Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in the early days of 1984, Congress came up with a unique idea: with Congress' support, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Victims of Crime Act, otherwise known as

Mr. Speaker, New York City lights, modeling, and starring in music videos sounds like a script from a movie. So when two young girls met a man they knew as ``Drey'' on Instagram, they thought they had their ticket to the spotlight. Little did they know they were about to be victims of human sex trafficking.

The 15- and 17-year-old girls headed to the airport, ready to check into their American Airlines flight. Denice Miracle, however, was working the American Airlines ticket counter when the girls approached. She noticed that the teenagers looked nervous. They had too many bags, no adult was with them, and they had one-way, first-class tickets.

Denise's training kicked in, recognizing the red flags of human trafficking. She immediately alerted law enforcement, and they came to the rescue. Thankfully, this story ends with both girls returning home safely. They were not trafficked into the scourge of human slavery, in large part, because of Denice, who saw something and said something.

We thank people like Denise Miracle for their work, for their personal involvement in rescuing these two girls from evil.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of San Antonio and its residents on the 300th anniversary of the city's founding. San Antonio has grown from a small farming community along the banks of the San Antonio River into the 7th largest city in the United States.

Its rich history and vibrant culture is what makes it truly unique. The first flag to fly over Texas was the Spanish flag. Spain laid official claim to what is now parts of Texas from 1716 to 1821, as part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, or Colonial Mexico. On May 1, 1718, the Mission San Antonio de Valero--later known as the Alamo--was established.

The Tejanos' place in Texas history took root in the 1700s when the land was under Spanish rule. A group of mostly Spanish-Indians loyal to the Spanish crown pushed their colonial empire north from Mexico to found a military post and religious missions to establish San Antonio. As frontier people, they were mainly ranchers and farmers and developed a culture unique to them. Settling northeastern Mexico, the area of modem day San Antonio, many of their customs reflected that of traditional Mexican heritage, but with an independent Texas twist.

San Antonio is home to five missions established along the San Antonio River in the 1700s by Catholic missionaries. The five missions are all but three miles apart from each other: Mission San Antonio de Valero (The Alamo), Mission Concepcion, Mission San Jose, Mission San Juan, and Mission Espada. The missions served to make the American Indians into Spanish citizens. By entering the missions, the Indians pledged to follow the rules of Spain. They set aside their traditional life to learn a new language, accept a new religion and pledge allegiance to a new king.

Today the missions represent a connection with our past. The missions depict classic Spanish architecture, domes and bell towers, and sanctuaries that still have active parishes and cultural centers. The missions are a part of every Texan's history.

Military Plaza was first established in 1722 as a parade ground and market square for the Spanish troops stationed there. Today, the only noticeable evidence of the Spanish troops marching and living in the plaza is the Spanish Governor's Palace. The area has been the heart of the city and today is the commercial and government center of San Antonio.

Any Texan will tell you that water is very important to our state, and water is what contributed to San Antonio's rich history. The San Antonio River comes from the Edwards Aquifer Spring Field north of downtown San Antonio. With this natural resource, the missions and plaza were located close by. It provided a clean reliable source to the missionaries and soldiers.

The river supported agricultural operations at the missions through an irrigation system created by the early settlers. Portions of this water system remain used today, 300 years later.

Over the years, the Tejanos prospered and furthered their distinction from the Spanish crown and from other parts of Mexico. A failed attempt by the Tejanos against Spanish rule gained new hope when Mexico won independence from Spain in 1831.

By this time Texas had seen a significant influx of settlers from the United States, and like the Tejanos, had a culture unique as the land it occupied. As Texas' distinction from Mexico grew, so did the desire for local rule and sovereignty.

The passion for independence spread throughout Texas and San Antonio and on March 2, 1836, 54 delegates signed the Texas Declaration of Independence and the fight for freedom began. 187 freedom fighters started assembling in an old beat-up mission in San Antonio.

Juan Seguin and his company of Tejanos rode into the Alamo and readied for battle alongside William Barrett Travis, Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett. This rag-tag group of relentless patriots, made up of men from nearly every state in the Union and 13 foreign countries, including Mexico, readied for one of the most storied battles in our history.

Outnumbered by an overwhelming Mexican army, these Texas warriors knew that surrender was not an option. Retreat was never on the table. Victory or death.

On February 23, 1836, Santa Ana's army of 1500 well-armed troops unleashed on the defenders of the Alamo. During the siege, Travis sent out his famous call for reinforcements.

Juan Seguin was the last messenger to leave, riding through enemy lines carrying the final message from the beleaguered mission. Unfortunately, the call for help was not answered in time. Travis and 187 volunteers sacrificed their lives on the altar of freedom after thirteen glorious days at the Alamo.

Regrouping in Gonzales, Seguin and his company of Tejanos joined General Sam Houston in the final battle for independence along the marshy banks of the San Jacinto River. This was the only Tejano unit at San Jacinto. As not to confuse the Tejanos with Santa Anna's army, General Sam had Seguin put a playing card in the head band of each Tejano so they could easily be recognized. In an impromptu siege on the sleeping enemy, General Sam and his boys routed the Mexican Army yelling, ``Remember the Alamo!'' ``Remember Goliad!'' Most of the enemy were killed or wounded. The rest were captured or disappeared, the victory was stunning.

Texas became a free, independent nation that day and claimed what is now Texas and parts of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. In June of 1836, Juan Seguin accepted the official Mexican surrender of San Antonio and later saw that the remains of those that perished at the Alamo received an honorable burial.

A plaque on the Alamo wall states: ``The Alamo: The Thermopylae of Texas.'' The Alamo is a tribute to all those that are defiant against any form of tyranny. It is important for us to recognize all those that sacrificed for freedom, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Remember who we are and what we stand for--remember the Alamo.

Whether it is the river walk, historic missions, floating parades, amazing food or the Alamo that you love about going to San Antonio; there is something for everyone of every age. This year as San Antonio celebrates 300 years of history, I encourage everyone, whether you're a longtime Texan or a transplant, to take the time and learn something new about San Antonio's unique and fascinating history. Three centuries later, that same dogged determination that filled that little Spanish mission is what continues to set Texas apart from all the rest.

And that's just the way it is

Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct honor for me to talk about the great relationship we have with Serbia as co-chair of the Congressional Serbia Caucus along with Emanuel Cleaver of MO.

Serbia is a great friend of the United States.

As a Texan, I have great admiration for the people of Serbia. Our strong opinions and habit to speak our minds make us natural allies.

In fact, one of the first people to settle Texas was a Serbian named Dorde Sagic, or George Fischer as he was known in the U.S.

After settling in Texas, Sagic went on to become a justice of the peace in my hometown of Houston.

But Serbia has contributed much more to the cause of justice than just Mr. Sagic keeping the early streets of Houston safe.

Today we honor the service of Serbia's armed forces who have fought side-by-side with Americans to preserve justice during history's most horrific conflicts.

In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson gave a speech marking the fourth anniversary of Austria-Hungary's invasion of Serbia. Speaking of the bravery of the Serbian armed forces, President Wilson said:

``Nobly did they respond. So valiantly and courageous did they oppose the forces of a country ten times greater in population and resources . . . While their territory has been devastated and their homes despoiled, the spirit of the Serbian people has not been broken.''

As a Texan, I admire such defiance against overwhelming odds.

Like President Wilson, I am proud to share the stories of Serbia's bravery here in Washington.

I believe the most meaningful for Americans is the story of the Halyard Mission during the dark days of the Second World War.

While under Nazi-occupation, the Serbian people demonstrated their bravery as they played a crucial role in the largest rescue operation of American airmen in history.

In 1944, American bombers were flying frequent missions to strike Germany's vital oil supplies in Romania as part of the allied advance into Europe.

The 15th Air Force led this effort by launching nearly 20,000 sorties into Eastern Europe, with many of the missions flying over Nazi- occupied Yugoslavia. As many as 1,500 pilots and airmen were shot down during these courageous air raids.

Serbians, who had been resisting German forces since 1941, risked their own lives to rescue American aircrews and hide them from patrolling Nazis.

For months these brave and noble Serbians cared for and protected American and allied pilots.

By August 1944, the Allied forces, including the 15th Air Force and Office of Strategic Services, devised a daring operation to evacuate the hundreds of Allied pilots being sheltered by the Serbian resistance.

American aircraft flew into enemy territory and evacuated these airmen from an air field built and protected by local Serbians near the village of Pranjani.

For over 60 years this operation was kept secret. But now we can remember the courage of our Serbian friends and say thank you.

The spirit of the Halyard mission still lives on today as a remarkable story of resistance and heroism.

As was the case in both World Wars, Serbia and the U.S. still face shared threats.

About 600 foreign fighters in Syria have come from the Balkan states. ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists present a threat to Serbia and the region just as they present a threat to the U.S.

We must continue coordinating with our Serbian partners to stop returning terrorists and neutralize networks that recruit fighters in the Balkans.

The U.S. is also working with Serbia to improve its independent judiciary and fight corruption. A democratic Serbia with a strong rule of law is in America's interests.

But there are others who do not support this goal.

Russian disinformation efforts are designed to keep Serbia in its sphere of influence and poison our warming friendship.

Nevertheless, Serbia's integration to the West has continued to move forward.

In 2006, Serbia joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program and, in 2015, signed an Individual Partnership Action Plan with the alliance to strengthen cooperation.

Recently the European Union announced that Serbia could join the EU as early as 2025. I applaud this step which will strengthen Belgrade's political institutions and economic ties with the West.

Together we share the same dreams of a bright and free future for both our countries.

We are blessed to have brave men and women that ensure our futures are bright and free.

Thanks to the Serbian armed forces for standing with America in the wars of the past and in the challenges we will face together in the future.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the chairman for his long work on this issue, and I want to thank a couple of the cosponsors--this is a bipartisan bill--Congressman Peters, Congresswoman Speier, and Mr. Ken Calvert, who have worked on this for years. I appreciate the words of the gentleman who just spoke, a great leader in civil rights movement, but as he probably knows, title VII of the Civil Rights Act does require notice, as well as this legislation hopefully will do.

And let me be clear. This legislation makes the ADA better because it requires that businesses be told and be given a chance to fix the problem if there is a problem.

Under current law, that is not the case. The goal of this bill, the ADA legislation that we have, is to have accommodations for the disabled and to make sure businesses comply with that accommodation.

When a lawsuit is filed, many times the business is never told what the problem is, and it may be a year or longer before that lawsuit ends up in a Federal court. Under this legislation, businesses, once they are put on notice, they have 180 days to fix the problem or make substantial progress.

If the goal of the ADA is to get problems fixed, the legislation we have here helps that. But what is taking place in our country, Mr. Chair, because of the legislation that we currently have under the law, some lawyers, as mentioned earlier, use the legislation and abuse the legislation under current ADA to the disadvantage of the disabled to make a profit for themselves.

And here is the way it works, Mr. Chair. A litigant, a plaintiff, will send a letter or sometimes file a lawsuit against a small business. We are not talking about the big businesses--we are talking about small mom-and-pop stores--and telling them they have an ADA violation. The letter--the lawsuit--may not even state what the violation is. And the letter says: ``You pay or we will continue the lawsuit.''

These businesses don't have the money to hire a lawyer to represent them, so what do they do? They pay the $3,000, $5,000, the extortion, so that those lawsuits are dismissed.

The problem that may be alleged in that lawsuit is never required to be fixed for two reasons: one, the lawsuit doesn't require it; and second, these lawsuits may not state what the problem is.

So, if the goal of the ADA is to make businesses comply, these serial plaintiffs that are filing multiple lawsuits still don't require that the businesses, even if they get the money, have to comply with the alleged violation. This is happening throughout the United States.

Let me mention just a few of these. In Florida, a plaintiff named Howard Cohan filed 529 of these lawsuits; California, a person named Vogel filed 124; Pennsylvania, a plaintiff named Mielo brought 21 lawsuits; and even in New York, a plaintiff named Hirsch brought 24 lawsuits.

What are they doing?

These plaintiffs may not even live in the State where the violation is supposed to occur. These plaintiffs may not even be disabled themselves, but they will file the lawsuit against these businesses, sometimes using Google Maps to find a violation in the parking lot, send a letter from a law firm saying, ``You comply with paying us, or this lawsuit''--or paying us this shakedown is what it amounts to--``or we will continue the lawsuit,'' and many businesses file or pay the extortion. It has become a profit industry.

It doesn't help the disabled. Contrary to what the other side has said, these lawsuits do not help the disabled. In fact, I think these lawsuits are being filed on behalf of serial plaintiffs who want nothing else except to receive extortion money.

Before my time is completed, I want to mention some of the Federal judges. One Federal judge from New York has taken notice of these cases.

Mr. Chair, Federal judges have said that there are issues with these drive-by lawsuits.

Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York, in 2016, in his decision, said that these cases, ``are brought against small bars and grills, restaurants, or bodegas or occasionally corner grocery stores (and sometimes their landlords), which are likely ill-equipped financially to vigorously defend these violations, and it is to intimidate businesses to settle before the trial takes place.''

I have parents that are in their 90s. I am concerned about access for all disabled people, and the thought that this bill makes it worse for the disabled is wrong. This bill makes businesses comply and puts them on notice. If they don't comply within the time period, then file the lawsuit, go after them, but businesses should be able to have the notice of what the problem is so that they can fix it, which is the goal of the ADA: to make businesses comply.

And that is just the way it is.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct, I am aware of this matter.

Also, I am aware that the gentleman joined Chairman Goodlatte and about 60 Members of this Chamber last year to urge the Justice Department to finalize a regulation in this area with the intent of providing certainty. Even still, it is not clear that there is a statutory obligation under the ADA for the Department of Justice to act, which is why H.R. 620 doesn't address that issue specifically.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, this legislation makes it better for the disabled to have access under the notice and cure requirement.

The Judiciary Committee will continue to work with the Department of Justice and stakeholders on this. In fact, for jurisdictions where courts have held the ADA does apply to websites, we believe protections in H.R. 620 will be applicable as well.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I thank Mr. Denham for offering this amendment and letting us all know some of the drive-by lawsuit problems in California.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice, for example, has come up with 250 pages of regulations recently about the ADA. These regulations are sent out to the businesses. It is important, as the gentleman from California has mentioned, that these businesses be able to understand what those regulations are because many of these businesses that are being targeted by unscrupulous lawyers are minority-owned businesses, some first-generation Americans who have come into our country trying to make ends meet.

So the amendment is a good idea. I support the amendment, and I urge all Members of this body to vote for it as well.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it would defeat the whole purpose of the bill, which is to resolve access issues under title III without the need for expensive litigation. The private enforcement provisions provided in title III of the ADA are already a powerful tool to achieve greater accessibility through injunctive relief.

Importantly, the ADA does not provide for damages in private lawsuits; it never has. This amendment would then, for the first time, allow such damages, which will drive up litigation costs and provide even more fodder for trial lawyers to abuse the law. Businesses should use their resources to fix access to problems, not to pay unnecessary and wasteful litigation costs.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comment about having faith in judges. As a former judge, I appreciate that comment.

When the ADA legislation was debated here on this House floor in 1990, there was discussion about this whole issue. The purpose of the ADA legislation that passed Congress was to fix the problems that businesses had in accessibility for the disabled. It was not designed for punitive damages at all. It was designed to fix the problem. That is why the underlying legislation that we are sponsoring today makes businesses move in a timely manner if there is a violation.

So this would change the whole concept of the ADA. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment and being the original sponsor of this legislation. I support the amendment. The substantial progress provision in H.R. 620 provides needed flexibility in cases in which removing a barrier is halted for reasons beyond the business' control.

For example, a business may not be able to pour concrete in Alaska during the winter to fix a ramp. Likewise, a business may find that getting a building permit from their local government is taking longer than expected.

In these cases, as well as other unexpected events, the substantial progress provision provides judges with a discretionary standard to determine whether the improvements and progress by the business are both material and meaningful.

This clarifying amendment further defines the term ``substantial progress'' to make clear that circumstances beyond the business' control--owner--are the only allowable justifications for not making substantial progress within the required time.

The amendment will help provide more access for the disabled. I support it because it makes this legislation better.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

The goal of the bill is to provide more access for Americans more quickly. Absent circumstances beyond a business' control, 120 days is sufficient time to remove a barrier. Under this amendment offered by the gentleman, instead of 180 days total, a business would have up to 120 days, instead, to fix access problems.

I believe this amendment improves the bill. I urge its support, and I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make it easier for a disabled American to provide a business with a notice of an ADA violation.

Violations of the ADA can be very technical. The Department of Justice has hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of regulations and guidance documents on complying with the public accommodation requirements of title III of the ADA. Given that the Department of Justice will not certify whether a business' property is ADA compliant, these ADA requirements are often left to the interpretation of plaintiffs' lawyers.

The notice provisions of H.R. 620 require that those who allege a business is violating the ADA must provide the business with a description of ``the specific sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act alleged to have been violated.'' This provision was designed to ensure that businesses have a clear picture of the alleged violation with the business.

However, this requirement may go too far. Accordingly, the amendment removes this requirement, making clear that written notices provided by disabled individuals can be written in plain English, without legalese.

Removing this requirement will also facilitate a dialogue between the individual and the business. Additionally, it may avoid any need for a disabled individual to hire a lawyer.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

I want to remind folks that notice requirement is required even under title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It is also required under title I of the original ADA legislation. So this is not a new phenomena.

This legislation and this amendment gives potential plaintiffs the ability to advise and put a business on notice without even having to hire a lawyer with the legalese requirements that are written by the Department of Justice, which constantly updates what requirements are under the ADA.

The intention is to simply have the violation described in a way that is sufficient to put the business on notice of what the ADA violation is.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that all Members support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, Jennifer's childhood was violently chaotic. By her early twenties, she was living on the streets, begging and stealing to survive.

After a local gang member suspected that she may have stolen his money, her life became even more horrific and hellish. The gangster beat her mercilessly with a baseball bat until she collapsed, and then he and other gang members pistol-whipped her and burned her with cigarettes. They tattooed their names all over her body, branding her as property. For 6 years, they held her in slavery, forcing her to have sex with countless men for money.

Desperate, Jennifer tried to kill herself, but when the rope broke, she resolved to escape. Luckily for Jennifer, she found a shelter and was able to rebuild her life. She covered up the traffickers' names with flowers and the words ``free yourself.''

We, as a society, owe it to Jennifer and survivors like her to protect them

and put the slave masters in the jailhouse, where they belong.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, I went to the Texas- Mexico border near Laredo.

On this, my 20th border trip, I spent time along the river with the Border Patrol. Los Zetas Mexican drug cartel controls a sophisticated smuggling operation of people and drugs. They have scouts on rooftops on both sides of the border, using cell phones and high-tech equipment to look for the Border Patrol.

Everyone pays to be smuggled across the Rio Grande. The cost is $500 to $800 for a Mexican; $3,000 to $5,000 for a Central American; and $15,000 to $30,000 for Chinese or countries of special interest, like Bangladesh. Everybody pays.

This organized crime gang uses stash houses on both sides of the border to conceal border crossers or drugs. When the coast is clear, Los Zetas moves people or drugs further into Texas, and then throughout the country. This is a very sophisticated criminal network.

Mr. Speaker, the outlaw Los Zetas cartel makes millions of dollars on our unsecured border. Enough with the rhetoric. Secure America first.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the Boy Scouts of the Sam Houston Area Council live up to the Boy Scout motto, selflessly giving back to others and embodying the true spirit of what it means to be a Boy Scout. The Sam Houston Area Council serves over 50,000 youth in 16 counties throughout Southeast Texas. The troops in the Houston area are dedicated to service and leadership. This year, the Scouts are partnering with Super Bowl of Caring to do what a Boy Scout does best, give back to their local community. The program is called ``Scouting for Food,'' which began on January 28th. The Boys Scouts went door to door, distributing door hangers in neighborhoods to announce an upcoming food drive. The project lasted through February 3rd, with Scouts returning to pick up any donations available in the neighborhoods. The donations will be going directly to food pantries, food banks, and churches in the Scouts' local neighborhoods. This is, without a doubt, a welcome to those who struggle to make ends meet and need help putting food on the table. In 2016, the Scouts collected an impressive 200,000 pounds of food. The Boy Scouts are hoping to top that this year. There is no doubt, with their determination and grit, they will easily reach that goal. The Boy Scout's promise is ``to help other people at all times.'' This is a shining example of helping others out who

are less fortunate. The Boy Scouts of Sam Houston Area Council must be commended for thinking of others before themselves. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, cracks are forming in the iron grip of the Iranian regime. The latest wave of protests sweeping Iran demonstrates yet again that dictatorial regimes are inherently doomed because they lack the enduring consent of the people they rule.

Yet just as our forefathers required foreign assistance to finally shed the chains of tyranny, we too must stand with the Iranian people as they defy their oppressors. Utilizing our economic, political, and technological might, rather than armed intervention, the United States should rectify past inaction and amplify the voices of Iranians.

For nearly four decades, the mullahs in Tehran have used brutality and religious zeal to cling to power and steal from the Iranian people. When they seized power in 1979, they were part of a larger, ideologically diverse movement opposed to the monarchical rule of the Shah. The Islamist clerics led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, however, turned on their revolutionary comrades and imposed theocratic rule once the monarchy fell. Thousands of Iranians of different political stripes were executed without trial while many more, such as members of the People's Mujahideen of Iran, were forced into exile. Whatever promise many Iranians thought would come in 1979 proved to be a mirage that replaced one corrupt dictator with another.

Since then, the theocrats in Tehran have wasted their nation's vast resources on their violent regional ambitions, sponsoring terrorism and militancy from Lebanon to Yemen. However, it is the Iranian people more than any that have endured the persistent brutality of the supreme leader and his Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps thugs. We witnessed this in 2009, when thousands of Iranians took to the street to reject the rigged election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The subsequent crackdown by the regime killed dozens and imprisoned thousands more in an attempt to silence an emerging opposition.

In spite of the blatant savagery by Iran's rulers, the Obama Administration said little. Upon coming to office, President Obama and his national security staff had softened America's tone towards the extremist government in Tehran as part of broader policy of appeasement that culminated in the Iran nuclear deal. The shameful response by the Obama Administration in the face of such savagery was all too reminiscent of American inaction during the Hungarian uprising in 1956 against the Soviet Union. That sad chapter in American leadership crushed the hopes of millions living behind the Iron Curtain. Succeeding Cold War presidents pointedly saw that America could not remain silent to Soviet oppression. Today we must echo the bold leadership of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who are forever immortalized by their outspoken criticism of the evil empire. Their words emboldened fledgling democratic movements throughout Eastern Europe and ultimately contributed to the peaceful demise of the Soviet empire.

America still holds a unique duty as leader of the free world. For more than two centuries, the United States has been a symbol and protector of liberty around the globe. Our shining example of government of the people, by the people, and for the people has inspired generations to demand more from their rulers. When the American government heeds the call of those in bondage, it provides an immeasurable assurance of hope that they do not suffer in silence.

My congressional colleagues and I are watching the current protests in Iran closely. What started as a protest of the poor economic conditions inside Iran quickly sharpened its focus toward the regime that is responsible for the country's ills. If there is any silver lining to the misguided nuclear agreement the Obama Administration struck with Tehran, it is that the billions of dollars delivered to the mullahs has exposed their corruption. The Iranian people have rightly seen that despite the removal of sanctions, they are no better off because the wealth of their nation is being hoarded by the ayatollah and his IRGC goons to spread terror externally.

Our support can be more than just encouraging words. We can harness the innovation of the U.S. tech industry to allow Iranians the ability to securely communicate with each other and the outside world. Through their bravery, they can document the atrocities of the regime which we can then use to prosecute on the world stage. I welcome President Trump's leadership on the cause of the Iranian people and urge my colleagues that now is the time that we must act.

Mr. Speaker, when Anna first set foot on the campus of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in 2014, she immediately fell in love with the school. Nestled deep in the scenic New York Finger Lakes, the small liberal arts college appeared serene and safe.

On that beautiful campus, however, was hiding a much more dangerous reality. Unfortunately, Anna would discover the terrible truth just two weeks after she arrived.

On the second Saturday of the semester, Anna was eager to go out and meet more of her fellow classmates. As the night went on, Anna got separated from her friends. When they received a text from her telling them that she was scared of someone she had met and didn't know what to do, they began frantically searching for her.

It wasn't until the early-morning hours that they finally found her, bent over a pool table with a football player appearing to sexually assault her. Her friends immediately took her back to the dormitory. Anna was very ill, pale, and disoriented. Worried that she had been drugged and raped, her friends called the paramedics.

After assessing Anna, the paramedics knew she needed to be examined by a sexual assault forensic examiner, commonly called a SAFE. SAFEs are specially trained to deal with sexual assault victims and collect forensic evidence through rape kits. Especially in cases where the victim has been drugged or was inebriated, forensic evidence can provide important evidence against an attacker.

Anna was lucky that the paramedics knew she must be treated by a SAFE, but unfortunately, many victims at colleges are never given this option. To ensure that all victims can have this care, I have introduced legislation that would require a hospital to provide access to a SAFE and a university to provide access to a SAFE who is properly trained to provide care sensitive to the trauma a rape victim has been experiencing or to have a plan in place to quickly get a victim to a nearby hospital.

The bill, named the Megan Rondini Act in honor of a college rape victim who was denied proper post-rape treatment at a hospital, will ensure victims can access the care they need.

After the medical exam, Anna returned to school and reported the attack. She was shocked, however, when the school reacted with skepticism and indifference. Without giving Anna any time to prepare or even get the results of her rape kit, the school immediately held a hearing to adjudicate the case. There was no campus victim advocate to assist her and speak up for her during the disciplinary hearing. The panelists spoke over her, interrupted her, and asked her all types of accusatory questions.

So, just 12 days after the assault, the school cleared the accused of all charges. Devastated, Anna took leave to recover at home. And while Anna eventually did return to finish her degree, she never believed justice against her attacker was achieved.

All victims of sexual assault on campus should have access to a victim advocate. Advocates can offer counseling, legal advice, assistance during hearings, and emotional support. Perhaps if Anna had access to this vital service, she would have gotten the justice that she was seeking.

Mr. Speaker, if colleges and universities choose to adjudicate sexual assault on campus independent of law enforcement investigation, then victims should have access to a campus victim advocate who is trained under Title IX. This is only fair. Schools must be prepared to deal with sexual assault victims and must have access to a SAFE, and they must have access to a victim advocate. Otherwise, victims will never know whether justice is served for them. And justice, Mr. Speaker, is supposed to be what we do, even on university campuses.

And that is the just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, this year started with thousands of Iranians, including many young people, taking to the streets in opposition to the corrupt regime of the mullahs in Iran.

Iranians face brutality, imprisonment, and execution simply because they want freedom of expression and disagree with the Iranian Government.

Protests in over 100 cities have been silenced by the IRGC thugs as the rogue regime continues its crackdown on human rights.

The government has shut down the internet and social media.

The United States should stand with the Iranian people by seeing to it that the Iranians have access to social media through satellite communication.

If we help the Iranians have freedom of expression through speech and press, the world will know how the illegitimate regime persecutes its own people.

Hopefully, the people will remove this dictatorship and have a government that they, the people, put in power. After all, isn't that what freedom is all about?

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from one of my grandkids, 7-year-old Olivia.

``January 28th.

``Dear Congressman Poe,

``I am writing to tell you that the environment is very important to me.

``We need to make sure that enough money is spent on keeping the world clene.

``I love seeing all the beauty in the world.

``I know that you agree with me that trees, flowers and lakes are worth protecting.

``I planted broccoli last year and I want every kid to have that opportunity at their school too.

``Please do your best!

``Sincerely, Olivia. #8, Dallas, Texas.''

Mr. Speaker, No. 8 is my granddaughter Olivia. I call my 12 grandkids by their birth number.

Well, Olivia, Mr. Cicilline and I are introducing legislation to protect trees on government easements of interstate highways.

Sometimes trees are cleared at taxpayer expense so that billboards on adjacent property can be seen.

Olivia is right, ``Trees are worth protecting.'' We should preserve the trees on the interstates because, as No. 8 says, ``The environment is important.''

And that is just the way it is.