Ron DeSantis

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close. I just urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment. It has been in law before. We have passed it out of this House 2 years in a row. We should do it again. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple limitation amendment. No funds made available by this act may be used to purchase heavy water from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why are we doing this? Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, fomenting discord all across the Middle East, funding Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon while supporting the Houthis in Yemen. Iran provided deadly, military-grade explosives to militias in Iraq, killing hundreds of American servicemembers during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Iran has never been held accountable for that. They still have major control over portions of Iraq, and the Shiite militias they back are running rampant. Furthermore, we know that Iran is working to be the key outside player in Syria in an effort to expand control from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. As you know, the JCPOA was effectively an Obama executive agreement, never ratified by Congress or enacted into law. It was sold using lies and propaganda, and it provided Iran with an economic lifeline. It provided Iran with $150 billion in sanctions relief and even airlifted $1.7 billion in cold, hard cash to Tehran. Just yesterday, we learned that the Obama administration secretly granted a license authorizing the conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system despite repeated assurances to the public and Congress that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system. The Obama administration continually offered gratuitous concessions to Iran that went beyond even the unilateral concessions contained in the Iran deal. And that is where this heavy water limitation amendment comes in. The Obama administration was using tax dollars to purchase heavy water from Iran. That is money over and above what the Iran deal provided. And that damage has been significant. Now, President Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the JCPOA. My amendment, though, is simple. We just should not use tax dollars to subsidize Iran's nuclear activities through the purchase of heavy water. I don't think the President would want to do that, but I think it is important that we continue with this in law, which we have had now for over a year. I think it will ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lieutenant Caleb King, a naval aviator and Port Orange, Florida, native who died when his F/A-18 Super Hornet crashed while training onboard Naval Air Station Boca Chica in Key West, Florida. Caleb King was a standout football player at Warner Christian Academy in South Daytona. He was recruited to play football at a number of colleges but chose to combine college football with service to our country by attending the U.S. Naval Academy, and as a linebacker, he was a key component of successful Navy teams that played in two bowl games and, most importantly, went 4-0 against Army. After graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy, Caleb completed extensive training to become a naval aviator and was eventually assigned to Strike Fighter Attack Squadron 213 based in Virginia Beach. Our fighter jets represent the tip of the sphere of America's offensive air capabilities, and the aviators assigned to these units are some of the best sailors in the fleet, so it is not surprising that someone like Caleb would find himself at VFA-213. While we don't know yet the reason for the crash, suffice it to say that officers like Caleb put their lives on the line every day. The training they do is inherently dangerous, and it is not for the faint of heart. Caleb King was a big, strong, American patriot. He was an inspiration to those who knew him. He served our country with distinction and lived up to the Navy's ethos of honor, courage, and commitment. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the King family, particularly his wife, Victoria, and daughter, Rain. America lost a promising naval flight officer last week in Key West. Lieutenant King dedicated his life to something bigger than himself: serving our Nation in uniform and risking his own life to do so. That is what we call a hero.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, in the private sector, if an employer is going to hire somebody, a lot of times they will do a Google search, they will check social media postings to try to learn a little bit more about this prospective employee. It may be hard to believe, but the Federal Government often fails to conduct a simple internet search on individuals before they are trusted with a security clearance. Publicly available social media is one of the best ways to understand an individual's interests and intentions, but our investigatory process still focuses on interviewing the applicant's family, friends, and neighbors. For over a decade, various agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management, have conducted studies and pilot programs to assess the effectiveness of social media checks in security clearance investigations. Congress has not been provided those results. What this bill will do is it will require these agencies to identify best practices so that we can use this going forward to make sure that the people who are employed by this government, armed with a security clearance, who have access to sensitive information that puts the security of the country at risk, that these are people whom we want to have there and they are not folks who have ulterior designs. A lot of times it is going to be much more informative to look at their publicly available writings than to talk to somebody who may have lived next door to them in an apartment 10 years ago. I think that this bill is overdue. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for cosponsoring it for me, and I am proud to be here today as the sponsor. I think this should have bipartisan support. I think it will give us some good answers and we can move forward and modernize this process.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, the shooting in Parkland, Florida, on 14 February represented a catastrophic failure of local authorities as well as the FBI. The students needed a hero that day, and while the sheriff's department failed the students, I think it is important to recognize and commemorate the fact that a 15-year-old JROTC cadet named Peter Wang answered the call. In the face of a deranged gunman descending on his school, Cadet Wang helped his fellow students flee to safety, exposing himself to fire in the process. He could have simply saved himself, but like a true hero, Peter Wang chose to protect the lives of others. Going above and beyond the call of duty, he sacrificed his life on that fateful day. Scripture teaches that there is no greater love than that a man should lay down his life for his friends, and his fellow students will be indebted to Peter Wang for his actions on that day. Now, Peter Wang had a desire to attend West Point, and his actions on 14 February more than lived up to the U.S. Military Academy's motto of duty, honor, and country. His posthumous admittance to West Point represented a rare but well-deserved honor. In Peter Wang, the country lost someone who no doubt would have enriched the Army's officer corps and provided honorable service in uniform. Yet it is also true that, with the lives he saved that day, he accomplished more on his final day on this Earth than most of us who serve in the military accomplish over the course of an entire career. You can train for moments like those faced by Peter Wang, but you don't know if you can pass the test until you are actually put to the test. Peter Wang passed his test with flying colors. His steadfast devotion to duty reflected great credit upon himself and was in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Army. Rest in peace, soldier. Job well done.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, when news broke that there had been a series of secret sexual harassment payments paid for on behalf of Members of Congress by tax dollars, I think a lot of Americans, even by the low standards that they have for this body, were shocked to hear that. And it was almost as if the rules were set up to incentivize bad behavior by a Member because Members could harass people and they wouldn't be personally liable for it, and they could keep it all secret. This had to change, and I applaud Chairman Harper for leading on this bill. And I am happy that the provisions of my bill have been adopted in this because I think it is important. Taxpayers should not bail Members of Congress out for misconduct, and this bill fixes that and makes them personally liable. We also need a full accounting of any payments that are being made with tax dollars. This bill does that. We have to protect identities of victims. I think we are making a step in the right direction. I think this starts to foster a culture of respect on Capitol Hill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I thank Chairman Harper for his efforts.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce for moving this through our committee, and I am glad that we are getting a lot of support for this resolution on the House floor today. President Trump, when he spoke at the U.N. in September, said that ``the problem with Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that it has been faithfully implemented.'' I think the results speak for themselves. You have a country that is in chaos, that is a basket case, and you have an autocrat doing whatever he can to cling to power. Think about what is going on in Venezuela: You have the country with perhaps the largest oil reserves in the world, and yet they have massive fuel shortages; You have hyperinflation that is over 2,000 percent; Diseases that we thought had been eradicated, like malaria, are now coming back; There are massive food shortages such that wide swaths of the population are losing 10 or 15 pounds a year; And, of course, the Government of Venezuela is very likely to have to default on their debt. Maduro and his socialist junta are dominating the country. They are oppressing a great many, many people. And, of course, he is aided in this effort by his patron and adviser, Raul Castro, and the Cuban dictatorship. We cannot forget their role in this because they are really central to a lot of what is going on there. We have been speaking about some of the things Cuba did to our diplomats. That has not been fully resolved to my satisfaction. So Cuba's role in this is really nefarious. You really have the worst elements of Latin America on display in Venezuela. I think what this resolution does is it says that this Congress stands foursquare behind the people of Venezuela and their rights and their desires to live in a successful, free, and democratic country; and we do call on the President to continue some of the actions he has taken, some aggressive actions in sanctioning key individuals. We want the Trump administration to clearly be on the side of the people of Venezuela and to make clear that Maduro's failed socialist regime simply cannot continue in this way. So, please, pass the resolution. What we have done today is just one step, but I hope the U.S. can do more to aid the people of Venezuela. They are fighting against some tall odds and a lot of power coming down on them, but we have got to do something. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this resolution.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Iowa for his leadership. Madam Speaker, it was really distressing to hear that Christ Church in Alexandria is removing a monument honoring its most famous parishioner, George Washington. It just made me think: What is this world coming to? Now, Christ Church is free to do as it pleases, but I think we are also free to criticize such an absurd course of action. If we can't honor the Father of our Country, then we truly are drowning in a sea of knee-jerk political correctness. George Washington was one of the few truly great men, an American original without whom we would not be standing here today as free people. I just want to tick off a few things before I yield back to my colleague from Iowa, but this is important. His stewardship during the American Revolution brought America a victory that we really had no right to win against the most powerful army on Earth. He only had one-third of the country behind the revolutionary cause, yet, against all odds, Washington led our country to victory. But then having won that military victory, what does Washington do? Throughout all of human history, when you win a military victory, that commanding general then seizes power for themselves and creates a society which is at that individual's beck and call. That is not what George Washington did. He famously surrendered his sword to the Continental Congress and gave up power voluntarily because he wanted to establish a republic. Then he went home to Mount Vernon. When word of Washington's relinquishment of power reached King George III in England, he was flummoxed. He said: Well, if that is really true, then Washington is the greatest man in the world. It is unheard of that you would relinquish power in that way. Napoleon, on his deathbed--obviously, he had a lot of trials and tribulations--said: Look, they wanted me to be another Washington, and I just couldn't do it. Washington presided over the Federal Convention in 1787, which created our Constitution. Had Washington not been willing to lend his legitimacy to that proceeding and to the Constitution, I think it is pretty clear the Constitution would have never been ratified. He gets elected the first President of the United States unanimously. I think we really needed somebody with Washington's character and stature to be able to launch this new ship of state. If you had had anybody else--and there were many great Founding Fathers--you may not have been able to launch it successfully. He was that type of man. He was also somebody who has offered some of the most eloquent defenses of religious liberty in our country's history. I want to quote from a letter he wrote to the Hebrew congregation at Newport in 1790. He said: ``It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.'' Those are words that I think ring as true today and are as important today as they were in 1790. He established a two-term voluntary limit for President. People thought he could have been President for life, and, of course, he could have been. He didn't think that that was the right way to go. In fact, his entire career--from surrendering his sword at the Continental Congress to the two-term limit--was dedicated to the notion that in a republic--the government of laws and not of men--no one individual is indispensable. Yet he really was the exception to that rule. He was truly first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen. Mr. Speaker, I think, when you look back at history, you can obviously point to things that we don't necessarily like, and I think it is fair to air that. But to simply remove somebody's monument-- somebody who truly exhibited greatness--I think is a direction in this country that we do not want to go. So I just thought it was important to stand up here and to say that the Father of our Country is somebody who all Americans should hold in profound esteem because I don't think we would be sitting here on the floor of the House of Representatives in the most powerful country on Earth if Washington had not existed.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding. Mr. Speaker, if you were trying to do damage to the United States and you wanted to design a Tax Code that hindered economic growth, that diverted a lot of productive energy, that basically kept America from reaching its economic potential, you probably couldn't do much worse than designing the code that we have. It is enormously complex--70,000 plus pages. I confess, there is no way I can do my own taxes, and I think that is true for millions and millions of Americans. There is a frustration with that, but it also costs massive amounts of money and diverts energy. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that get diverted to complying with the Tax Code, and that is not optimal for economic growth. It repels capital and incentivizes companies to relocate overseas and take jobs overseas. You see companies reincorporating in Ireland or Canada. That is because we have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. We are almost trying to send businesses overseas. It doesn't allow middle class families to keep enough of the money they earn. If you look over the past decade or so, family income really hasn't risen by that much, yet the cost of living has gone up. So by taking more and more from taxes, it makes it harder for middle class families to make ends meet. So reforming the Tax Code, doing a nice, big tax cut, I think is long overdue. It would be a boon to our economy. You would have a simple system--no more 70,000 pages. Fill out your taxes on a postcard. That not only is more economically efficient, it gives people a lot of peace of mind to know they can do their taxes themselves. It is going to incentivize us to bring all of the trillions of dollars in overseas profits, and bring it back to the United States so that we can invest it here through our companies and create more jobs here. It will make our American businesses more competitive. Our business tax system is outdated. It is uncompetitive. This, I think, will change a lot of that by having a competitive business tax rate, and I think that that will mean more economic growth. So I think all that is pretty obvious to most people who look at this in a fair way. The question for us now is, we have to produce this bill. We have been talking about tax reform for a long time this year, and I think that is great, but it is time right now for us to produce this bill, debate it here in the House, pass it, and send it over to the United States Senate. I am not encouraged when, given the urgency of this, we are going on a recess next week. The House is not going to be here. You are not going to have a tax bill marked up in the Ways and Means Committee or unveiled to the public. Members are not going to be debating that. I think it is time that we do that, and I think there should be a sense of urgency with that. We have got to get our job done. I think the bill should have been passed by now, but let's get it done. Send it to the Senate. I don't think you would probably have very smart money to bet that the Senate is going to come through in the clutch. They haven't shown they can do that yet. But this is going to be a big question for them: Can you get anything done in the U.S. Senate? This is something that we know we need to do. It will be good for our economy. All of the Republicans have said that our Tax Code is a disaster. So if we send them a good bill, this is going to be a major test. Can you apply the majority that the voters gave us? Can you honor your promises and do something good for taxpayers? I hope the answer is yes. But I think in this body we have got to be focusing on, let's put the Senate to the test. Let's draft, debate, and pass a strong, bold, tax cut and tax reform.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, if you want money to go to purchase heavy water from Iran, then obviously you should oppose the amendment. But if you don't think that is a good idea, then it doesn't hurt us to have this in here, given what has happened in the past. I wish I had 100 percent confidence that we would not be repeating mistakes. I hope that is where we go, but I have not yet seen the real robust action to turn the tide away from a deal that has put Iran on the path to a nuclear bomb. The danger with the deal was always less that Iran would cheat on the deal. I think they probably are, but the danger is they get a bomb by keeping the deal. This is a major problem. This is one small area of this to protect the taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple limitation amendment: No funds made available by this act may be used to purchase heavy water from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why are we doing this? If you remember, the JCPOA provided Iran with $150 billion in sanctions relief, even had the appalling spectacle of planes hauling in $1.7 billion in cold, hard cash, dropped off in Tehran. So this regime has been flush with money as a result of the nuclear deal done during the Obama administration. One of the frustrating things about that was that, even after that deal is enacted, even after all this money is flowing as a result of the deal, the Obama administration--this was not even required by the deal--sent millions of dollars to Iran in order to get heavy water. And that was not required by the deal. That was a gratuitous transaction, but it certainly provided more economic--an even greater economic lifeline to Iran. This is still, to this day, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. They are fomenting discord all around the Middle East, in Lebanon, in Syria. They fund Hamas in the Gaza Strip. They are supporting the Houthis in Yemen. They have major control over portions of Iraq, and the Shiite militias that they back are running rampant. Remember, they were probably the leading source of U.S. servicemember deaths in Iraq during the Iraq campaign. They funded Shiite militias. They had their Quds Force from Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps on the ground in Iraq; and certainly, hundreds of our servicemembers, some estimates say as many as 1,500 servicemembers, were killed from some of these Iranian proxies. They have never been held accountable for that. Now this administration came in saying the Iran deal was a bad deal. They haven't left the deal. They haven't really done anything to fight back against the deal, and I hope that will happen. But in the meantime, I want to make sure that this administration is not repeating the mistakes of the Obama administration. No more taxpayer dollars to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have promised for years to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and this effort has seemed to have stalled in the Senate. The best way to restart the ObamaCare repeal process is simple. Make Congress live under it. The President can make this happen. ObamaCare included a provision dropping the congressional health plans for Members of Congress and diverting Members to the ObamaCare exchanges where they would have to pay their own premiums. Yet an Obama administration regulation gutted this provision and provided lucrative taxpayer subsidies for Members thereby creating an illegal exemption for Congress under ObamaCare. Mr. President, cancel this regulatory exception. Make Members live under ObamaCare as written. If you make them live under ObamaCare, my guess is that they will vote to quickly repeal ObamaCare.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1988, which designates a post office in Bakersfield, California, as the Merle Haggard Post Office Building. Merle Haggard once sang about being a ``branded man out in the cold'' because, having served time in prison, ``no matter where I travel, the black mark follows me, I'm branded with a number on my name.'' He lamented that: ``If I live to be a hundred, guess I'll never clear my name.'' Well, Merle didn't quite make it to 100, but it is safe to say that the people of Bakersfield will appreciate seeing the post office bear the name of Merle Haggard. Merle can hold his head up and be proud of who he was. Now this will be a time for celebration, but remember: ``We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee; we don't take no trips on LSD.'' So in honor of the Okie from Muskogee, illicit substances will be prohibited at the Haggard Post Office. It will be okay to just stay there and drink, but keep in mind that tonight could be the night the bottle let's you down. We would also appreciate if people refrain from burning draft cards on Main Street, and please don't let your ``hair grow long and shaggy'' at the Merle Haggard Post Office. Waving Old Glory down at the courthouse will, of course, be encouraged. Now, Merle didn't always make it easy for people, particularly his mother. His mother did everything she could to raise him right, but Merle didn't listen. So, like others, he turned 21 in prison, doing life without parole, and that left only Merle to blame because ``Mama tried, Mama tried.'' Merle appreciated all our fighting men and women who fought and died to keep America free. Merle was right to ask if we can really count on being free if we have to depend on ``some squirrely guy who claims he just'' doesn't believe in fighting. Merle was a patriot who loved this country. If you don't love it, then just leave it. But be warned: ``When you are running down my country hoss, you are walking on the fighting side of me. . . . '' May God bless Merle Haggard. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1988) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, as the ``Merle Haggard Post Office Building''.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I wish Mr. Cummings a speedy recovery. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 702, the Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2017, introduced by my colleague on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the ranking member, Elijah Cummings. I should note that Mr. Cummings is unable to be with us here today for this important bill. He is recuperating from surgery, and we wish him a speedy recovery. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 702 amends the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, or the NO FEAR Act, to better identify and correct issues of discrimination throughout the Federal Government. Ranking Member Cummings introduced H.R. 702 in response to problems identified in the Baltimore office of the Social Security Administration. The bill requires Federal agencies to establish a system to track Equal Employment Opportunity complaints from beginning to end. This system must also track any disciplinary action that resulted from a finding of a discriminatory act. The bill also requires both the disciplinary action and the reason for the action to be included in the employee's personnel record. Mr. Speaker, this bill implements notification and reporting requirements for instances of discrimination within Federal agencies. Agencies must provide a notice on an internal website if the agency or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finds that a discriminatory or retaliatory act has occurred. The bill requires agencies to submit a report to the EEOC if such an act has occurred. The report must include any disciplinary action initiated against an employee for discrimination or retaliation against another employee. Lastly, the bill bars agencies from using nondisclosure agreements to restrict Federal employees from reporting waste, fraud, and abuse to Congress, the Office of Special Counsel, and Inspector General. I thank Mr. Cummings for his work on this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 702) to amend the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 to strengthen Federal antidiscrimination laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and expand accountability within the Federal Government, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, every year, thousands of children are victims of cyber exploitation. As a former prosecutor who has handled child exploitation cases, I know just how important it is to preserve evidence that can bring predators to justice. After speaking with Florida law enforcement officials about the challenges they face when tracking suspects online, I introduced the Targeting Child Predators Act. This is a sensible reform that will better protect our children by preventing suspected child predators from destroying evidence and covering their tracks. When tracking a suspected child predator online, law enforcement far too often hits roadblocks that can critically threaten their investigation. Internet service providers who have been issued a duly issued, lawful subpoena from law enforcement will often inform the suspect that police investigators have requested their information. Once notified that they are the target of an investigation, child predators can wipe their systems clean and go into hiding, leaving law enforcement empty-handed and potentially putting their victims at further risk. The Targeting Child Predators Act is a simple and necessary amendment to our criminal code requiring that ISPs wait 180 days before disclosing to suspected child predators that their information has been requested by law enforcement. The bill is narrowly targeted to child exploitation cases where the destruction of valuable evidence could endanger the safety of a child or seriously jeopardize an ongoing investigation. Additionally, the Targeting Child Predators Act provides judicial review of subpoenas and affords both ISPs and suspects due process as required by law. The Targeting Child Predators Act will protect our children from those who wish to exploit them while maintaining the constitutional rights of suspected criminals. This is an issue that should garner wide bipartisan support from the House. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to step up. Let's support our vulnerable children. Let's target child predators, and let's vote ``yes'' on this bill.