Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 128 Supporting Respect for Human Rights and Encouraging Inclusive Governance in Ethiopia.

This resolution condemns the killing of peaceful protestors by the Ethiopian security forces and calls upon the government of Ethiopia to hold accountable those responsible for killing, torturing, and detaining innocent civilians who are exercising their constitutional rights.

Passing H. Res. 128 brings attention to the stifling of political and civil dissent and journalistic freedoms committed by the Ethiopian government.

Mr. Speaker, as co-sponsor of this resolution, we recognize that the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has been an ally of the United States and the preservation of basic constitutional rights in this country is the bed-rock of any democracy.

Protestors in Ethiopia are urged to refrain from violent demonstrations and encouraged to engage in peaceful negotiations.

However, the responsibility lies upon the government to implement democratic principles and respect the right to peaceful assembly and guarantee freedom of the press.

Since protests started in Oromia in 2015, the Ethiopian government has charged more than 150 students, opposition leaders, and activists at the Federal High Court under the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation (ATP).

They have repeatedly abused such laws to limit the freedom of the press, silence independent journalists, and persecute members of the political opposition.

Ethiopian Human Rights Commission reported 669 deaths by April 2017 and Human Rights Watch subsequently reported that the Ethiopian security forces had killed between 500 and 800 peaceful protestors in the Oromia and Amhara regions by November 2016, and the number is likely higher.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 128 to show their support and compassion for the people suffering as victims of human rights violations at the hands of their government.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill, and it is a continuation of the recognition of the United States Congress, Republicans and Democrats, on the importance of dealing with online privacy.

In the backdrop of Mr. Zuckerberg testifying in the United States Senate, this bill deals with those who would do dastardly things online. So I rise in support of H.R. 4203, the Combat Online Predators Act of 2017.

This legislation would increase the maximum penalty under current law for stalking offenses when the victim is a minor. Obviously, this is something that is equal to online bullying, in some sense. Stalking is a crime that impacts both adults and young people alike. Unfortunately, it does not receive the urgent attention it warrants, although it severely threatens the safety and the lives of our children as much as other prevalent crimes.

Stalking is one of four enumerated offenses included in the Violence Against Women Act. As we look to reauthorize that bill, I ask that we all take a closer look at stalking provisions.

Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy) for their collaboration and excellent work in trying to stop the surge of online predators utilizing the cyber system to stalk young people.

Given the overwhelming use of the internet and social media across the globe, and technological innovations that otherwise enhance our daily lives, online stalking poses a great danger to young people in that it becomes much easier to carry out this crime and intensify its intrusiveness. The terrible, abusive nature of this crime is especially magnified when the victim is a child or an adolescent.

This widespread problem requires our immediate attention, particularly in this new era where information is easily ascertained, disseminated, and compromised by bad actors and, at times, by providers--even when done so inadvertently.

Current Federal law prohibits narrowly defined instances of stalking, whether accomplished via interstate travel or electronic means. The Combat Online Predators Act of 2017 seeks to address the greater harm that can be inflicted on young victims of stalking. It does this by increasing the maximum prison sentence by 5 years for stalking offenses committed against victims under the age of 18.

Online predators are sexual predators who use information and communication technology to locate, target, and victimize minors. A common forum used to target children include chat rooms, instant messaging, or social networking sites for the purpose of flirting and the ultimate goal of meeting and engaging in sexual activities, either online or in person.

For many young victims, the suffering inflicted as a result of stalking can last a lifetime. In fact, research shows children and adolescents who are victims of stalking are more likely to become victims of stalking as adults. Given the alarming number of children targeted, this result is terrifying for the children, for their family members, and for a lifetime.

Action Against Stalking released a 2012 report that states: ``273 children were targeted by predators they did not know who tried to--or did--snatch them.''

There was an attempted kidnapping in my community just a few days ago--not online, but physically--when children were traveling together for an outing. Fifty-two children were snatched. In 22 cases, the offender attempted to take a child in front of their parent. Four cases involved an attempt to take a child from a shopping center.

So this legislation is crucial, and I am delighted to support this legislation because it provides a reasonable means of protecting our young people from stalking, whether online or in person. It helps to ensure that these vulnerable individuals are shielded from the potentially devastating and long-term physical and mental scars that stalking can inflict.

It punishes those who seek to do harm. When a course of harassment and intimidation occurs and rises to the level of stalking by placing the victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, it is appropriate that law enforcement intervene. This can be critical to our young people, and it is important when people are victimized that we understand that this may

occur in person; online; via cellphones, computers, email, text messages; and on social media by what we call cyber stalking.

The increased maximum penalty for offenses against minors is a sensible modification. I look forward to the continuing debate and ask my colleagues to listen carefully as this debate proceeds.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), the original cosponsor, along with Mr. Fitzpatrick of this bill.

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

Let me thank the two original cosponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), for their leadership.

As technology advances, we are faced with more and more challenges. It is important to note that, among female victims of stalking, an estimated 16.3 percent were first stalked before the age of 18, and an estimated 3.5 percent between the ages of 11 and 17.

Of the male stalking victims, an estimated 20.5 percent first experienced stalking before the age of 18--this is clearly legislation that is needed--while 16.2 percent were first stalked before the age of 11 and 17.

This underlying bill is to help protect our children. This legislation does not require mandatory minimums. This sentencing that has been included is at the discretion of the judge, but as we reckon with the question of privacy, cybersecurity, protecting our children from bullying, this legislation is very important to move us one step forward to provide a safe place of learning and also a place of quality as our children grow in this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, April 4, 2018 marks the 50th anniversary of one of the darkest and most sorrowful days in American history, the assassination in Memphis, Tennessee of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The mortal life of one of the towering figures of the 20th century may have been cut short on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel a half century ago, but the spirit that animated that life and inspired a nation lives on and reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature.

In remembering the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we commemorate a man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day.

We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats beatings, and even bombings.

We celebrate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway.

Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness.

``Life's most persistent and nagging question,'' he said, is ``what are you doing for others?''

And when Dr. King talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life:

``I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said. ``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity.''

We should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was, above all, a person who was always willing to speak truth to power.

There is perhaps no better example of Dr. King's moral integrity and consistency than his criticism of the Vietnam War being waged by the Johnson Administration, an administration that was otherwise a friend and champion of civil and human rights.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929.

Martin's youth was spent in our country's Deep South, then run by Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan.

For young African-Americans, it was an environment even more dangerous than the one they face today.

A young Martin managed to find a dream, one that he pieced together from his readings--in the Bible, and literature, and just about any other book he could get his hands on.

Not only did those books help him educate himself, but they also allowed him to work through the destructive and traumatic experiences of blatant discrimination, and the discriminatory abuse inflicted on himself, his family, and his people.

As a youngster, Dr. King learned to use his imagination and his dreams to see right through those ``White Only'' signs--to see the reality that all men, and women, regardless of their place of origin, their gender, or their creed, are created equal.

Dr. King was a dreamer and through dreams he was able to lift his mind beyond the reality of his segregated society to a beloved place where it was possible that white and black, red and brown, and all others live, work, and prosper together in harmony.

But the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not an idle daydreamer.

He shared his visions through speeches that motivated others to join in his nonviolent effort to lift themselves from poverty and isolation by creating a new America where equal justice and institutions were facts of life.

In the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are Created Equal.''

At that time and for centuries to come, African-Americans were historically, culturally, and legally excluded from inclusion in that declaration.

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered 54 years ago, on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great nation that we still hear today.

His request was simply and eloquently conveyed--he asked America to allow of its citizens to live out the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this nation's Bill of Rights.

The 1960s were a time of great crisis and conflict.

It was the decade of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy, and the man we honor here today.

The dream expressed and shared by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. helped win major victories in the battle for civil rights.

It started when Dr. King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, with Rosa Parks and others, which lasted for 381 days, and ended when the United States Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation on all public transportation.

But the dream did not die there.

It continued with a peaceful march for suffrage that started in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965, a day that was immediately known and will always be remembered as ``Bloody Sunday,'' when a peaceful march for voting rights ended in bloodshed and violence at the hands of law enforcement officers as the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

When the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was stolen from us, he was a very young 39 years old.

People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few can remember why he was there.

On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers.

The garbage men there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions.

But the city refused to recognize their union, and when the 1,300 employees walked off their jobs the police broke up the rally with mace and Billy clubs.

It was then that union leaders invited Dr. King to Memphis.

Despite the danger he might face entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse.

Not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was intertwined with the civil rights movement for which he had given up so many years of his life.

The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life.

That is his legacy as a dreamer and a man of action. It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace.

It is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled.

I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us, because without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood that a life well lived, and all of the noblest virtues--courage, wisdom, grace, love-- were rooted in service to others.

And he memorably expressed this idea in his last sermon, the one given at Mason Temple in Memphis on April 3, 1968, the evening before he was felled by an assassin:

``But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?'

``That's the question before you tonight. Not, ``If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to my job. Not, 'If I stop to help the sanitation workers what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?' The question is not, 'If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?' The question is, 'If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?' That's the question.

``Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you.''

So in these difficult days of challenge, let us remember and take inspiration from the remarkable, extraordinary, and consequential life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and move forward together, with greater readiness and determination, to make America a place where all of her people enjoy the blessings of justice, equality, and human dignity.

Let us, the living, continue that struggle today and forever, in the incandescent spirit of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of a civil rights icon, Linda Brown, a schoolchild who transformed the country.

Linda Brown was born on February 20, 1942, in Topeka, Kansas, to Leola and Oliver Brown.

As a schoolgirl Linda Brown, was at the center of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that rejected racial segregation in American schools.

Linda Brown was 9 years old in 1951 when her father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her at Sumner Elementary School, then an all-white school near her Topeka home.

When the school blocked her enrollment, Oliver Brown partnered with the NAACP and a dozen other plaintiffs to file a lawsuit against the Topeka Board of Education becoming the landmark Supreme Court case, of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

By the time of the ruling, Linda Brown was in junior high, a grade level that had been integrated before the 1954 court ruling.

Linda Brown went on to attend Washburn and Kansas State universities.

Linda Brown was always conscious of the importance of standing up for one's Constitutional rights.

Linda Brown realized that with rights, come responsibilities that is why Linda Brown toured the country telling her story and advocating for increased educational opportunity for all Americans.

Faith was also important to Linda Brown because as she knew as the gospel hymn goes, ``we've come this far by faith.''

While Linda Brown's faith and devotion could be found on display at St. Mark's African Methodist Episcopal Church, where she played piano and taught children how to play.

While Linda Brown's name will forever be a part of American civil rights history, her contributions to the community after the case should be remembered as part of her legacy.

Linda Brown continued to speak out against racial segregation and reopened the Topeka case with the American Civil Liberties Union in 1979, arguing that the district's schools still were not desegregated.

Linda Brown will be missed greatly, but her contributions to America will live on forever.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Linda Brown.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary, and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I rise in remembrance of Stephon Alonzo Clark, who died on March 18, 2018 after being shot 20 times by a Sacramento Police Department officer.

I also rise to call upon the Department of Justice to investigate the use of force that took the life of Stephon Clark.

Once again I am disheartened by the shooting of yet another unarmed young man of color at the hands of law enforcement.

Stephon Clark was a proud graduate of Sacramento High School.

Stephon Clark was affectionately known as ``Big Papa'' and ``Zoe'' to his friends and family.

Stephon Clark loved to watch football and Netflix shows with his fiancee Salena Manni and their two young sons.

Stephon Clark enjoyed waking up in the morning to make oatmeal for his children before they would go to school.

Stephon Clark was only 22 years old when he was tragically shot and killed in his grandmother's backyard.

Stephon Clark laid for six minutes, bleeding to death.

As Stephon Clark drew his last breath, officers handcuffed his dying body.

Officers claim that Stephon Clark had a gun, but no weapon was found at the scene.

Stephon Clark only had a cell phone.

I have long been a strong supporter of law enforcement, and know first-hand the great work performed by officers all across the country.

But this incident raises troubling questions about the practices and policies of the Sacramento Police Department.

I am concerned that the audio on the police officers' body cameras was intentionally turned off.

This act defeats the purpose of police body cameras, erodes trust within the community and adds greater concern to an already regrettable and preventable tragedy.

Stephon Clark and the family that survives him deserve justice.

Unfortunately, this incident fits a troubling pattern.

While the names of the young men killed and the cities in which they die change, regrettably the critical facts seldom do.

Mr. Speaker, I demand that this Administration conduct a comprehensive review of this matter by all appropriate law enforcement agencies, and I call upon the United States Department of Justice to determine whether local police violated the federal civil rights of Stephon Clark.

Far too often, the demand for justice for those like Stephon Clark go unheard.

This cannot go on.

It is time to LISTEN and ACT.

That is why we in the Judiciary Committee formed the House Bipartisan Policing Strategies Working Group, of which, I am a Member.

I have introduced and supported legislation to help reform how youth and juveniles are treated to reduce contact and recidivism within the juvenile and criminal justice system; to help protect them from a system that turns them into life-long offenders.

These efforts include:

H.R. 3158, ``The RAISE Act,'' which provides judges new and different options when a young offender comes before them, ensures that young offenders receive specialized programs and separate housing tailored to their needs, and advances efforts to rehabilitate them.

H.R. 3155, ``Kalief's Law,'' establishes more humane rules for young offenders and juveniles when detained or confined, particularly in the areas of pretrial detention, bail, use of force and segregation or solitary confinement.

H.R. 3156, ``Fair Chance for Youth Act,'' which creates effective opportunities for juveniles and young offenders to seal and expunge their records.

Just as we need to minimize the overcharging, wrongful conviction, and excessive incarceration of innocent people, we must address the unnecessary loss of life like that of Stephon Clark this past week in Sacramento.

We must curtail the escalation of violence that can result from police and civilian interactions.

Effective law enforcement requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced impartially and equally.

There is no higher priority than improving the peacefulness of these interactions and rebuilding the trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve and protect.

To address many of the current flaws, I plan to reintroduce the ``BUILD Trust Act'' which is designed to increase public confidence in local law enforcement by decreasing excessive reliance on traffic fines and court costs to fund local government.

I ask my colleagues to join me in support of these measures so that in addition to our thoughts and prayers, we take decisive action to prevent tragedies like the death of Stephon Clark from happening in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of a pioneer and trailblazer, George Wilson, the Dean of the Black press on Capitol Hill.

George Wilson, a veteran journalist and broadcaster whose reports were heard on radio outlets across the country for decades will be remembered as a powerful voice with a witty intellect.

George Wilson was born in New Orleans on October 10, 1947, to George II and Rose Wilson and raised in Washington, D.C.

After graduating from Calvin Coolidge High School, George Wilson attended Howard University before graduating from North Carolina A&T.

As a Capitol Hill correspondent for over three decades and host of Sirus XM's ``GW on the Hill,'' George Wilson's velvet voice was unmistakable over the airwaves.

During his time on air, George Wilson served as ``Black America's voice on the Hill.''

George Wilson's character and reputation paved the way for other African American journalists in Congress.

George Wilson's passion for journalism led him to stories around the world and particularly cultivated sources in the international and diplomatic community.

Wilson covered the fall of apartheid in South Africa, the reinstatement of former Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide, and chronicled the many revolutions in African countries.

George Wilson's work made him more than a local reporter, he was an international journalist.

George Wilson will be missed greatly, not just in the hallowed halls of Congress but throughout the world.

George Wilson is survived by his wife Iris, his mother Rose, six children, seven grandchildren, one great-grandchild, aunts, cousins and a host of other relatives and friends.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of George Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from New York. I can't thank her enough as I watched her, every day, work without ending, thank her so very much. And to Chairman Frelinghuysen, let me thank him as well for his service.

But I am very grateful to Democrats who crafted the very funding structure that we are dealing with. And even though it was hidden with Republicans, this gigantic box that is almost broken, I think it is important to note that a lot of good work has taken place, and I want to just cite the good work.

I am delighted that we are helping our veterans, and Democrats added an additional amount of money, some $2 billion, to address the VA hospitals. Democrats were concerned about student loans, and the bill increases it by $350 million. Childcare has been increased. Houston metro will be delighted with the New Starts money that is in it; and, yes, my mayor will be excited, and other mayors, about an accurate Census count. For those of us with Hurricane Harvey, the National Flood Insurance Program extension is important.

Yet I am disappointed. The work we did on STOP School Violence did not include the civil rights protections for those who need it, and it did not include DACA, with all of these young people who are in need. And, finally, we could not get the special counsel language, my bill, H.R. 3648, that would stop the President from firing the special counsel and stop him from firing the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General.

For those reasons, I have great concerns for this bill and will not be able to vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, we passed a major omnibus appropriations bill, of which I had the privilege of submitting over 30 requests. Frankly, I am thankful for the funding I received on behalf of the 18th Congressional District of Texas. It is a tradition that I pride myself in. I also take pride in the work of the Appropriations Committee in working on behalf of the American people.

It is also important to take note of the fact that--as we have done positive things, it is also important to note some issues that I have concern with.

First of all, I want to acknowledge that there is no limit for the funding for Planned Parenthood, which is part of my constituency, which helps young women with their health. There is opioid funding and VA funding. I am most happy with the childcare funding and for TIGER grants.

But what we need more of, even though we had 450,000 new certificates for the disabled, is Section 8 vouchers for seniors and families. We need to be able to insist that the quality of housing is best.

As I finish, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that in the effort to stop school gun violence, I am disappointed that there are no civil rights protections to make sure we aren't pointing out Hispanics and Latinos differently from other children, as well as no DACA relief for our children.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the American people because I truly believe that when it comes to the national security of this Nation, we are of one belief, one faith, and singularly committed to the security of each and every American. I know that because our hearts break when any of our men and women fall in battle while wearing that uniform.

I have spent a lot of time with families who have lost loved ones throughout the wars that have occurred during my tenure in the United States Congress. I have been to the veterans' cemetery. I have joined my neighbors on Memorial Day. I have held my own Memorial Day commemoration for at least the last 5 years. Neighbors have come out from all over the community to honor those who live and served our Nation, but those who have fallen as well.

I believe it is important, then, to evidence in your congressional work as well as evidence in this country, through the leaders who are serving this Nation, being truthful as well as diplomatic. I have no quarrel with the issues of diplomacy.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the idea of diplomacy. I believe that even your enemies deserve the opportunity to explain themselves.

So, as Secretary Tillerson had mentioned some months ago, he was interested in some encounter with North Korea. He described that it would take some time and that some initial meetings make sense.

We have not been able to change the minds of the North Koreans and their attitudes toward nuclear proliferation for decades, though we came close during the time of President William Jefferson Clinton, but counsel advised him not to go further. I am sure he reflects on that. All of us wonder. That was with the father, Kim Jong-un.

Diplomacy is a reputable and reasonable approach to safeguard and secure the American people. I have taken on the responsibility as someone who has served on the Homeland Security Committee since the heinous, tragic terrorist act of 9/11--and I now serve on the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, having served on the Transportation and Protective Security Subcommittee as chair, and on the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee--and I share the importance of our national security.

Now, as the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, where it is important as well to assess the threats against United States, I have come to believe the importance of developing an expertise in these national security issues so that we can share with our constituents and also advocate here in the Congress what more we should be doing. I truly believe that we should be doing more.

So, before I frame the complete aspects of my discussion that will involve Trump and the need to protect the independence of the special counsel, but, more importantly, Trump and Russia and the intertwining of the highest office in the land and the actions of Putin's Russia and the actions of Vladimir Putin, most of us have known the idea of the Soviet Union and Russia for most of our lives. Russia is somewhat of a new phenomena, as the Soviet Union was broken up. The memories of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain and the idea of an insulated, frightening, frozen land that did not allow any of its subjects, including the many countries that came under the Soviet Union, to speak a word, silent or not, against the government, was a fearsome and fearful place.

If history recounts, that was the Cold War. That was a moment in time for schoolchildren taking cover under. That was the time of President Kennedy's actions and almost the brink of war with Khruschchev. Those were moments the American people could understand. They demanded that the United States not be frail or a failure against Russia.

I do not ignore World War II, when Russia was a collaborator in the efforts of the allies. I don't ignore that. But after that time, it was their choice to stand up against the world and to stand up in a frightening way until the doors seemingly began to crack open.

I, for one, as a student, welcomed and cherished that possibility that Russia would turn to democratic ways--at least, ways of giving opportunity to its people, giving them free speech, giving them the ability to make decisions for themselves, and to vote in fair elections.

For a period of time, that was seemingly the direction that they were going after President Reagan said: ``Tear down that wall.''

What a bright light. I think it is important to note these Republican and Democratic Presidents who understood what our role was and is.

What is America's role?

If you travel in the most limited way, no matter what continent you go to, you will find that the people of the continent look to America for hope, for the standard bearer of democracy and human rights.

And if no one else turns on the light and shines it on the dastardly behavior of the despotic leaders, they can always count on America to make a difference.

That is what I have grown to know as a Member of the United States Congress. That is the side of the line on which I have stood. Not out of anger, not out of disregarding the differences of world leaders, but of recognizing what America's responsibility is and how disappointed and hurt I am that we find ourselves perplexed.

The world is perplexed. Ask any diplomatic traveler coming back from any conference, country, meeting, outside

of the United States. Do a poll at the international airports from New York to Washington to Houston. They will tell you that the world asks: What in the world is going on? Because, for one, they don't have that voice of reason in the United States foreign policy coming out of the White House. They do not see that standard bearer of standing up for human rights and women's rights, of understanding their plight. And in particular, they don't understand why our voice is silence.

Now, let me compliment many of the former members of Cabinets, going as far back, I guess, as Reagan and beyond, who are still speaking about our true values, of the whole issue of dealing with those who are evil and confronting them outright. Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that we turn toward every moment. We all have our differences of opinion on the Iraq war and Afghanistan, although we never disagree on the blood that was shed by our soldiers and those who are on the battle line. We ask the question: What was the ultimate result?

But still, people, even in those times of consternation, they said, well, America was trying to do right, trying to bring democracy or stability or speaking out against the despotic leaders and not shying away from doing that. They were speaking out against Saddam, Gaddafi, without any embarrassment. They weren't congratulating them on their elections. They were acknowledging, from the continent of Africa, to Asia-Pacific, to South and Central America, to the halls of Eastern Europe and beyond, and any other place I have not mentioned, that America would comment, either in the United Nations or elsewhere, on its disappointment on how countries treated their people.

Before this recess wherein we will be working with our constituents, we were working very hard to do one thing. Not to undermine the executive branch. There are three branches of government. I pride myself in the acceptance of the Constitution, I guess because my predecessor was the Honorable Barbara Jordan. She trained us well, as she held up that book during the Watergate proceedings, that this was not personal; it was that she was not going to see the Constitution and the rights of the people diminished.

That is where I stand today. This is not a personal commentary on the executive, meaning the branch that is called the executive, or a commentary on the branch that is the legislature or the judiciary, but it is a critique, and it is to recognize that they have failed.

And so I was disappointed when there was no bill dealing with the protection of the special counsel, Special Counsel Mueller in this instance, but this bill is not directed toward a name. It is to ensure that, if we select a special counsel, there be the guidelines and protections that do not subject that office to the whims and personalities of those who feel, ``I am being investigated.'' Wouldn't all of us like to be able to stand and block anyone who makes us uncomfortable?

My bill, H.R. 3654, will now be at the desk for a discharge petition. It is a simple bill that is not an angry bill. It is to limit the removal of a special counsel and for other purposes. It complements the bill of Mr. Cohen of Tennessee. His bill deals with the after-review of a firing. H.R. 3654 deals with the initial attempt to fire, so as not to disrupt the investigation.

What would be required is that this individual would have the opportunity, if they were sought to be removed, to file an action in the district court, only if the Attorney General would do so, the district court of the District of Columbia, and file a contemporaneous notice of action with the Committee of the Judiciary in the House and Senate. Therefore, the court would have to determine whether there was cause for this individual to be removed, and that cause would include misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause in violation of the policies of the Department of Justice--simple, not punitive, but factual.

There was no reason why the omnibus could not have included a simple summary or a simple statement of that fact. One would argue, or one would raise the question: Why?

Well, the question is well explained. The most immediate are the rumblings coming from the White House and the White House counsel about Director Mueller's investigation should end; Director Mueller is conducting a witch hunt; Director Mueller has 13, or whatever number, Democrats and no Republicans; Director Mueller is, in essence, not doing what he is supposed to do.

I would take issue with that, and I would take issue because the investigation started with the collusion question with the Trump campaign. Unfortunately, the heightened question has grown exponentially since the beginning of the current Presidential administration. It has grown in such a way that it causes you to have a number of questions.

The intelligence community, in January of 2017, stated that Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

I applaud the omnibus bill, for it enhanced, by millions of dollars, the amount, which I supported, that will be used for election security in 2018. It is confirmed that the Russians are continuing their interference and, as well, that they plan to continue it in 2018 and 2020.

As we well know, the company based in Europe that snatched and used the technology of Facebook and the data of millions and millions of Americans in an abusive manner and to skew the election toward one candidate versus another--in this instance, the Trump campaign--we know that that is still an open book. The company still exists. We know as well, even though the CEO was suspended, to the applause of the CEO and leader of Facebook, who has expressed his concern, that this is still a real possibility. We look forward to Mr. Zuckerberg engaging with the United States Congress and also the creativity to deal with that crisis.

But the ICA, intelligence community, assesses that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016--let me be very clear, ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election--not stood by as a leader of a particular nation and ignored, if you will, the individuals who were doing it but, in fact, ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate the former Secretary of State, and harm her electability and potential Presidency.

The intelligence community further assesses that Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for our President- elect, who is now the President of the United States. The ICA has high confidence in these judgments.

The intelligence community also assesses Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help elect the present President and to increase that President-elect's chances, Mr. Trump, when possible, by discrediting the former Secretary of State and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.

Now we know Putin has been attempting to do this for a long time. In 2014, the Russian Government pursued a campaign called The Translator Project, which endeavored to use social media to manipulate and engage in information warfare, plain and simple. And as I will mention later, Putin has been engaged in truly despicable acts for many years. But since before the election and over his time in office, the President has never criticized him.

Now, the basis of not criticizing another head of state is not the basis of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, and I am glad of that. Because you disagree with a personality or someone's behavior, that is not what should be the basis of any investigation. But let me give you what the special counsel has accomplished in the time that he has been engaged in the work that he was assigned to do.

Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I think I was in the middle of saying that, because of different personalities or the different way that an individual leads, that is not the basis of anyone having to be investigated.

I was talking earlier about The Translator Project. We know that Mr. Putin has been attempting to intrude in our elections for a very long time, and in 2014, the Russian Government pursued a campaign called The Translator Project. This is the Russian Government's campaign, not the campaign of the United States, which endeavored to use social media to manipulate and engage in information warfare, plain and simple.

They, obviously, were more than successful in the 2016 election. And as I will mention later, Putin has been engaged in--I said this before, but it is worth repeating--truly despicable acts for many years.

I just paused for a moment to say that many people don't realize the kind of direct involvement that Vladimir Putin has over the most minute things happening in Russia as it pushes out to what is perceived as Russia's enemies.

The Russian people are wonderful people. I look forward always to engaging with them. There is a large Russian population in Texas and all over the Nation. We welcome them who have come, some fleeing persecution, others in other matters. But I think it is important to note that there are Russian spies here in the United States every day trying to co-opt and turn an American citizen to work for them.

Tragically, there were any number of individuals, seemingly, that wound up in the campaign of Mr. Trump that warrants investigation by Mr. Mueller.

These despicable behaviors are not just with elections, because elections are won and lost. We don't like losing elections. But if we do lose them, we like to lose them fair and square. When you run for President of the United States, you run on your own merits, your own strategy, your own outreach, your own missteps and mishaps. But how impossible is it to run when a foreign nation is conspicuously, with money, collaborating and working to skew the election to one candidate versus another?

Now, let me be very clear. This is not looking backwards. Nothing I say today will alter who the President is of the United States, and as Americans, we adhere to the order of government, regular order. That gives me such great pride that we are not a nation that marches up to the home of the executive and asks--or not asks--but demands that person leave in a coup d'etat. That is not the American way. But it does bear well that we know who we are dealing with, and that we are honest about the fact that the election was turned and won on a simple fact, not three States, or not--I didn't go there--not who is a blue collar and who is not--because I love all of the people. It was squarely skewed because of the direct intrusion of Vladimir Putin and his data. And the question is: What kind of collusion, collaboration, or criminal elements happened?

But in the course of those kinds of actions, I would make the point on my comment about truly despicable acts. How do you welcome, guarantee, give applause to an individual whom I am glad to say that the former President Obama stared down in the midst of our election and said, ``Cut it out,'' cut it out from interfering in our elections? And from the words and the reaction of Mr. Putin, I didn't see a denial. I didn't see a: Hey, let's sit down and talk about it; if you think I am doing this, let me find out who is doing this in my country and I am putting a stop to it immediately.

None of that happened. It continued to intrude, and skew, and manipulate the data of millions of Americans of what they were receiving on Facebook, and many others who were getting poison pills in their inboxes about the election, skewed against the former Secretary of State.

It never stopped. But at the same time, the ions and ions of persons who disappear in Russia, who are imprisoned in Russia, and the individuals, the long list of individuals who have been poisoned, I have met with some of them; miraculously, even one who was poisoned and survived, was still fighting for human rights, went back again, and, as my memory serves me, was poisoned again.

But his passion for civil rights and human rights and saving Russia, the beautiful Russia that he loved, and bringing her into the 21st century, made him drive toward the danger.

But what about right now in the last 2 months? Not on Russian soil, but on our friend's, Great Britain, in London, two Russians: one a father, one a daughter. The daughter left Russia to celebrate or to visit her father. Poisonous gas took them down. Took them down. No mea culpa. No comment.

I thank Prime Minister May for standing up and saying, eye-to-eye: You will not do this in my country. I believe it is important for our foreign policy to be both diplomatic but forceful. For if you are in meetings with Russians who are able to speak openly, they will tell you that Vladimir Putin listens to nothing but power. Not any glad-handing, and I am a genius, and he is a genius, and he called me a genius. He doesn't respond to that. He only responds to looking you in the eye and showing that you have power.

And as I just heard over the last couple of days, most of the Russian people don't have internet. They can only hear what is given to them. They don't see what is going on. And they are living in their world without the exposure to the beauty of democracy, the beauty of human rights, and women's rights, and the freedom to go anywhere I want to go. And they get their thrills through what is told to them, to maybe the wins and losses in an Olympic game, or the exploits and expeditions of their leader who they just voted for. Maybe that is the level of their excitement. I don't believe, however, that we as Americans can fall into that trap.

In the instance of the Commander in Chief, he refuses to criticize the geopolitical belligerence of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. And to add insult to injury, just this week, as I indicated, here comes a congratulations on an election that many observers of elections admit was rigged. I think we all saw a video where it looked like someone was stuffing the ballot box. I have no reason to know why it was stuffed, but the opponent was popular that was running, but, of course, that opponent did not win.

But I just step back for a moment on despicable acts. I have been to Ukraine. It broke my heart to see the war that was going on, Russian- backed rebels, and to have the representation that the small part did not want to be in Ukraine, so Vladimir Putin was not going to encourage the unity of Ukraine. They were going to implode Ukraine. Let them fight. But how sad that he was never held accountable for the shooting down of a civilian airplane full of hopeful travelers, baby shoes, and suitcases of hopes and dreams.

That is what we are contending with. And that is why the overall investigation of Director Mueller is not personal. It is not purposely chosen to pick on an executive that someone does not like. It is done for the integrity of this Nation.

Let me tell you how we can look back over more recent actions. Russia occupied cities in the Republic of Georgia in 2008. They have imprisoned and suppressed journalists and dissidents. They have been so brazen so as to use, as I just said, a nerve agent, a chemical weapon on the soil of our great ally, a true partner for peace and progress.

Look at the actions that we took, including Russia, in Syria when the charges were using a nerve gas. What deadly silence from this executive, this administration, except for some other line officers-- not lying, line, l-i-n-e--who probably said some things. They were obstructive in President Obama's efforts to bring peace in the devastating civil war in Syria by propping up Assad, which had killed untold numbers of people, including so many innocent children. That gas was used many years ago.

In an even greater escalation, they launched a missile at a civilian passenger plane, killing 298 on board, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, as I said.

While they were doing all this, the Russians were impervious to criticism, beyond reproach, as far as they were concerned. Power is what they understand, firmness and sternness, and a solid policy. Oh, we will negotiate. We will deal with diplomacy, but you have to stop your bad behavior.

While they were doing all this, people were suffering. In 2011, Russians went to the polls for seats in the Duma. After the election, there were allegations and questions surrounding the integrity of the vote. This soon turned to

protest. Mr. Putin, for some bizarre reason, blamed the former Secretary of State for this. This has been a grudge he has held against her, and he was committed to doing anything to destroy her.

The former Secretary has said before on the floor of the Chamber--or I have said--she is a stateswoman. If the words that she provided gave any comfort to those protesting, that is fair game. There were no weapons. There was no nerve gas. It was people clamoring and holding on to positive words by a person of status during the time of her leadership that what was happening in Russia was wrong.

And the reaction of President Putin should have been, let me move my nation into the 21st century, let me not attack a woman of stature and excellence, a true public servant. Because she was not shy to point out injustices and improper behavior, which we should do for despots around the world.

While she was Secretary of State, this body passed and Obama signed the Magnitsky Act which imposed sanctions on many Russian oligarchs, long overdue. 2013 was a big year for the United States' relationship with Russia. It was in 2013 that Secretary Clinton left her post. Also in 2013, a company named the Internet Research Agency registered in Russia, and they are a social media troll farm. The IRA would form the basis of the translator project announced in April 2014.

The IRA's job is to spread disinformation and misinformation through fake social media profiles. They were at their peak in the 2016 election. This was done in order to manipulate public opinion and engage in information warfare.

Later that year, the present President decides to have a beauty pageant. While in Moscow in November 2013, Donald Trump meets with Agalarov and Rob Goldstein in order to try to build a tower in Moscow. The sanctions President Barack Obama imposed following Russia's annexation of Crimea stopped the Trump Tower deal.

How dare anyone say that the past administration was weak on Russia. Yes, power is what they understand. But it has to be a persistent, determined power, not power that is stopped by a new election. I assume this was not a happy time for those who wanted that Trump Tower.

While this was going on, the present President is developing a track record, trafficking conspiracy theories for his birtherism, the ugly smear that Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, was not born in the United States, and, therefore, was ineligible to be President.

I watched this smear through videos and interviews, and just to the point that many of you recall, that in the midst of his Presidency-- only because he desired to do so--President Barack Obama showed his birth certificate. What an ugly attack.

I was also there at the television, radio, and journalists event when both President Obama and the present President were there. When the President--with a sense of humor--had a video played of ``Lion King'' and said to the laughing audience: There is my birth place.

I am glad he had a sense of humor, but it was an ugly attack on a legitimate President of the United States who will have a wonderful history to look back on.

The present President rode this lie of his birth--President Obama's birth and concluded he could use it to win the Republican nomination for President, so he announced it. And in that announcement, he dismisses Mexicans as drug dealers and rapists.

Everyone has all kinds of people as their neighbors, and who would ever say that?

But shortly after his announcement, questions about his connections to Russia continued. It is right around then, in September 2015, the Democratic National Committee is told that its computers have been hacked.

Despite all the information that we knew and, more importantly, all the information that only Donald Trump knew, he continued to deny any involvement with Russia.

Meantime, corporations were gathering the information of Americans through Facebook and poisoning the well, and sending biting, wrongheaded misinformation to many voters all over the Midwest and elsewhere.

While he was denying his connections to Russia, we now know that agents working with this President, Michael Cohen and Felix Sater, were trying yet again to build a tower in Moscow.

Let me repeat this fact. While he was actively running for President of the United States, there were business agents actively pursuing a real estate project in Russia and denying it.

As I have said in my commentary, it is well known that the only thing that Vladimir Putin understands is power; and any time you are going to beg, you can be assured he will use that against you or use that to manipulate you and anyone else that is associated with it.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the safety and security of the American people. This Congress should be concerned. Republicans should be concerned. Today, I said that the investigation by Special Counsel Mueller is not a red line being drawn or a blue line. It is red, white, and blue lines, which represent the American people.

None of us should, for political reasons, attempt to quash the truth. And the truth about Mr. Putin is all he wants is power, and all he wants is to dominate the democracy and the greatest democracy in the world, and to quash the leadership position that America holds, and the admiration that the world has for America, and the desire for most of the world not to be Russia, but to be America. And all we do is fuel his ability by subordinating ourselves to him, his so-called greatness, his phony election, and his tampering with our election.

This is a difficult time. Many of you remember the name of General Flynn. He was a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, and one of his most unfortunate episodes was his time at the Republican National Convention, shouting ``Lock Her Up, Lock Her Up.''

That might be the core reason why some of my colleagues, even today, are sneaking through a subpoena to try and sneak through and bring back documents to attack the former Secretary again, a unilateral subpoena, not one that was joined in or even asked to be joined in by Democrats and Republicans. That is unfortunate because we have never, in the Judiciary Committee, issued subpoenas without a vote.

But now, to make havoc because of the very fine work of Special Counsel Mueller, it is going to be a tit for tat. So here we are with the tit for tat.

But if we recall, in December 2015, Mr. Flynn went to Moscow, sat at a dinner with Mr. Putin and Jill Stein, the 2016 Green Party candidate, to mark the 10-year anniversary of RT, the Russian TV. Just months later, in February 2016, the Translator Project, the endeavor to weaponize social media information revealed their theme, to support a number of candidates and to ruin the former Secretary.

March 2016 was a critical month, too. March 2016 was the month when the campaign manager of the former Secretary had his emails hacked. March 2016 was also when the present President had a meeting of his national security team. Present was this famous man, George Papadopoulos, unfortunately, one of those indicted, sitting in a famous meeting of great leaders for national security and foreign affairs. He was a foreign affairs aide and even mentioned publicly as a great mind of foreign affairs by the present President.

But in May of 2016, he got drunk, a little inebriated at a London wine bar and told a diplomat of a friendly country of ours that the Russians had dirt on the former Secretary.

Then, in June 2016, we have the infamous Trump Tower meeting, where operatives of the Trump campaign were told about derogatory information about Russia, and one of them said, famous words: ``I love it.''

At the GOP convention, the GOP actually changed its platform to be more friendly to Russia, a foreign despotic power that is aggressive around the world, that has shot down airplanes, support rebels to undermine governments, and even prop up the leader in Syria as people die in the streets.

It is a question of how a Republican platform at their convention, quite contrary to all of what most know of Republicans, to be friendly, and have a friendly pro-Russian platform, and friendly to a Ukraine that would oppress her people.

Then, after another operative name appears on foreign logs, that person resigned from the campaign. Another Trump associate encourages WikiLeaks to hack the Clinton emails. We know this because we have heard of direct messages between WikiLeaks and operatives of the Trump campaign. Their names are famous.

Even predicted that leaders of the former Secretary's campaign would have their time in the barrel. This tweet was sent on the same day as the infamous Access Hollywood tape, where Trump boasted about actions that all of us find appalling.

The election happens in the backdrop of the poisonous emails, the tampering by Russia, the spewing out of millions of Facebook connections, skewing the election, and the person they wanted to win wins. Yet, even after the election, the connections to Russia do not stop.

Rather than using the power that Putin needs to see from the United States to protect the American people, we just fall into the molasses and continue to throw sugar on this leader. We hire the National Security Advisor, who was sitting at the table with Mr. Putin. In some way related to advocating for Mr. Putin's high level of respect in the country, he was accused of lying to the FBI about meetings with Russians. When that news was made public, he was fired.

In between, of course, a person known as a public servant with no other agenda but to serve in the Department of Justice briefed the President of that information and other information 2 or 3 weeks before. They ultimately were fired, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and it took a long time for there to be an acknowledgment to fire the National Security Advisor.

Don't you think Mr. Putin watches this and says, Boy are we successful? Boy, are we doing well?

We are not only inside the White House; we are entrenched.

After the former FBI Director testified that the FBI was investigating connections between the present President and the Kremlin, that same person who had offered a letter regarding the former Secretary a couple of days out of the election, an unheard action, and no pronouncement was made about other investigations regarding the present President, but, unfortunately, he was fired.

I want to pause for a moment. I have said that this cannot be about personalities or who has wronged one person or the other. I disagree with General Sessions. I disagree with his blocking of real, fair, criminal justice reform, his opposing civil rights, his supporting bad voter ID laws, his eliminating community consent decrees, and his attack on cities because they don't want to harm innocent families labeled the city as sanctuary cities.

But I would not hold to the position of supporting his firing, undermining the rule of law and the Constitution. The law and the Constitution will be undermined if, for some reason, during this recess, while the special counsel is doing their in-depth work, that the Attorney General is fired, an interim appointment is made, that person fires the Deputy Attorney General, may fire the FBI Director, and may fire the special counsel. That is the midnight massacre of the 21st century, 2018.

I hope it does not happen. I hope that we, as members of the Judiciary Committee, today, in our press conference, have put the White House on notice; even though I understand now that one of the White House lawyers, Mr. Dowd, who was known as the reasonable lawyer, just resigned. That frightens me even more.

What more is going to happen? What else is going to be our lot?

That is why we have the discharge position on Mr. Cohen's bill and my bill, and my members will be getting letters to join those two bills together and sign them upon their return; though they can also ask their office to sign them, or they can be signed during the pro forma session.

This is the journey that we have taken. After former FBI Director testified that the FBI was investigating connections, I have said that, we note that that FBI Director was fired.

Thereafter, the special counsel was appointed because that is what you call obstruction of justice possibly. The special counsel was appointed to begin his investigation around that firing.

But if anyone understands prosecutors and special counsel, they can go where the facts lead them because they do not work for any elected officials. They work for the American people.

The special counsel was threatened by termination, as reported by the President, only to have this move blocked by the White House Counsel. Early in his tenure he was threatened with termination.

Last summer, the President indicated the special counsel should keep his family's private business dealings out of the investigation. Red line.

This month, Mr. Mueller subpoenaed business records from the Trump organization implicating the President's red line on the issue. This news coincides with an increase in erratic behavior, tweets. But most importantly, one of the lawyers saying, yes, it should end. He should be closed down.

The House Intelligence Committee singly, not in a bipartisan manner, decided to shut down the Russia investigation without any consultation with our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democratic members.

Just as I indicated, a subpoena may be being issued by Republicans of my committee, the Judiciary, with no consultation of Democrats. We don't know what Mr. Mueller may discover, but we do know that there has been much discussion on a number of operatives.

We also know that the minority had to release their own report for the House Intelligence Committee. In the opening paragraph, it says: ``The HPSCI majority's move to release to the House of Representatives allegations against the FBI and the Department of Justice is a transparent effort to undermine those agencies, the Special Counsel and Congress' investigations. It also risks public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.''

It goes on to say: ``DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA's probable cause requirement, by demonstrating: Contemporaneous evidence of Russia's election interference''--I am reading from an unclassified document concerning Russian links and outreach to Trump campaign officials--``Page's history with Russian intelligence''--and that, we would assume, would be Carter Page--and Carter ``Page's suspicious activities in 2016, including in Moscow.''

These are all individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign.

It further says: Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016.''

By the way, it reinforces my statement that they were investigating the Trump campaign. No one bothered to offer that in a public setting. That was seemingly unimportant to the American voters.

But this document is unclassified, and most Members have had a chance to peruse it, as I have done, and, frankly, it is tied up into our weak response to the despotism of Vladimir Putin.

So as I said, this is not about a personality challenge. It is important to take note of the fact that we have an obligation, just as the Cold War Presidents had an obligation, to protect the American people at what they perceived to be an attack from the Soviet Union, although they collaborated in World War II, the attitude changed. The people were frozen in time.

Those Presidents, Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, although they did not clamor to go to war--and I, by no means, in this commentary today, in any way, am suggesting any form of war dealing with Russia. It is, though, saying that power must be met with power. Sanctions must be kept, and sanctions must be strong, and strong words must be clear.

Mr. Putin, your interfering with the elections and the desires and the decisions of the American people will stop. Your intelligence agencies and your operatives will be booted out, en masse, of the United States, and your attack, if you will, on individuals attempting to secure them as agents will cease.

I have every confidence in the intelligence community of this Nation. I do not look at them as political or partisan. From Mr. Clapper to Mr. Brennan, formerly, and to those who serve us now, their job is to tell the truth. In

fact, even those in the Trump administration, in the intelligence community, have enthusiastically and loudly declared that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, and they may and are preparing to do so in the 2018 election and 2020.

So the President's private behavior and efforts to cover it up have now generated three separate lawsuits. I don't particularly call upon that as a crucial element, except for those of us who know security and intelligence issues. Anything that can weaken you makes you vulnerable to individuals who need your information or need you to work for them. That is a well-known fact. If it is not well known, go to any spy movie and know that the vulnerability is what your operatives attack.

Now we have no fewer than three separate lawsuits dealing with his inappropriate behavior. In each case, his exposure grows. A particularly unseemly aspect of this silencing campaign is the enforcement of onerous nondisclosure agreements. So we will see a long journey of these particular items, these particular individuals coming before the cameras.

But I do want to say that there are women across the Nation who may not have this high-profile perpetrator, and I want to say to them and to the athletes who told their story in a Michigan courtroom that the Me Too movement is not temporary and fleeting, and the Me Too movement will continue to embrace you and secure you and safeguard you, and we hope that you will continue to do and tell the truth so that you can be healed and that you can be heard.

Over the last couple of days, the constant berating--constant berating of this special counsel has been frivolous, and let me tell you why. Although the special counsel has since indicted--or let me rephrase that. The special counsel is not doing frivolous work. The special counsel has since indicted three companies and 19 individuals, including the President's former National Security Advisor, his former campaign chairman, his deputy campaign chairman, and secured guilty pleas from five individuals, including three senior members of the Trump campaign. Trump continues to decry the special counsel's investigation as a hoax.

Republican colleagues would not even allow simple language in the omnibus bill to protect the special counsel to allow him to do his work; although, Trey Gowdy has indicated that his work should go on. And then, to attempt to suggest that the special counsel is going after him personally as a Republican, a Democrat, or that it is a witch hunt, I argue vigorously against it.

We need to find out the truth about Russia. We need to find out the truth about those who are surrounding this administration. We need to have an administration, whether it is his or anyone else, to be pure in their commitment to the American people. And the truth should come out, and no one, regardless of their party affiliation, should try to undermine Special Counsel Mueller.

So I would make the argument: We leave on a recess; we are on our phones; we are on our emails ready to launch back to Washington to respond to any constitutional crisis; but over and above that issue, though that is juxtaposed right alongside, is the plea to this administration that we cannot and you cannot adhere to two leaders or two bosses. Either you adhere to the boss of the American people, whose safety and security are in your hands, or you play footsies with a dictator who is not unwilling to kill his own citizens with nerve gas on foreign soil.

Which will you choose, to be associated with this person who has wounded his own nation with human rights violations, women's rights violations, with an economy, with people locked up in jail, with family members who can never be found, with poisoning his own citizens, or are you going to stand with the American people and the men and women in the United States military who are on the front lines every day fighting against those despots and standing for the American people?

That is what we need to hear. And until we hear something different-- and a mea culpa about the 2016 election, no one should put their hands on Director Mueller. All I can say is that his work should continue. I should not be involved with it; committees should not be involved with it; other leaders should not be involved with it.

Mr. Mueller should proceed with his work. It is painful. All of us would say so. But, frankly, it is the red, white, and blue. It is on behalf of the American people, Mr. Speaker.

And with that and my plea for power towards Mr. Putin on behalf of the American people and for dignity for this President on behalf of the American people, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of being involved in a number of international organizations representing the United States. We are defined by our love, appreciation for democracy, and for selling that around the world.

The call that was made by the Commander in Chief yesterday to Vladimir Putin, whose election was a failure, at best, was an insult to our principles and our values. This is the leader of a country alleged to have used poison gas on ally soil in London, trying to kill two individuals; had the interaction in Ukraine with the bringing down of the plane; and incarcerating many people in Russia because of their views.

I think this is a poor statement for a country that promotes democracy. The world looks to us and seeks to be, in many instances, like America. They value our concern for human rights and our value of democracy. They wait for us to stand up against despots like Vladimir Putin, yet the President of the United States gives him a jolly congratulations for an election that was not an election.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of my dear friend and our beloved colleague, Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter of New York, a trailblazer for women, whose powerful voice was quieted this past Friday morning, March 16, 2018.

Louise Slaughter lived a long, full, and consequential life and got the most out of the 88 years she graced this world.

She will be remembered in this House for her service to her constituents and her colleagues, her formidable intellect, her mastery of the legislative process, and her graciousness and kindness to all who came in contact with her.

After serving four years in the New York State Assembly, Louise Slaughter was elected to the 100th Congress in 1986 to represent the 30th Congressional District of New York, which at the time included downtown and eastern Rochester, most of eastern Monroe County, all of Genesee County and northern Livingston and Ontario counties.

Reelected to the 15 succeeding Congresses, Louise Slaughter carved out a legacy of leadership and accomplishments in the areas of women's rights and empowerment, the arts, health care, battlefield preparedness, economic revitalization, the environment, and social justice.

Born in the coal mining town of Lynch, Kentucky and educated at the University of Kentucky where she earned degrees in microbiology and public health, Louise Slaughter understood the connection between public health and a vibrant democracy, and fought to ensure passage of the landmark Affordable Care Act.

In the 112th Congress, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter introduced and shepherded to passage Pub. L. 112-105, the ``Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act'' or ``STOCK Act,'' which prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees, and requires many financial transactions by members of Congress to be reported within 45 days.

Mr. Speaker, since her first years on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter was an advocate for women all over the world.

Among her many accomplishments, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter co- authored the landmark Violence Against Women Act, ensured the first federal funding to the National Institutes of Health to research breast cancer, and was a co-founder of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus.

It is particularly fitting and altogether appropriate that this tireless champion of women, children, and families represented an area near Seneca Falls, the location of the first women's rights convention in 1848.

The dean of New York's Congressional Delegation, Louise Slaughter was the first woman to chair the powerful House Rules Committee, and the first woman to serve as Ranking Member of the Committee, and in both roles she carried the banner and led the fight for progressive values and to make our good country better.

I will always remember and be grateful to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter for her help in my duties representing the people of the 18th Congressional District of Texas.

I worked closely with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and drew upon her counsel and assistance to shepherd scores of bills and amendments to passage that have been beneficial to my constituents.

Louise Slaughter was incredibly generous with her knowledge and experience and served as a mentor to new members of Congress, including me.

I will never forget that Louise Slaughter's advocacy continued until her last days with us, including the National Women's March in Washington, D.C. on January 21, 2017.

Mr. Speaker, Louise Slaughter was an iron fist in a velvet glove.

A native of Kentucky, Louise Slaughter never lost her Southern twang and charm.

Louise Slaughter effortlessly mixed humor with logic to win over skeptics.

And then after disarming you, Louise Slaughter made her move.

Through her words and deeds, Louise Slaughter worked to make the lives of all Americans better.

Louise Slaughter was a dear friend and her loss leaves a void in my heart.

It is my prayer that the Lord brings comfort to the many people-- those whom Louise knew and those who felt they knew Louise Slaughter-- who know that a mighty oak has fallen and are heartbroken at the loss.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of the gentlewoman from New York, Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5074, the DHS Cyber Incident Response Teams Act of 2018.

The ``DHS Cyber Incident Response Teams Act of 2018,'' codifies DHS' National Cybersecurity and Communications Coordination Center (NCCIC) hunt and incident response teams which the Department currently deploys to provide intrusion analysis, identify malicious actors, analyze malicious tools, and provide mitigation assistance to entities requesting assistance after a cybersecurity incident.

The DHS' Hunt and Incident Response Teams play an integral role in improving the cybersecurity posture of critical infrastructure owners and operators, from energy and nuclear power firms to state and local governments administering elections.

The bill requires the NCCIC to submit information to Congress regarding metrics for the teams, at the conclusion of the first four years after enactment.

In 2016, Russian actors targeted U.S. election infrastructure, hackers escalated efforts to

breach the domestic energy sector, and WannaCry and NotPetya ransomware wreaked havoc on public and private infrastructure around the world.

According to Symantec, a leading provider of cybersecurity solutions, said that ``The world of cyber espionage experienced a notable shift towards more overt activity, designed to destabilize and disrupt targeted organizations and countries.''

These threats to cyber security are not new.

In June 2015, it was reported that the Office of Personnel Management lost personal information on 21.5 million current and former federal employees and their families.

In 2017, the following were reported attacks and breaches:

WannaCry ransomware that infected millions of networks worldwide; and the

Equifax hack exposed millions of American's credit information to cyber-thieves;

Our nation's critical infrastructure and civilian government agencies depend on the cybersecurity talent and resources that the Department of Homeland Security can provide on the frontline to defend against attacks.

As cyber threats continue to evolve and become more sophisticated, so must U.S. efforts to confront them.

The Department of Homeland Security plays a central role in the federal government's cybersecurity apparatus and in coordinating federal efforts to secure critical infrastructure.

DHS is charged with coordinating agency efforts to secure the (dot).gov Domain, while also serving as the hub for cybersecurity information sharing between and among the private sector and federal government.

Earlier this Congress, I introduced H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Reporting Act, which was passed by the full House and is now in the Senate.

H.R. 3202 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on the policies and procedures developed for coordinating cyber vulnerability disclosures.

The report will include an annex with information on instances in which cyber security vulnerability disclosure policies and procedures were used to disclose details on identified weaknesses in computing systems that or digital devices at risk.

The report will provide information on the degree to which the information provided by DHS was used by industry and other stakeholders.

The reason that I worked to bring this bill before the committee is the problem often referred to as a ``Zero Day Event,'' which describes the situation that network security professionals may find themselves when a previously unknown error in computing code is exploited by a cybercriminal or terrorist.

As with other threats that this nation has faced and overcome, we must create the resources and the institutional responses to protect our nation against cyber threats while preserving our liberties and freedoms.

We cannot accomplish this task without the full cooperation and support of the private sector, computing research community and academia.

This level of engagement requires the trust and confidence of the American people that this new cyber threat center will be used for the purpose it was created and that the collaboration of others in this effort to better protect computing networks will be used only for protection and defense.

There are people with skills and those with the potential to develop skills that would be of benefit to our nation's efforts to develop an effective cybersecurity defense and deterrence posture.

It is my hope that as we move forward the Committee on Homeland Security will continue in a bipartisan manner to seek out the best ways to bring the brightest and most qualified people into the government as cybersecurity professionals.

With this policy objective in mind, I look forward to working with the Committee on H.R. 1981, the Cyber Security Education and Federal Workforce Enhancement Act.

I urge my Colleagues in the House to join me in voting for H.R. 5074.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, a former chairman of the Transportation and Protective Security Subcommittee, and an original co-sponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4176, ``Air Cargo Security Improvement Act of 2017.''

H.R. 4176 will strengthen the nation's air cargo security networks by requiring the Transportation Security Administration to establish an air cargo security division within the agency.

Within 120 days of enactment, TSA would conduct a feasibility study on the expanded use of computed tomography for air cargo.

Following the study, TSA would be required to initiate a pilot program to achieve enhanced air cargo security screening through the use of new or emerging technologies.

Within 150 days of enactment, TSA would be required to report to Congress on actions to improve the effectiveness of the Certified Cargo Screening Program.

The Government Accountability Office is tasked with reviewing the effectiveness of DHS' approach to addressing the air cargo security risk, including the risk-based strategy for examining air cargo and ensuring compliance with air cargo security rules.

TSA would be required to request that the Aviation Security Advisory Committee's Subcommittee on Air Cargo conduct a comprehensive review of TSA's Known Shipper Program.

Mr. Speaker, thirteen years ago, the U.S. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (9/11 Commission) expressed concerns ``regarding the screening and transport of checked bags and cargo.''

The Commission called for called for more attention and resources to be directed to reducing or mitigating the threat posed by explosives in vessels' cargo holds.

Today, the threat of a terrorist attack using air cargo is significant.

In fact, in July, then-Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly identified cargo-based aviation attacks as a major concern, explaining ``there are people out there, very smart people, very sophisticated people who do nothing but try to figure out how to blow up an airplane in flight.''

Secretary Kelly also said ``There is a fair amount of cargo, what we would attribute to just cargo flown on passenger airplane on space available. Terrorists are constantly looking for ways to do this.''

This increase in the air cargo security risk comes at a time when the volume of goods being moved by air cargo has increased, with 2016 volume back to approximately 98.4 percent of pre-recession levels with airlines transporting 52 million metric tons of goods.

In response to this security risk, H.R. 4176 directs the Transportation Security Administration to take a number of steps to enhance its responsibilities for air cargo and require the agency to aggressively move towards addressing current and future threats to air cargo.

Specifically, H.R. 4176 clarifies air cargo security responsibilities at TSA, encourages further technological developments for screening air cargo, directs a review of existing air cargo programs, and requires the Department of Homeland Security to make the Air Cargo Advance Screening Program permanent.

The threat posed by terrorists' abilities and desires to exploit vulnerabilities cannot be understated and they have demonstrably set their targets on air cargo.

We need to be timely and precise in addressing air cargo security, as we cannot afford, nor should the American public tolerate, otherwise.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 4176 so we can make Americans more secure from the threat of an air cargo-based terrorist attack.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5131, the ``Surface Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2018,'' which would increase the nation's readiness to deal with national security threats.

H.R. 5131 requires the Government Accountability Office to review the effectiveness of the Transportation Security Administration's Biennial National Strategy for Transportation Security.

H.R. 5131 would also require the Department of Homeland Security to develop risk-based priorities across all transportation modes.

This would be informed by analysis of terrorist attack scenarios for each mode of transportation.

The work directly under this will also include cyber-attack scenarios, which poses an increasing threat to the well-being of our public and private infrastructures.

H.R. 5131 requires DHS to explain overdue surface transportation security rulemakings and the Inspector General to review DHS's explanations, and report on its findings.

It directs DHS to conduct a feasibility assessment of introducing next generation technologies to detect threats to surface transportation systems.

DHS would also disseminate best practices for enhancing transportation security against the threat of vehicle-based attacks.

The bill also requires DHS to conduct and report to Congress on a survey of surface transportation stakeholders regarding resource challenges, including the availability of Federal funding and specific unmet needs.

It authorizes a TSA task force to identify and develop innovative technologies and capabilities to enhance transportation security, including surface transportation security.

It also directs DHS to assess the threats posed by the use of security technologies developed or manufactured by firms owned or closely linked to the governments of countries known to pose cyber or homeland security threats.

This is extremely important given the ongoing threats to our democracy from a rising number of malevolent global actors, including North Korea and Russia.

Finally, the bill requires the TSA to develop a strategy to guide surface transportation security inspector operations, which would be subject to GAO review.

In sum, H.R. 5131 enhances TSA's surface transportation security operations across a range of activities, while taking into consideration the role of computers in the modernization of our nation's transportation systems.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection to speak in strong support of H.R. 5089, ``the Strengthening Local Transportation Security Capabilities Act of 2018.''

Thank you Representative Barragan for introducing this important measure, as former Chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection I understand the value and importance of this bill.

I have long supported bolstering our Nation's transportation system security through improving coordination of local jurisdictions with federal law enforcement agencies.

H.R. 5089 does just that by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize the detailing of personnel from the Transportation Security Administration and the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis to be stationed with participating state, local, and-regional fusion center in jurisdictions with a high-risk surface transportation asset.

In 2013, the Port of Houston which receives over 200 million tons of cargo a year was the 8th busiest container port in the nation.

Houston, also home to George Bush International Airport, the 14th busiest airport in the nation, will benefit directly from the resources provided in H.R. 5089.

Our transportation system facilitates economic growth through creating jobs, transporting goods, and connecting communities to one another.

This bill requires officers and analysts to participate in the generation and dissemination of transportation security intelligence products.

Additionally, H.R. 5089 directs TSA to make available to public and private sector stakeholders a framework for establishing integrated and unified operations centers responsible for overseeing daily operations of transportation facilities to promote coordination for responses to terrorism and other serious incidents.

Finally, it authorizes DHS to develop, through Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, a training program to enhance the protection, preparedness, and response capabilities of law enforcement agencies with respect to terrorism and other serious incidents at surface transportation assets.

Taken together, the bill's provisions enhance the capabilities of local transportation security stakeholders to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other serious incidents.

We should support this effort to improve our National security and transportation capabilities against terrorism.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5089.