy Carter, 2008 national co-chair of Obama Pride and lifelong activist; Billy Strayhorn the musician and gifted composer whose 30-year collaboration with Duke Ellington gave the world some of the greatest jazz music ever; Tom Waddell, army medical doctor and Olympic athlete; and James Baldwin, one of the towering figures in the history of American literature.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to acknowledge the achievements of just a few of the countless number of Americans who overcame prejudice and discrimination to make America a more welcoming place for succeeding generations of LGBTQ community members.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong opposition to the President's misguided, short-sighted, and disastrous decision to withdraw the United States from participation in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has proudly carried the mantle of global leader off the international community.

American leadership brought us the United Nations, the World Bank, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild a continent decimated by war and secure a peace that has lasted for more than 70 years.

As a senior member of Congress, a member of the Helsinki Commission, and member of the American delegation to the 80th Inter-Parliamentary Meeting of European Union and United States Legislators, one of my responsibilities is to work with the delegation's European counterparts on cooperative efforts to address and resolve issues of mutual concern.

This is becoming increasingly difficult because in less than 150 days, President Trump has done more to damage relations with our allies and the standing of the United States in the world than all of his predecessors combined.

On his maiden trip abroad as the leader of the United States, Trump embarrassed our country and alienated our allies by failing to affirm our commitment to Article 5 of the NATO charter which regards an attack on any NATO member as an attack on all of them.

Driving a wedge between the United States and its European allies has been the long sought strategic objective of the Russians since the formation of NATO in 1949.

Compounding his disastrous performance at the NATO summit, the President has now renounced America's commitment to the landmark Paris Climate Agreement, which encourages all nations to set and reach national climate goals every five years.

The U.S. played the pivotal role in drafting the agreement, forging consensus, and securing the assent of 195 nations.

In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump has elected to place the United States in the company of Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries not to accept by the Paris Agreement.

As U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham stated, by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Trump is affirming that ``he believes climate change is a hoax.''

Mr. Speaker, climate change is not a hoax invented by the Chinese, and the Paris Agreement is an example of America's indispensable global leadership.

Almost every credible scientific voice tells us human activity has and continues to have a dramatic impact on climate change.

Moreover, scientists have warned that inaction by the major industrialized nations of the world could lead to global catastrophe.

According to NASA researchers, 16 of the 17 warmest years in the last 13 and a half decades have occurred since 2001.

Evaporation patterns have shifted producing more frequent and powerful storms.

The United States is the world's second largest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere.

Experts say the resulting polluted runoff is degrading water quality.

As the founder of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I believe we have a duty to leave the planet we inherited in better shape for the generations that follow.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), changing weather conditions is cited as one of the main causes of trauma to children.

According to the AAP, between 2000 and 2009, there have been three times as many extreme weather events as occurred between 1980 and 1989 and that following climate-related natural disasters, high numbers of children are found to exhibit symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Children under one year of age are especially vulnerable to heat- related climate change and there is more than a 90 percent chance that by the end of the 21st century average summer temperature will exceed the highest temperatures yet recorded in many regions.

According to the World Health Organization, more than 88 percent of diseases attributable to climate change occur in children younger than five.

By 2030, climate change is expected to lead to 48,000 more children under the age of 15 dying from diarrheal disease in 2030, primarily in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

And in the world's poorest regions, where the disease burden is disproportionately high, children will be the most affected by climate change influenced infectious diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, West Nile virus, chikungunya, Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, diarrheal illness, amebic meningoencephalitis and coccidioidomycosis.

The President has often questioned the value of the Paris Agreement but has yet to provide any scientific or empirical basis to reject the consensus of experts that human activity is a leading contributor to climate change.

Indeed, if the President had any legitimate concerns regarding the efficacy of the Paris Agreement, he could and should work with America's partners to address and resolve them.

He has made no attempt to do so.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 54 percent of Americans believe that climate change is a serious problem.

As a Member of Congress, I have always acted on the basis of facts and promoted policies that are both aspirational and grounded in reality.

I have endeavored to always seek the truth by discerning what is real from what is fake.

And when it comes to the issue of climate change, I have listened to the scientists.

The President's isolated and short-sighted view threatens to quash years of deliberation and work by corporate leaders, scientists, educators, social actors and others who work tirelessly to protect the planet.

Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement would be disastrous, not only because it jeopardizes America's status as a world leader, but also because such action will undermine our competitiveness in the emerging clean-environment global economy.

According to studies, China is the world leader in renewable energy investment, pouring more than $78 billion into renewable energy projects last year alone.

In contrast, the United States invested less than $24 billion last year.

Many jobs are at stake, and that means non-participation in the Paris Agreement could undermine American economic interests.

We cannot afford to be left behind as the rest of the world moves toward a clean economy future.

A resounding bipartisan chorus has called for continued American observance of the Paris Agreement.

From Republican and Democratic Governors to Members of Congress to our NATO allies, the chorus of voices counseling against withdrawal continues to grow.

Americans want their country to lead the battle against climate change and for a healthy planet.

The President needs to recognize that he represents the entire country; not just the Trump Organization.

Trump needs to remember that he is the President of the United States of America.

If the President truly wants to ensure this nation's continuing greatness, then he will reverse his decision to renounce America's continued participation in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Brian Cooper, Chief Clerk to the Parliamentarian, who is retiring after more than three decades of service to our country.

Brian Cooper has dedicated his career to ensure the good management and orderly function of the U.S. House of Representatives.

As Chief Clerk to the Parliamentarian, much of his work has gone unnoticed.

But it has not gone unappreciated.

From time-keeping to processing bills to preparing for joint sessions of Congress, Brian Cooper has played an integral role in maintaining the integrity of the House of Representatives.

After more than three decades of service, this public servant has more than earned his wings of retirement.

Brian Cooper made the House work better and he will be missed by his many friends and colleagues, whom I join in wishing him well as he embarks on a new chapter in his life of service to others.

Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding.

I thank the chairman of this committee and the manager of this bill, and, particularly, I want to express my appreciation to the bipartisan co-sponsors of this legislation--the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel)--for coming together around a concept of continuing to work to protect our children; and where we can find bipartisanship, that is really very special as relates to the message to the American people.

The Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act requires that personnel and employees of national governing bodies recognized by the U.S. Olympic Committee report suspected incidents of child abuse, including sexual abuse, to law enforcement. The importance of this is to cease, end, stop, never have it again for those victims--never report or hold it for years and years--who are impacted psychologically and impacted for the rest of their life. Really, that is what has been happening in years past.

This bill is intended to protect young athletes who, with great expectation and excitement and challenge and wonderment and aspirations for the Olympics, in their early years, desire to serve their Nation; because when they put their bodies through this rigorous engagement in sport day after day, week after week, month after month, hour after hour, minute after minute, second after second, and deny themselves other extracurricular activities, they do it for the passion of the sport, for their recognition of excellence, but also to go to the Olympics and make their Nation proud.

And so what we have put them through with respect to not protecting them against sexual assaults severely undermines, again, and irreparably harms them. With H.R. 1973, we have an opportunity to ensure that that never happens again.

The need for this legislation is best illustrated by the ongoing scandal of

widespread abuse and exploitation of young gymnasts over the course of 20 years within USA Gymnastics--a prominent governing body of the U.S. Olympic Committee--in particular, by a physician starting back in 1997 who engaged in such activities.

Allegations against him were not reported to law enforcement until recently; and following the first public complaint against him in 2015, more than 100 women filed complaints accusing him of sexual abuse, and he now faces more than 20 criminal charges in Federal and State courts.

Again, this legislation is to turn the light on those who have quietly abused these young men and women and, as well, done it with impunity because no vehicle was provided for these young people to be able to ensure that they would not be assaulted again.

The integrity that we bring to this process with this legislation, the comfort that we give to families and parents when they entrust their children to those who are coaches, doctors, leaders of teams, sponsors of teams is vitally important. And the protections of this bill, of reporting and ensuring that the light continues to stay on and the darkness never comes for that young athlete who seeks that golden platform or that first place or second place or third place, or even to participate, that they can do it with the affirmation that the Nation believes in their protection and their security and that they should never, never, never face this alone.

I rise to support the legislation, H.R. 1973, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Louisiana and the ranking member from Michigan in support of this amendment. I think it has an underlying premise that we should all celebrate and attempt to ensure that it is in place.

I, too, agree that I look forward to reconciling the House and Senate bill, but the amendment specifically addresses the provisions in the bill concerning one-on-one interactions between young athletes and the adults who they work with; and I believe the clear understanding that we all hope can be implemented is that we don't have one-on-one interactions without overall supervision or other kids or other adult participants so that we do not create an atmosphere where a child can be intimidated or abused.

Under the proposed change, national governing bodies will be required to institute and enforce reasonable procedures designed to avoid one- on-one interactions between young athletes and their coaches, instructors, and doctors that cannot be observed or interrupted by another adult.

First of all, we know that the expanse of sports is expanding. There are so many new sports, so many new opportunities for adults, many committed and dedicated adults, but the real issue is: Let's protect the children.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the Goodlatte amendment.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his courtesies. I want to enthusiastically congratulate and thank the gentlemen and gentlewoman from Arizona for responding to their constituents and answering a question positively about protecting our young people.

I spoke earlier today about what happens with young people and their aspirations when they engage in sports. They want to win, but they also want to, if you will, to impress adults and to show that they can do the very best that they can do.

So I want to congratulate them for this amendment that advances the purposes and goals of protecting young victims from sexual abuse by requiring the national governing bodies to include resources and information regarding sexual assault and having sexual assault hotlines and other victim support services on their websites.

With this new technology, it will be at their fingertips. They don't have to, in essence, expose themselves. They can get this information and readily access the very people that will help them.

So I want to congratulate the manager, Mr. Conyers, and, of course, the chairman of the committee and the proponents of the underlying bill. I want to congratulate Mr. O'Halleran. His efforts here are to be commended, and I thank him for this insightful amendment to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opponents and proponents of this legislation because they have said much the same thing.

H.R. 1761 is a bill that stands against everything we stand against. It is for protecting against child exploitation, and we all agree with that. We agree, as well, that the bill has existing mandatory minimums and the attempt of the proponent of this bill to ensure that the decision that occurred in Palomino would not occur again.

Some clarification has occurred, and that is that the bill, or the law, now, with H.R. 1761 explicitly prohibits the creation of a visual depiction or live transmission of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. That is, of course, a meritorious and unanimously supported position. The mandatory minimums continue and also are added to, now, a number of other offenses. As have been indicated, those offenses can be upwards of 20 years, and they can be for a variety of offenses added under this bill.

So the bill is well intended, and the initial prohibition could draw support in a bipartisan manner, but the continued adding of offenses to mandatory minimums rather than language that would have left the sentencing to the discretion of the Federal court--which, by the way, many Federal judges have come to this Congress and to the Committee on the Judiciary to ask for and indicate the value of discretion as relates to their sentencing. This is not a death penalty case, so, clearly, the discretion of the court and the wisdom of the court could be utilized for the appropriate new offenses and the appropriate sentencing.

So while the bill is well intended, it is overbroad in scope and will punish the very people it indicates it is designed to protect: our children. H.R. 1761 would expand and modify the meaning of sexual exploitation of children, thereby granting new offenses that may be prosecuted under section 2251 of the Federal criminal code, which generally prohibits the production of child pornography.

As indicated, it works to fix the Fourth Circuit decision in Palomino, which reversed the defendant's conviction because the decision was that there was no proof of intent. The structure of the statute, however, would significantly be modified by H.R. 1761, separating section 2251(a) into five enumerated offenses, codified as 2251(a)(1) through (5). Based on the language in this bill, to criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction or live transmission of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, a teenager sexting another teenager could be swept up under the statutory power of this new measure.

Research shows that 91 percent of teenagers, tweens, have access to the internet and/or a smartphone. Hence, given the rampant advancement in technology and, consequently, its usage among this demographic, we must exercise prudence when introducing legislation that is seemingly ignorant of the growing trend of communication among teenagers.

H.R. 1761 ignores the life-altering impact it would have on our juveniles who engage in otherwise stupid and immature behaviors and, in most cases, consensually explicit sexual conduct if we begin to criminalize such conduct. While this bill seeks to protect minors--and I congratulate the proponent for that intent--in the same vein, it drastically alters the penalty for minors who may face mandatory minimums in sentencing, and, therefore, it is flawed in its design and intended purpose.

Let me be very clear: Legislators have very good intentions, but we cannot stand on the floor and guarantee how it will be interpreted. We cannot guarantee that one teenager will not be caught up in this new legislation. Court interpretation, prosecutors' interpretation, all that will be subjected to mandatory minimums, which is in the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider these concerns.

I heard the gentleman speak of his effort to ensure that the internet provider would have to show intent or have intentionally engaged.

Again, the interpretation of these bills are subject to interpretation, and the clearer we can be here on the floor of the House, the more we can be appropriate in its application.

My point is, in concluding, I hope we will ultimately have legislation that comes back to the floor of the House that we all may be able to join in and that the elements that do not impact and protect our teenagers will be eliminated and we can be assured that internet providers are protected as well.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I associate myself with the words of the ranking member, Mr. Conyers.

I look forward to strengthening these laws and, as well, working on legislation to continue to protect our children, our innocent children, from sexual abuse, sexual assault, and the devastation that it has on their lives.

So I rise to continue that theme and to indicate, as I said earlier, that some of the clarifications in the underlying bill are important, and important to clarify, and important to provide prohibitions that will be clear in possible further court interpretations. But I maintain that we cannot predict the court interpretations, and the better and clearer that we are to protect our children, I believe, is a route that we should take.

The bill would add new classes of offenses. But section 2251 does not provide for Romeo and Juliet exceptions; i.e., the penalties apply even when conduct is consensual and when the victim and offender are close in age. For example, a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old who videotaped themselves engaged in a sexual act, then emailed the video to their own email accounts, the 19-year-old would be subject to mandatory minimums. That is the basis of the amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment.

The Jackson Lee amendment is a Romeo and Juliet exception. The amendment is a reasonable approach to treatment of adolescent behavior that should not be left to prosecutors. The pervasiveness of personal technology, such as cell phones and tablets, have given rise to teenage sexting. Research has shown that teenage sexting is widespread, even among middle school-age youth.

Under section 2251, teenagers prosecuted for talking and sending messages, and then taking and sending messages, would be subject to mandatory prison sentences of at least 15 years and sex offender registration.

In light of the recent troubling statements by Attorney General Sessions, Congress should provide an alternative to existing mandatory penalties in sexting cases, particularly with juveniles. We cannot say that a juvenile will not be prosecuted federally. They could be, under this particular statute.

So this is a carve-out, a Romeo and Juliet carve-out, to ensure that it does not happen, to protect against the possibility of it happening.

A study conducted by Drexel University found that more than half of the undergraduate students who took part in an online survey said they had sexted when they were teenagers, and 30 percent said that they included photos in that message, meaning that they had sent sexual texts.

Therefore, I ask that my colleagues come together and support the Jackson Lee amendment for a Romeo and Juliet carve-out.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me quickly say that I respect the

gentleman, but I take great issue in calling a Member's amendment, or the analysis of that amendment, ridiculous, because it is not ridiculous. It is an extremely reasonable amendment. And unless he has some powers that I am not aware of, no one can predict when a prosecutor will determine that they will prosecute. We cannot. We pass criminal justice laws every day and cannot predict.

Whether or not it is based upon the Sessions memo, which as far as anyone who can read knows that we are going back to a stricter enforcement of everything criminal against everyone. That is clear.

The Jackson Lee amendment recognizes that not all sex offenses are the same. And currently, section 2251 is a one-size-fits-all sentencing scheme. It fits all, even a 19-year-old.

The Jackson Lee amendment would provide a better alternative. Punishment will be available involving offenses. When defendants are no more than 19 years old, they would have other alternatives. The judge would have discretion. That is simply what we are asking for.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled, ``Keep Mandatory Minimums Out of the Juvenile Justice System.'' This bill does not do that; and I also include an article entitled, ``Teenage Sexting is Not Child Porn.''

[June 16, 2014]

OP-ED: Keep Mandatory Minimums Out of the Juvenile Justice System

(By Lizzie Buchen)

Across the country, mandatory minimum sentences are falling

out of favor. From Sen. Rand Paul to Attorney General Eric

Holder, people from both ends of the political spectrum are

blaming these harsh and punitive sentences for driving our

skyrocketing incarceration rates and exacerbating racial

disparities in the criminal justice system. But in this era

of smart sentencing reform--particularly toward young

people--a disturbing piece of legislation is coasting through

the California legislature, threatening to wrench the state

in the opposite direction. Senate Bill 838, authored by state

Sen. Jim Beall (D-Santa Clara), would break new ground by

establishing the first mandatory minimum sentences in the

state's juvenile justice system.

The juvenile justice system was founded on the

understanding that young people who commit offenses are often

struggling in situations outside of their control, are highly

amenable to rehabilitation and have the potential to lead

productive and law-abiding lives. Mandatory minimum sentences

automatic sentences of incarceration or confinement, meted

out regardless of the facts of the case are completely at

odds with these foundational principles. They are determined

not by the youth's past circumstances or potential life

ahead, but by what he or she has done. The only result is

punishment, a sharp contrast to the rehabilitative ideals of

the juvenile justice system.

Mandatory minimum sentences are completely incompatible

with how juvenile court works. When a youth has committed an

offense, juvenile court judges tailor sanctions to best meet

a youth's unique needs for rehabilitation by weighing a

comprehensive set of factors, including the severity of the

crime, the statement of the victims, and the circumstances of

the youth's life--including mental health issues and

experience with abuse, homelessness and extreme poverty. The

judge then chooses from a wide range of community-based and

residential options, allowing him or her to tailor the

sanction to best treat the youth and protect the community.

In line with this focus on rehabilitation, the sentences are

indeterminate, with terms based on the youth's progress.

Proponents of mandatory minimum sentences, including

supporters of California's youth mandatory minimum bill,

claim that these sentences deter crime. But the evidence

tells us this is a dubious notion at best. Although this bill

would introduce the first mandatory minimum sentences in

California's juvenile justice system, such sentences have

been in place in the adult system for decades--and are widely

recognized as failures. A large and growing body of research

has found that mandatory minimum sentences have come at

enormous social, financial and human costs, with little

benefit to public safety. There is no evidence that these

sentences have a significant deterrent effect. If anything,

these harsh punishments are counterproductive, putting the

public at risk by disrupting families, impoverishing

communities of human capital, making it more difficult for

people to return to law-abiding society and diverting

precious public resources away from social services and

toward costly incarceration.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about my amendment to H.R. 1761, ``Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act.''

As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, I offer this amendment to help make H.R. 1761 a better bill to achieve its intended purpose.

Though troubled by any sexually explicit activity that may exploit and otherwise, harm our children, I believe that H.R. 1761, the ``Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act,'' is deadly and counterproductive to ensuring protection of our youth population in our new technology era.

This bill will exacerbate overwhelming concerns with the unfair and unjust mandatory minimum sentencing that contributes to the over- criminalization of juveniles and mass incarceration generally.

Simply put, this bill will add to the already tragic realities of many juveniles. Rather than proceeding with the caution befitting an expansion of the mandatory sentencing penalty, H.R. 1761 is being rushed to the House Floor, without a single hearing and without the opportunity to consider amendments directly relevant to whether our system of criminalizing juveniles for sexting is fair, just, and sound policy.

Though presented as a proposal to protect children, H.R. 1761 excessively penalizes juveniles and creates life altering criminal charges when engaged in `sexting'.

Rather, it raises new constitutional concerns; and it does not address documented and systemic unfairness and racial disparity in the imposition of mandatory sentencing and its overbroad sweep of criminalizing juveniles.

My amendment fixes that problem. It creates an alternative punishment (not more than one year of imprisonment) under section 2251 for teenagers who participate in ``sexting'' and might otherwise be subject to mandatory minimum sentences of at least 15 years in prison.

The Jackson Lee is a thoughtful, narrowly-drawn provision that provides judges with a sensible sentencing option for teenagers no more than 19 years old who participate in sexting that may be applied in the judges' discretion, in appropriate cases.

The Jackson Lee amendment is a reasonable approach to treatment of adolescent behavior that should not be left to prosecutors. The pervasiveness of personal technology, such as cellphones and tablets, has given rise to teenage ``sexting.'' Research has shown that teenage sexting is widespread, even among middle school-aged youth. Under section 2251, teenagers prosecuted for taking and sending such messages would be subject to mandatory prison sentences of at least 15 years and sex offender registration. In light of the recent troubling statements made by Attorney General Sessions, Congress should provide an alternative to existing mandatory minimum penalties in ``sexting'' cases.

A study conducted by Drexel University found that more than half of the undergraduate students who took part in an online survey said that they sexted when they were teenagers. Thirty percent said they included photos in their messages and 61 percent did not know that sending nude photos via text could be considered child pornography. Another online survey published in 2008 found that almost 40 percent of teenagers between ages 13 and 19 had sent ``sext'' messages, almost 50 percent had received a sext message, and 20 percent posted nude or semi-nude content online.

The Jackson Lee amendment recognizes that not all sex offenses are the same. Currently, section 2251 employs a one-size-fits-all sentencing scheme. Under section 2251, a 19 year-old, who engages in ``sexting'' (sending or receiving a sexually explicit photo or video of a minor) with a willing, 17 year-old girlfriend or boyfriend, would be subject to the same mandatory minimum sentence as a 50 year-old man, who engages in the same conduct with a 17 year-old.

The Jackson Lee amendment would provide a better alternative. The alternative punishment would be available in prosecutions involving offenses under section 2251(a)(2) or 2251(a)(3), when the defendant is no more than 19 years old, the difference in age between the defendant and victim is no more than four years, and the sexually explicit conduct depicted in the photo or video was consensual. Judges would not be required to sentence teenagers pursuant to the alternative punishment.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

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

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