Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong and unwavering support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) and unyielding opposition to the President's decision, announced by the Attorney General, to rescind a policy that liberated 800,000 young persons--124,000 of them in Texas--from the shadows of life, welcomed them into the mainstream, and encouraged them to realize their potential and achieve the American Dream.

At the heart of the Trump Administration's cruel and heartless and misguided decision to rescind DACA is the specious claim that President Obama lacked the constitutional and statutory authority to take executive actions to implement the DACA policy.

That is why I offered an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018, (Division C of Rules Committee Print 115-31) that would have prohibited the Administration from using appropriated funds to implement its decision to rescind DACA.

Specifically, that Jackson Lee Amendment provided the following section at the end of Division E of the bill:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the opposing of the rule and opposing of H.R. 4712 to support the right of a woman to choose and to support loving families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the underlying bill.

I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House majority to limit women's rights to safe and legal abortions.

H.R. 4712 amends the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act--a 2002 law that the pro-choice community did not oppose.

This bill, however, adds penalties to the law and an entirely new section in which Congress attempts to intrude directly into medical practice of abortion care for anti-choice ideological purposes.

Anti-choice lawmakers say this new bill is necessary because some babies ``survive'' abortion procedures.

They cite the now-discredited videos attacking Planned Parenthood as their evidence.

Of course, such allegations are untrue: newborns already have many legal protections, and there is no similarity between safe, legal abortion care and infanticide.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem.

No evidence of lawbreaking has been uncovered that necessitates congressional involvement.

Abortion practice is safe, legal, and humane; any evidence of wrongdoing can and should be handled under existing law.

If there is ever a case of harm or mistreatment of newborns, then of course, it should be investigated and prosecuted.

No such case exists here.

That makes it even clearer that H.R. 4712 must have other purposes; we believe the bill's true goals are to inflame the public with outrageous accusations, to interfere with medical care, and to intimidate doctors out of practice.

This legislation is consistent with the assaults that the Trump Administration and anti-abortion members of Congress in both the House and Senate have been undertaking throughout the 115th Congress and show no signs of ending.

The bill intrudes into medical practice, its mandate is so broad and the penalties so severe--up to five years in prison and the threat of financially crippling lawsuits--that one can only conclude that H.R. 4712 hopes to intimidate abortion providers out of practice.

This interference in medical care could also cause tremendous additional grief to some families making difficult decisions in heartbreaking cases.

We would not tolerate similar intrusion by politicians into any other medical specialty; abortion care is no different.

Finally, it is important to put this legislation into the proper context.

We are in the midst of an unprecedented assault against reproductive rights: this bill is just one in a litany to restrict a woman's right to choose while using women as political pawns with an extremist, anti- choice base.

Instead of spending time attempting to roll back women's constitutionally protected rights, this House should be advancing legislation that will reform our truly broken immigration and criminal justice systems.

The bill before us is offered for a simple purpose; to sensationalize opposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our government.

The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion.

Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted pregnancies.

Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade.

In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's health and safety.

Fights here in Congress have been no different.

In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015.

On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the full range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements.

This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women.

Texas has 268,580 square miles only second in size to the state of California.

The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state.

In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas.

The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics in my state.

It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms.

But we know that's not really the case.

If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being.

Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed attempt to ban abortion.

That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about protecting women's health, it's about politics.

Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of ethics of abortion from the question ethics of using fetal tissue from legal elective abortions for medical research when laying the foundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal views of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance.

Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being provided is funded or not.

A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality, lies with the provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses (e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue.

Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this requirement.

In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the country, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue donation services and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington) offer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned Parenthood service centers.

The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per tissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement.

It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades.

Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and treat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, immune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases.

One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.

The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue transplantation has been the Treatment of Parkinson's disease.

Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken pox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal tissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue.

When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in fetal tissue donation and research, and no clear credible proof of illegal activity, it is obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are wholly misguided.

Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards and accreditation processes in the country.

It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of evidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health care is provided throughout the country.

Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of nationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including medical experts from Harvard and Columbia.

Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews that include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over 600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half of these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety.

Planned Parenthood has strict requirements regarding compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. A specific area of compliance is with mandatory reporting laws and regulations regarding reporting in instances where the welfare of a minor is endangered.

All staff with patient contact are rigorously trained regarding compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations governing service to minors.

Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme anti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion procedures in this country.

To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned Parenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to millions of women every year.

They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and undermine Planned Parenthood.

Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a group that can be taken credibly.

The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history of doctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions about Planned Parenthood.

It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on Planned Parenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health care across the board.

At the same time, national media is reporting about a major coordinated push by anti-choice groups and Members of Congress to defund Planned Parenthood.

This coordinated effort to defund Planned Parenthood is an assault on all progressive health care, service, and advocacy organizations who aim to provide vital care and services to women and men across this country.

The public is standing by Planned Parenthood, which plays a vital role in defending women's health and rights.

Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial generation.

My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative screenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their access to lawfully entitled family planning and private health services.

I urge all Members to vote against the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Oklahoma--and he is a good friend. We have seen each other often in the Rules Committee-- protests too much. This is not a bill, and the American people should know that it is not a bill. It is an affirmation of the inability of Republicans to govern.

Republicans have the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. A few months ago, their President indicated that we need a good, beautiful government shutdown. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the President of the United States. This is not an appropriations bill. This is a stopgap emergency method in order to save ourselves from collapse. That is the Republican's responsibility.

Democrats, so many months ago, passed a budget, as a member of the Budget Committee, a budget that respected the needs of all Americans, including the United States Department of Defense. It provided funding for ordinary men and women who put on the uniform, some of them on food stamps. It provided for veterans health. It provided for the children's health insurance. It provided for infrastructure, and it provided for ensuring that Americans could have good healthcare. That was the Democrat's budget.

The Republican budget was a $2.4 trillion, and counting, cut to the needs of the American people. It threatened Medicaid and Medicare, quite contrary to Democrats. Now, we find ourselves in the midst of those in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands who barely got lights or power during the holiday season or thereafter. It is dealing with Texans who have no power in their homes, living in shells. They have no heat. They are waiting on disaster supplemental relief that is not coming.

And, of course, what about CHIP? I represent the Texas Children's Hospital with my colleagues. My district surrounds that area. I have been to that hospital. I have seen what the Children's Health Insurance Program means to saving lives. What does that mean? Six years, that is nebulous. What about permanent?

What about passing Mr. McEachin's bill on working with seniors and children? That is serious. And I don't know what my friends heard, but earlier this morning, I heard the President say: Snatch CHIP out of it. They want to be in negotiation. I just want to be mean.

And you know how you are being mean? You are not here seriously dealing with this. You are going off on a rally so that you can support the man that is running in the Pennsylvania suburbs who loves the President. That is not democracy. Whoever is running, let them run.

Right now, in here, we need some help and we need to work on these issues for the 700,000 near-Americans. They are DREAMers, but they serve in the military. They are in medical school. They are Ph.D.s. They are teachers, and we have them suffering. Some of them have committed suicide because of the ugliness of this body controlled by Republicans in the House and the Senate.

Finally, let me say that any President who can call something an s--- hole is not a serious negotiator.

I believe it is the Republicans' responsibility to put a bill on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Rule, which makes in order legislation extending the Continuing Resolution now in effect for another month, or until February 16, 2018.

This resolution is yet another short-term Continuing Resolution (CR) to extend government funding for a few weeks, this time until February 16th.

This is the fourth time House Republicans have chosen to kick the can down the road rather than work with Democrats to come to a necessary bipartisan agreement to lift the Budget Control Act (BCA) spending caps, giving appropriators the direction they need for full-year funding bills.

The reason given for passing each of the prior Continuing Resolutions was that the extra time was needed to reach a comprehensive agreement to fund government operations in a fair and balanced way.

Yet, even with the extra time, House Republicans made no progress during any of the previous extensions.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a rule that does not make in order legislation that provides full funding for disaster recovery, extends additional health access for veterans, provides funding to combat the opioid epidemic, and protects pensions.

Most important, it is outrageous that House Republicans would bring to the floor and request support for a fourth CR extension that does not address and resolve the crisis the Republican Administration has inflicted on 800,0oo Dreamers and their families, including 124,000 Dreamers in my home state of Texas.

Instead of acting responsibly to address these issues and fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, House Republicans continue wasting time.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us includes a six year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides health coverage to nine million children, and which Republicans allowed to lapse on September 30, 2017.

In contrast, making CHIP permanent would not only provide long-term stability for families, providers, and states, it would save $6 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans are only just now getting around to reauthorizing the program because they wasted months on efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and enact unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy.

This resolution includes additional tax cuts totaling over $26 billion, including a two year delay of the medical device and Cadillac taxes, and a one year delay of the health insurance tax.

At the same time, the resolution fails to address numerous other expired and expiring health priorities, from funding for community health centers to waiving caps on therapy services for seniors on Medicare, to preventing cuts to safety net hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, despite controlling the House, Senate, and the White House, Republicans have not funded the government for the entire year, even though we are already four months into the fiscal year.

Because Republicans refuse to work with Democrats and compromise on how to provide relief from the BCA's sequester level spending caps, they are lurching from CR to CR--degrading the readiness of our military and preventing government agencies from properly serving the American people.

This is not a responsible way to govern.

Therefore, I cannot support the Rule or the underlying bill.

Instead, Republicans need to work across the aisle with Democrats and get our work done--including upholding the long-standing precedent of agreeing to parity when providing relief from sequester caps.

* * *

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Rules Committee Print 115-55, legislation extending the Continuing Resolution now in effect for another month, or until February 16, 2018.

But before I proceed further, I want to note--and Americans needs to know--that this is not a spending bill; it is instead an affirmation of the House Republicans' inability to govern.

This is the fourth time House Republicans have chosen to kick the can down the road rather than work with Democrats to come to a necessary bipartisan agreement to lift the Budget Control Act (BCA) spending caps, giving appropriators the direction they need for full-year funding bills.

The reason given for passing each of the prior Continuing Resolutions was that the extra time was needed to reach a comprehensive agreement to fund government operations in a fair and balanced way.

Yet, even with the extra time, House Republicans made no progress during any of the previous extensions.

This should not be surprising; the House GOP is carrying the water for the president, who a few months ago said ``we need a big beautiful shutdown.''

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a CR that does not include full funding for disaster recovery, extends additional health access for veterans, provides funding to combat the opioid epidemic, and protects pensions.

Most important, it is outrageous that House Republicans would bring to the floor and request support for a fourth CR extension that does not address and resolve the crisis the Republican Administration has inflicted on 800,000 Dreamers and their families, including 124,000 Dreamers in my home state of Texas.

Instead of acting responsibly to address these issues and fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, House Republicans continue wasting time.

This is not appropriations; this is a stop-gap funding measure to save ourselves from collapse.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us includes a six year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides health coverage to nine million children, and which Republicans allowed to lapse on September 30, 2017.

This is not a meaningful extension.

In contrast, making CHIP permanent would not only provide long-term stability for families, providers, and states, it would save $6 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Republicans are only just now getting around to reauthorizing the program because they wasted months on efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and enact unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy.

I know firsthand about the important work done through CHIP.

My state is home to the Texas Children's Hospital. Any Republican who believes it is acceptable to play politics with children's health clearly does not appreciate the work done there.

This CR includes additional tax cuts totaling over $26 billion, including a two year delay of the medical device and Cadillac taxes, and a one year delay of the health insurance tax.

At the same time, the resolution fails to address numerous other expired and expiring health priorities, from funding for community health centers to waiving caps on therapy services for seniors on Medicare, to preventing cuts to safety net hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, despite controlling the House, Senate, and the White House, Republicans have not funded the government for the entire year, even though we are already four months into the fiscal year.

Democrats, meanwhile, have done the work with which we were tasked. I am a member of the Budget committee and we Democrats proposed a budget that:

Respected the needs of all Americans, including those who serve bravely in the Department of Defense;

Honored the sacrifice of our heroes in uniform;

Protected programs like CHIP, made investments in infrastructure and ensured that Americans have access to quality healthcare.

Because Republicans refuse to work with Democrats and compromise on how to provide relief from the BCA's sequester level spending caps, they are lurching from CR to CR--degrading the readiness of our military and preventing government agencies from properly serving the American people.

This is not a responsible way to govern; therefore, I cannot support this bill.

House Republicans need to work across the aisle with Democrats and get our work done--including upholding the long-standing precedent of agreeing to parity when providing relief from sequester caps.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what we did not do today for the American people's enhancement.

What we did not do today is provide for enlisted men and women. We need to increase compensation for their families who are on food stamps. We did nothing for them today.

We did nothing for Rose Escobar and her husband. Her husband was departed to El Salvador, a place where he has never been. They have two children and live in Houston, Texas. We have been pleading for his case to be reviewed. He is a DREAMer. He is DACA-eligible. He was managing a paint store. He was buying a house. We did nothing for him today.

Who else did we not do anything for?

The millions of people who use community health clinics and whose funding will expire. For 25 years, Central Care has been the facility that has served African Americans, Hispanics, and others for fee-for- service and Medicaid. We did absolutely nothing for them.

So we should not be afraid of stopping this government, if we have to do it, because we need to do something for the DREAMers. We need to do something for people who don't have healthcare and have to use federally qualified health centers.

My God, we need to do something for the enlisted men and women whose families are on food stamps and whose salaries are not commensurate with the sacrifice they make.

I am standing, Mr. Speaker, with each and every one of them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the CR for its repetitiveness and its inability to save lives, frankly, the lives of DREAMers or the lives of those who depend upon the Children's Health Insurance Program.

In the vulgar statement that was made by the White House, how shocking this week of Dr. King's birthday of the deafening silence of my Republican friends and the faith community, the broad-based faith community.

Let me read from the network:

The slave codes created servitude for natural life for

African laborers. 250-plus years slave labor of millions of

African and Black people was the foundation of the American

economy and global force that it eventually became. On the

eve of the Civil War, Black slaves were valued at an

estimated $3.5 billion--and that is scaled for modern

inflation--and none of the Black slaves were able to cash in

on that value.

That is the vulgar statement about Africa from which many of us have come. And so I would argue that it is time, now, for this House to stand up for people such as those who are starving in Somalia, those who are starving in Sudan and Nigeria, those who have been called a vulgar word.

Where is the morality of this Congress, the morality of this administration, the morality of this Nation?

Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Royce, Mr. Engel, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Bass for establishing a real, viable African policy, a policy that I have had the privilege of being part of for all of the years that I have served in the United States Congress.

I remember making the first inaugural trip to do the research and to meet with heads of state in Africa on the question of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

Over the years, we worked with the Bush administration on the Millennium Challenge Corporation. So I am delighted that we have a bill that improves the benefits.

It is even more important, in this time, to make sure that the policies of the United States toward Africa and the African countries are clear and precise. They are strong allies and a very viable trade partner.

This, of course, Mr. Speaker, is crucial in the backdrop of very vulgar statements that, unfortunately, have come from the Commander in Chief. Therefore, this is the policy that is real, an ongoing partnership, the fact that Africa represents a growing population of 1 billion people. When we last traveled with a President of the United States--which then was President

Barack Obama--and visited a number of African countries, in particular Kenya, we were there to look at the rising population of small- and medium-sized entrepreneurs, young millennials, and others who were eager to engage in business.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act will be a pathway for sub- Saharan African countries in that area that will create the pathway for trade for the goods of those produced on the continent.

Peace and the economy go together. If we have an economic engine partnership with the United States, looking at good quality investment, and if we have the work of the Millennium Challenge to challenge countries to become more democratic, to open the doors of opportunity, to have a better fiscal system, and to be a real partner in these improvements, that is a real African policy.

So I rise to support the underlying bill, H.R. 3445. I rise to support it because it is an advancement to the work that has been done over the years by the United States Congress and the many partners that we have had.

I am a student of Africa, having gone to school in Accra and Kumasi in Ghana and, of course, in Lagos and Ibadan in Nigeria. I have traveled often, and I understand the ingenuity, the eagerness, and the commitment to democratic principles and, of course, the opportunities for their young generation.

So I rise today to support the bill. I thank the sponsors for this very excellent legislation. It is good work.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if it is appropriate, but I ask unanimous consent to cosponsor the legislation at this time.

Mr. Speaker, as an American, I certainly celebrate religious freedom and acknowledge the importance of freedom of religion and speech and the ability to have access to a free press.

Sadly, I rise to take issue with the comments said by the Commander in Chief, well documented by Senator Durbin and the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, who delicately tried to instruct the Commander in Chief of the ugliness of his words.

I will not say them on the floor, and I have not said the complete word, but over this weekend of the beloved community of Dr. Martin Luther King, everywhere I went, people were appalled. I believe that it is crucial that we pass the Dream Act and that we speak to the racism of this President through 1973, 1980, 1988, and 1989.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat the refrain of those of us who are members of the Judiciary Committee who have gone through this process since 9/11, and that is that we support the integrity and the importance of section 702 as a national security tool, and we want it reauthorized, but we want it right.

Our job and our task is also to be the protectors of the Fourth Amendment, and that is the protection of the American people against unreasonable search and seizure.

No matter how much my friends on the other side of the aisle argue, we know that the FBI can have the tools that it needs; but, in the instance of this underlying bill, similar to the bill that was passed in 2007 by the Bush administration, on which the Judiciary Committee came back and amended it and made it a bill that provides the tools that were needed by those who are on the front lines in the United States military and the FBI, ultimately, it was changed to deny those rights.

In this instance, the warrant that my friends are talking about is revised only to fully predicated cases. It does not apply to the searching of documents that will have information about Americans.

I ask my colleagues to postpone this. Let us work together on behalf of the American people. Who are we if we cannot uphold the Constitution? It is not protected in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I rise in strong opposition to S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017.''

S. 139 reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is scheduled to expire on January 19, 2018.

Section 702 authorizes the Justice Department and NSA to collect non- U.S. persons' communications that are sent while abroad.

The collection programs have to be approved each year by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court).

The FISA Court was set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA; Public Law 95-511) to oversee intelligence- gathering activities and ensure compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

Under FISA, the term ``U.S. person'' covers citizens, green card holders, associations with a ``substantial number of members'' who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and U.S.-incorporated companies.

Title VII also allows intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance on a specific U.S. person reasonably believed to be outside of the country, with the approval of the FISA Court.

The NSA's use of section 702 authority to collect Americans' information from their communications with foreign surveillance targets was revealed by former government contractor Edward Snowden in 2013.

Snowden also revealed that the NSA obtains communications from U.S.- based providers such as Google, Verizon, and Facebook.

Although Section 702 is a critical national security tool set to expire on January 19, 2018, events of the recent past strongly suggest that Section 702 should not be reauthorized without necessary and significant reforms that are not included in the legislation before us.

So as the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I oppose the bill for several compelling reasons:

1. S. 139 fails to address the core concerns of Members of Congress and the American public--the government's use of Section 702 information against United States citizens investigations that have nothing to do with national security.

2. The warrant ``requirement'' contained in the bill is riddled with loopholes and applies only to fully predicated, official FBI investigations, not to the hundreds of thousands searches the FBI runs every day to run down a lead or check out a tip.

3. S. 139 exacerbates existing problems with Section 702 by codifying so-called ``about collection,'' a type of surveillance that was shut down after it twice failed to meet Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

4. S. 139 is universally opposed by technology companies, privacy, and civil liberties groups across the political spectrum from the ACLU to FreedomWorks.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us comes from the Intelligence Committee, where it was passed on a strict party-line vote.

This stands in stark contrast to H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty Act the bipartisan bill reported by the Judiciary Committee after multiple hearings, an open markup process, and a bipartisan vote of approval.

The USA Liberty Act enjoys much broader support, contains meaningful reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and is far superior to the bill before us.

Inexplicably, the House Republican leadership did choose the best option, which was to bring the USA Liberty Act to the floor for debate and vote; instead, they chose the worst option, which is S. 139, the bill before us.

For this reason, I urge all members to join me in supporting the Amash-Lofgren Amendment, the best option remaining before us.

The Amash-Lofgren strike the text of S. 139 in its entirety and substitutes in its place the text of the ``Uniting and Strengthening America by Reforming and Improving the Government's High-Tech Surveillance Act'' (``USA RIGHTS Act'').

In contrast to S. 139, the ``USA RIGHTS Act'' enacts necessary and meaningful reforms to Section 702, which are necessary in light of the past abuses of surveillance authorities, contemporary noncompliance with this authority, and the danger posed by potential future abuses.

First, the USA RIGHTS Act creates a search warrant requirement that closes the so-called ``backdoor search loophole'' through which the government searches, without first obtaining a court-issued warrant based on probable cause, for information about U.S. persons or persons inside the U.S.

The ``USA RIGHTS Act'' provides an exception for emergencies, but requires a court warrant afterward.

Second, the ``USA RIGHTS Act'' prohibits the collection of domestic communications and permanently ends ``about'' collection, an illegal practice the National Security Agency recently stopped because of persistent and significant compliance violations.

This is important because while ``reverse targeting'' is prohibited under the Jackson Lee Amendment incorporated in the USA Freedom Act enacted on June 2, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-23), this prohibition was often skirted by collecting information from communications that merely mention an intelligence target.

Under the ``USA RIGHTS Act'', collections would be limited to communications that are ``to'' or ``from'' a target, and the intentional collection of wholly domestic communications is prohibited.

Third, the ``USA RIGHTS Act'' requires the government give notice when it uses information obtained or derived from Section 702 surveillance in proceedings against U.S. persons or people on U.S. soil which will enable a defendant to assert his or her constitutional rights and help ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance is not being misused.

Fourth, under the ``USA RIGHTS Act'', Section 702 authority sunsets in 4 years, which will obligate the Congress to exercise regular oversight and provide the opportunity to make necessary reforms before reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted to protect the liberty and security of Americans, not to diminish their constitutional rights.

All Americans want to find the common ground where commonsense rules and regulations relating to fighting terrorism at home and abroad can exist while still protecting the cherished privacy and civil liberties which Americans hold close to our collective hearts.

That is why Section 702 should not be reauthorized with reforms to prevent the government from using information against its political opponents or members of religious, ethnic, or other groups.

One way to do that without interfering with the national security objectives of 702 surveillance is simply to reject S. 139 and support the USA RIGHTS Act by voting for the Amash-Lofgren Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I noted in an op-ed published way back in October 2007, that as Alexis de Tocqueville, the most astute student of American democracy, observed nearly two centuries ago, the reason democracies invariably prevail in any military conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to success: initiative, innovation, courage, and a love of justice.

And the best way to keep America safe and strong is to remain true to the valued embedded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

S. 139 does not strike the proper balance between our cherished liberties and smart security.

We can do better; we should reject S. 139 and support the Amash- Lofgren Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this body cannot be afraid of the Constitution. It has been our guiding moral force for this Nation for all of our beginnings and our nows.

This amendment is truly an amendment that will protect and provide for the FBI to do its work and to protect our men and women around the world who are wearing the uniform unselfishly. But let me be very clear: all this amendment does, frankly, is provide a roadmap for the FBI to utilize when it is surveying and it is using the private data of Americans. All the amendment does is ask the FBI and the Attorney General, where there is probable cause, that such communication provide evidence of a crime; and, as well, if there is a foreign power or foreign agent, to be able to utilize a warrant, and that is the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

Uphold the Constitution. Vote for the Amash-Lofgren amendment and let's move forward on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, I will join the AFL-CIO's 2018 MLK Conference dealing with civil and human rights. At that time, we will discuss the GOP tax scam that stops the labor movement in its tracks because 83 percent of the tax cuts goes to the wealthiest 1 percent and raises taxes on 86 million.

I invite my constituents to join me from 1 to 3 at the Hilton Americas, where we will be talking about the labor movement and the devastation of the GOP tax scam on the American people.

At the same time, I am glad that I live in a nation that welcomes those who want to serve coming from other countries and live up to the ideals of this country.

I want to pay tribute to Rose and Jose Escobar. Jose came to this country under TPS from El Salvador. It is important that this family not be broken up. Jose was unfairly deported and deserves humanitarian parole to come back to be with his loving wife, a citizen who works for the Texas Medical Center, and his two wonderful children.

TPS, again, is not violating or jeopardizing the American people's security. It is a reflection of our compassion, our humanity, and our respect for those who come to this Nation fleeing persecution and devastation. To send back Haitians, to send back El Salvadorans will be a terrible tragedy, and to send back our DREAMers will be worse. Let's work as Americans to make this country what it is, our greatest country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my continued support for the people of Iran and continued support for freedom of speech as it is encapsulated in H. Res. 676, a resolution supporting the rights of the people of Iran to free expression and condemning the Iranian regime for its crackdown on legitimate protests.

On Sunday, January 7, 2018, I stood in protest with Iranian-Americans on the streets of Houston to take a stand for human rights in Iran.

At that event, I stated ``It is time for freedom to take over'' and I stand by that statement here in Congress and add that separation of church and state is essential for a free and democratic Iran.

On December 28, 2017, popular protests against the Iranian regime began in the city of Mashad and rapidly spread throughout the country, in the most significant antigovernment protests in Iran since June 2009.

The protesters have expressed numerous economic grievances, including the regime's widespread corruption and the Revolutionary Guard Corps' control of the country's economy.

Protesters have decried the regime's costly, destabilizing activities abroad, including its support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and the murderous Assad regime in Syria.

Reports indicate that more than 1,000 Iranians have been arrested and almost two dozen killed in connection with the protests.

The Iranian regime has shut down mobile internet access and has blocked and pressured companies to cut off social media applications used by activists to organize and publicize the protests.

Congress has provided authority to license the provision of communications technology to Iran to improve the ability of the Iranian people to speak freely.

I encourage the Administration to expedite the license of communications technology to Iran to improve the ability of the Iranian people to speak freely and I call on companies to reject requests by the regime to cut off the Iranian people from social media and other communications platforms.

On January 1, 2018, regime officials threatened to crack down, with Brigadier General Esmaeil Kowsari of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps stating, ``If this situation continues, the officials will definitely make some decisions and at that point this business will be finished.''

Congress has provided authority to designate and sanction elements of the Iranian regime involved in significant corruption and serious human rights abuses.

I urge the Administration to use targeted sanctions and work to convene emergency sessions of the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council to condemn the ongoing human rights violations perpetrated by the Iranian regime and establish a mechanism by which the Security Council can monitor such violations.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Basij militia have been sanctioned by the United States for planning and carrying out serious human rights abuses against the Iranian people, including for the cruel and prolonged torture of political dissidents, behavior that is absolutely intolerable.

The regime has routinely violated the human rights of Iranian citizens, including ongoing, systematic, and serious restrictions of freedom of peaceful assembly and association and freedom of opinion and expression, including the continuing closures of media outlets, arrests of journalists, and the censorship of expression in online forums such as blogs and websites.

The Department of State's 2016 Human Rights Report on Iran noted:

severe restrictions on civil liberties, including the

freedoms of assembly, association, speech, religion, and

press.

Other human rights problems included abuse of due process

combined with use of capital punishment for crimes that do

not meet the requirements of due process, as well as cruel,

inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; and disregard

for the physical integrity of persons, whom authorities

arbitrarily and unlawfully detained, tortured, or killed.

For a country that once enjoyed great pride in its freedom of thought, the information in this Report comes with sadness.

On December 29, 2017, the Department of State strongly condemned the arrest of peaceful protesters and noted that ``Iran's leaders have turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.''

On January 1, 2018, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, stated that:

The UK is watching events in Iran closely.

We believe that there should be meaningful debate about the

legitimate and important issues the protesters are raising

and we look to the Iranian authorities to permit this.

On January 2, 2018, the French Foreign Ministry stated that:

French authorities are closely monitoring the situation in

Iran.

Demonstrating freely is a fundamental right.

The same is true for the free movement of information.

France expresses its concern over the large number of

victims and arrests.

On January 1, 2018, a spokesman for the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that:

We call on the Iranian authorities to uphold and respect

democratic and human rights and ``We are encouraged by the

Iranian people who are bravely exercising their basic right

to protest peacefully.

Canada will continue to support the fundamental rights of

the Iranians, including freedom of expression.

As hypocrisy has it, Iran is a member of the United Nations, voted for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is a signatory to

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, among other international human rights treaties.

In violation of these and other international obligations, Iranian regime officials continue to violate the fundamental human rights of the Iranian people.

Today, I rise with my colleagues in Congress to stand with the people of Iran that are engaged in legitimate and peaceful protests against an oppressive, corrupt regime.

I rise in support of H. Res. 676 which condemns the Iranian regime's serious human rights abuses against the Iranian people, significant corruption, and destabilizing activities abroad.

I call on all democratic governments and institutions to clearly support the Iranian people's right to live in a free society.

I rise to urge the Iranian regime to abide by its international obligations with respect to human rights and civil liberties, including freedoms of assembly, speech, and press.

The Iranian regime must do the right thing and respect the proud history and rich culture of the Iranian nation.

The people of Iran want nothing more than to promote the establishment of basic freedoms that build the foundation for the emergence of a freely elected, open, and democratic political system.

I whole-heartedly support H. Res. 676 and continue fighting for a free Iran.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Florida for his astute assessment and analysis in his earlier remarks today, particularly sharing with us his experience on the Intelligence Committee, and I thank him for mentioning the fact that I serve as the ranking member on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

In that capacity, that committee certainly encounters not only our Nation's law enforcement but many of the issues dealing with terrorism, including the work on homeland security.

With that in mind, I want to simply say to my colleagues and, certainly, to my good friend, who served and dedicated his life to the FBI for 14 years, none of us over the past couple of

months will take a backseat to championing the FBI, thanking the FBI, recognizing the FBI for the very valiant work that it does.

Being on the Judiciary Committee for the number of years that I have served, I have worked with almost every FBI Director, and agents, particularly the SACs in my particular jurisdiction, and have been engaged in discussions on the resources and needs of that organization. Mr. Speaker, again, we thank them for their service.

I would offer to say that the position I take today is to protect the FBI and to protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record, interestingly enough, an article written by Sheila Jackson Lee, ``Protecting America, protecting Americans,'' dated October 16, 2007.

[From the POLITICO, Oct. 16, 2007]

Protecting America, Protecting Americans

(By Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee)

Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville observed

that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any martial

conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that

best rewards and encourages those traits that are

indispensable to martial success: initiative, innovation,

resourcefulness and courage.

The United States would do well to heed de Tocqueville and

recognize that the best way to win the war on terror is to

remain true to our democratic traditions. If it retains its

democratic character, no nation and no loose confederation of

international villains will defeat the United States in the

pursuit of its vital interests.

A major challenge facing the Congress today is to ensure

that in waging its war on terror, the administration does not

succeed in winning passage of legislation that will weaken

the nation's commitment to its democratic traditions.

This is why the upcoming debate over congressional approval

authorizing the administration to conduct terrorist

surveillance on U.S. soil is a matter of utmost importance. I

offer some thoughts on the principles that should inform that

debate.

In the waning hours before the August recess, the House

acceded to the Bush administration's request and approved the

woefully misnamed ``Protect America Act,'' which gives the

federal government enlarged powers to conduct electronic

surveillance of American citizens under the guise of

conducting surveillance of foreign terrorists.

Fortunately, the authority conferred by the PAA expires

next February.

It is therefore incumbent on the Congress to act

expeditiously to amend the PAA so that it achieves the only

legitimate goals of a terrorist surveillance program, which

is to ensure that Americans are secure in their persons,

papers and effects, but terrorists throughout the world are

made insecure.

The best way to achieve these twin goals is to follow the

rule of law. And the exclusive law to follow with respect to

authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Enacted by Congress in 1978, the exclusivity of FISA was

undisputed. Any legislation authorizing terrorist

surveillance programs which the administration seeks to

conduct must explicitly affirm that FISA is the sole basis of

lawful authority for conducting foreign surveillance

gathering on U.S. soil.

That FISA remains the exclusive source of authority does

not mean that the law cannot be adapted to modern

circumstances or revised to accommodate new technologies. One

widely acknowledged reform is to amend FISA to make clear

that foreign-to-foreign communications are not subject to

FISA, even though modern technology enables that

communication to be routed through the United States.

Additionally, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

is indispensable and must play a meaningful role in ensuring

compliance with the law.

Legislation must ensure that the FISC is empowered to act

as an Article III court should act, which means the court

should operate neither as a rubber stamp nor a bottleneck.

The function of the court is to validate the lawful exercise

of executive power on the one hand, and to act as the

guardian of individual rights and liberties on the other.

Congress should reject any proposal that grants amnesty to

any telecommunications company or other entity or individual

that helps federal intelligence agencies spy illegally on

innocent Americans.

Amnesty will have the unintended consequence of encouraging

telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than

contest, illegal requests to spy on Americans.

The only permissible path to legalization of conduct in

this area is full compliance with the requirements of the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Finally, authorization to conduct foreign surveillance

gathering on U.S. soil must never be made permanent. The

threats to America's security and the liberties of its people

will change over time and require constant vigilance by the

people's representatives in Congress.

In short, it makes much more sense to enact legislation

that protects Americans, rather than one that protects

America, as the administration's proposal claims to do. At

bottom, America is its people connected to each other, and to

past and future generations, as in Abraham Lincoln's

unforgettable phrase, by ``the mystic chords of memory

stretching from every heart and hearthstone.''

America, in other words, is Americans coming together in a

community of shared values, ideals and principles. It is

those shared values that hold us together. It is our

commitment to those values that the terrorists wish to break

because that is the only way they can win.

Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is

for this country to redouble its commitment to the values

that every American will risk his or her life to defend. It

is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished

values that America will remain forever the home of the free,

the land of the brave and the country we love.

Mr. Speaker, that article suggests that we have the responsibility to protect America and Americans. I would make the point to my good friend, who mentioned that men and women or families sending their young people over to battlegrounds, they are absolutely right, and those young people who are going over to battlegrounds are going over on the basis of freedom. Their parents sacrificed, these loved ones sacrificed their young people because they believe so much in the freedom of this Nation.

Well, I will tell you that section 702 and the underlying bill, there is no freedom in this particular bill, and that is why we need to address the question in a thoughtful manner. I don't mind if we extend this to have a longer debate so that we can work through some of our concerns.

Let me be clear that S. 139 fails to address the core concern of Members of Congress and the American public. The government's use of section 702 information against United States citizens in investigations that have nothing to do with national security, that is the crux of our advocacy for both the Amash amendment, joined by myself and Zoe Lofgren and Ted Poe and many others--it is not to undermine the security of this Nation. It is to give substance to those families who sacrifice and send their young men and women to faraway places.

The warrant requirement contained in the bill is riddled with loopholes and applies only to fully predicated official FBI investigations, not to the hundreds of thousands of searches that the FBI runs every day to run down a lead or check out a tip.

S. 139 exacerbates existing problems with section 702 by codifying the so-called bulk collection, a type of surveillance that was shut down after it twice failed to meet the Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

S. 139 is universally opposed by technology companies, privacy and civil liberties groups across the political spectrum.

Let me read briefly what the Amash amendment really says. It is not something that would stop security, surveillance, and work in its tracks. What it does is, ``Except as provided in subparagraph C or D, no officer, agent, or employee of the United States may conduct a query of information acquired under subsection A in an effort to find communications of or about a particular person if there is reason to believe such person is a United States person,'' protecting the First Amendment freedom of speech and all of that, but matched with the important amendment of the Fourth Amendment, which, of course, is unreasonable search and seizures.

An application by the Attorney General to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that describes the determination of the Attorney General is probable cause to believe that such communications provide evidence of a crime, such person is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This is a minimal standard.

Mr. Speaker, this is a minimal standard of which every American should expect and is owed. It is a minimal standard upon which we stand the Constitution.

We are missing what our role is here. It is not to rush through a FISA bill that has been delayed by my Republican friends. More importantly, it is to

do right by the American people. We are not doing right by the American people.

I remember fighting against reverse targeting, a major issue in our work on the Freedom Act and the PATRIOT Act. Now, today--in 2017, going into 2018--in 2018, it is important to remember that 9/11 was to not turn terror on Americans; it was to protect us from terrorism and to withstand that with the upholding of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I rise in opposition to the rule for S. 139, the ``FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017,'' and the underlying bill.

S. 139 reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is scheduled to expire on January 19, 2018.

Although Section 702 is a critical national security tool set to expire on January 19, 2018, events of the recent past strongly suggest that Section 702 should not be reauthorized without necessary and significant reforms that are not included in the legislation before us.

So as the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I oppose the rule and underlying bill for several compelling reasons:

1. S. 139 fails to address the core concern of Members of Congress and the American public--the government's use of Section 702 information against United States citizens in investigations that have nothing to do with national security.

2. The warrant ``requirement'' contained in the bill is riddled with loopholes and applies only to fully predicated, official FBI investigations, not to the hundreds of thousands searches the FBI runs every day to run down a lead or check out a tip.

3. S. 139 exacerbates existing problems with Section 702 by codifying so-called ``about collection,'' a type of surveillance that was shut down after it twice failed to meet Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

4. S. 139 is universally opposed by technology companies, privacy, and civil liberties groups across the political spectrum, from the ACLU to FreedomWorks.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us comes from the Intelligence Committee, where it was passed on a strict party-line vote.

This stands in stark contrast to H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty Act, I the bipartisan bill reported by the Judiciary Committee after multiple hearings, an open markup process, and a bipartisan vote of approval.

The USA Liberty Act enjoys much broader support, contains meaningful reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and is far superior to the bill before us.

FISA was enacted in 1978 to provide the Executive Branch with a statutory framework for gathering ``foreign intelligence information'' from U.S. persons.

FISA authorizes special court orders for four purposes:

1. electronic surveillance;

2. physical searches;

3. the installation and use of pen registers and trap and trace devices; and

4. demands for the production of physical items.

Although FISA is designed for intelligence gathering, and not for the collection of criminal evidence, the law applies to activities to which a Fourth Amendment warrant requirement would apply if they were conducted as part of a criminal investigation.

Most commonly, authorization for a wiretap or physical search under FISA is obtained by application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (``FISC'' or the ``FISA court'').

Section 702 is part of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), a successor to the Bush Administration's unlawful warrantless wiretapping program that ended in January 2007.

The FAA adds a new Title VII to FISA that grants the government the authority to monitor electronic communications of non-U.S. persons abroad.

Section 702 authorizes the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence ``to acquire foreign intelligence information'' from ``persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.''

Although the FAA prohibits the intentional targeting of persons in the United States, the FAA had been in place for only a few months when the New York Times reported that the NSA had ``overcollected'' domestic communications, a practice described as significant and systematic, even if unintentional.

Subsequently, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence stated that ``it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed under the authority of the FAA.''

Section 702 provides that the government ``may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States.''

Mr. Speaker, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted to protect the liberty and security of Americans, not to diminish their constitutional rights.

That is why Section 702 should not be reauthorized with reforms to prevent the government from using information against its political opponents or members of religious, ethnic, or other groups.

One way to do that is without interfering with the national security objectives of 702 surveillance is simply to require the FBI to obtain a warrant before reading communications by Americans, when it finds those communications by targeting that American and searching its 702 databases.

Enforcing the warrant requirement would prevent the misuse of Section 702 to conduct ``backdoor searches'' where government agencies, including individual FBI agents, may search the communications collected under section 702 for communications by an individual American, read those communications and disseminate them within the government, all without any external oversight, much less a judicial warrant, simply by claiming a ``foreign intelligence'' purpose.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans want to find a common-ground where common- sense rules and regulations relating to fighting terrorism at home and abroad can exist while still protecting the cherished privacy and civil liberties which Americans hold close to our collective hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I noted in an op-ed published way back in October 2007, that as Alexis DeTocqueville, the most astute student of American democracy, observed nearly two centuries ago, the reason democracies invariably prevail in any military conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to success: initiative, innovation, courage, and a love of justice.

The best way to keep America safe and strong is to remain true to the valued embedded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The bill before us does not strike the proper balance between our cherished liberties and smart security.

We can do better; we should reject this rule and the underlying bill and bring to the floor for debate and vote H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty Act.

Mr. Speaker, a little clarity I think is very important on a very, very important issue.

I would like to call 140,000 young people in my State DREAMers because they dream of the greatness of America. The status that they are under is something called DACA, which was instituted by President Barack Obama because this Republican Congress could not provide legislative relief, so he saw the lives that were being impacted. In a few months, however, the present President, who feigns not knowing what happened, was the individual who removed that DACA status.

So let me be very clear: it is a dire situation, and the reason is because there are individuals whose status is now expiring or has already expired, therefore, they are living in limbo. These are doctors, lawyers, teachers, and young people with families.

It is crucial that we move quickly for a DACA fix, and we do it without impacting family reunification or diversity visas. We do it out of humanity, caring, and respect. Let's do it now. Let's do it for America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4559, the Global Aviation System Security Reform Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his leadership on this legislation.

This legislation would require the TSA to conduct a global aviation security review in order to improve aviation standards across the global aviation system within 180 days of enactment.

The security review within this bill is required to include input from the TSA's Office of Global Strategies, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and the Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, and must identify best practices for foreign partners.

While the TSA has taken tremendous steps to improve aviation security at airports with direct service to the U.S., there is more that can be done.

In the last 12 months, we have seen the global aviation threat landscape evolve to include an increased threat to cargo security, and passenger planes being targeted with bombs hidden in large electronic devices.

The TSA is continually working with global partners and stakeholders to ensure that aviation standards are being maintained and elevated as needed.

Under this legislation, improvements that should be made to aviation security will be highlighted for Congress.

This legislation has the potential of providing a very good roadmap for Congress to address areas of improvement for global aviation security and to ensure that we constantly strive towards the safest and most secure aviation community.

Mr. Speaker, I note that, in the last couple of days, through the holiday season, those people who were either stuck in airports, and bags that were stacked, and people couldn't find bags are not considered a security issue. It was a weather issue. But we understand how crucial it is that the traveling public has needs in the free flowing and secure flowing of aviation. Giving the Congress a roadmap, I believe, is a very important step.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4559, the ``Global Aviation System Security Reform Act of 2017.''

This legislation would require TSA to conduct a global aviation security review in order to improve aviation standards across the global aviation system within 180 days of enactment.

The security review within this bill is required to include input from TSA's Office of Global Strategies, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and the Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, and must identify best practices for foreign partners.

While TSA has taken tremendous steps to improve aviation security at airports with direct service to the U.S., there is more that can be done.

In the last 12 months, we have seen the global aviation threat landscape evolve to include an increased threat to cargo security, and passenger planes being targeted with bombs hidden in large electronic devices.

TSA is continually working with global partners and stakeholders to ensure that aviation standards are being maintained and elevated as needed.

Under this legislation, improvements that should be made to aviation security will be highlighted for Congress.

This legislation has the potential of providing a roadmap for Congress to address areas of improvement for global aviation security, and ensure that we constantly strive towards the safest and most secure aviation community.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4559 will give this body a strong sense of the direction for global aviation security improvements.

As threats to aviation security grow more sophisticated, this bill seeks to ensure that TSA is keeping pace with the threat landscape.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me again emphasize the importance of identifying best practices to be utilized by our system and to utilize these best practices to improve the security for the traveling public.

H.R. 4559 will give this body a strong sense of direction for global aviation security improvements. As threats to aviation security grow more sophisticated, this bill seeks to ensure that the TSA is keeping pace with the threat landscape.

Since I have no further speakers, I am closing by saying, with that, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 4559.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the manager for his kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Reporting Act. I very much want

to thank the committee for bringing the Jackson Lee bill to the floor and the work that we did on it in committee.

I wish to speak specifically to the work that is done on the Homeland Security Committee as I discuss this legislation. I think it is very important to take note of the fact that the ranking member works very hard to generate very positive legislation and that we have been able to see a large number of bills, some that I have been able to sponsor, come to the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, therefore, I thank the chairman, Mr. McCaul, and the ranking member for making the Homeland Security Committee so productive in generating important legislation to ensure the security of this Nation. I thank them for their leadership in putting the security of our Nation's cyber assets first, whether they are computing resources used in voting technology, or industrial control systems that support the delivery of electricity, oil and gas, or management of transportation systems that are vital to our Nation's economic health.

Mr. Speaker, I was chairman of the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee some few sessions ago. This was when infrastructure was included in the transportation and security domain. I can tell you that, even then, we began to acknowledge the crucialness of protecting the cyber system and how far-reaching cyber systems can go, as far away as water systems, to bridges, to dams, and in between, and to note that a lot of our cyber system, 80 percent of it was in the private sector, probably more at this point.

H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Reporting Act, which I introduced, 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 cybersecurity vulnerability disclosure policies and procedures were used to disclose details on identified weaknesses in computing systems 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 report may also contain a description of how the Secretary of Homeland Security is working with other Federal entities and critical infrastructure owners and operators to prevent, detect, and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities.

It is important to restate that our cyber system is largely in the private sector. It does not alleviate or eliminate the role that the Federal Government should play. This legislation squarely places with the Federal Government the responsibilities of dealing with those critical infrastructure owners and operators to prevent, detect, and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities.

The reason that I have worked to bring this bill before the full House for consideration is a problem often referred to as a zero-day event. A zero-day event describes a situation that network security professionals may find themselves in when a previously unknown error or flaw in computing code is exploited by a cybercriminal or terrorist.

The term ``zero-day event'' simply means that there is zero time to prepare a defense against a cyber attack. That is not the place that we would like to find ourselves.

When a defect in software is discovered, their network engineers and software companies can work to develop a patch to fix the problem before it can be exploited by those who may seek to do us harm.

We have evidence that the cyber world is a good world, but it can be a dangerous world and impact the life and quality and democracy and freedom of Americans. We want to be prepared and never have to face, in this most powerful country in the world, something called a zero-day event.

H.R. 3202 seeks a report on the ongoing Department of Homeland Security's policies and procedures for coordinating cyber vulnerability disclosures, such as zero-day events, with private sector partners. Because vulnerabilities can be used by adversaries, it is important that this sensitive information be managed securely so details are not routinely made available, neither to the public nor to Congress.

H.R. 3202 provides the Congress with the opportunity to understand the process and procedures used by the Department of Homeland Security and the benefit these disclosures may have for private sector entities participating in programs in support of cybersecurity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Lillie Coney of my district and Jean de Pruneda, a fellow on the Committee on Homeland Security, for their work on this important legislation.

I urge Members of the House to vote in favor of H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Reporting Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize again a point that I made earlier. Because vulnerabilities can be used by adversaries, it is important that this sensitive information be managed securely so details are not routinely made available, neither to the public nor to Congress.

It is important to take note of the fact that the work we have to do is ongoing and continuing.

H.R. 3202 will give this body important information on our governmentwide efforts to secure civilian agency networks and the collaborative ongoing work to provide information to private sector partners on computing vulnerabilities. There is no security in keeping zero-day events secure from disclosure and not working on solutions.

Cybersecurity is found in finding the zero-day events, creating solutions to defend against them, and sharing the solutions broadly so that they can be deployed. Once solutions are in place, the zero-day event should be disclosed to the public so that scholars and researchers can learn from the experience.

In essence, what we are saying is that we want to make sure that we are in the driver's seat, that we know the vulnerabilities, that we can confront the zero-day events, and that we can do that, meaning the Federal Government, in working with the private sector to ensure that we do protect this Nation.

Before I close, since we are dealing with Homeland Security Committee issues, I think it is important to take note of the fact of the crucialness and the importance of having a DACA fix and working together, as we have been doing, to ensure that the thousands and thousands of young people located across the Nation, who came here through no fault of their own, have a serious pathway of protection, in particular, the 140,000 that are in the State of Texas.

If we can stand here as bipartisan Members, I know that we can continue to work on that crucial and important issue, which I stand with those young people to ensure to get that done.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article by Morgan Chalfant, ``Lawmakers approve `cyber vulnerability' bill,'' written in The Hill.

[From the Hill, July 26, 2017]

Lawmakers Approve `Cyber Vulnerability' Bill

(By Morgan Chalfant)

A House panel advanced legislation on Wednesday requiring

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to give lawmakers

more information on how it discloses cyber vulnerabilities to

the private sector.

The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

(D-Texas) and received broad support from members of the

House Homeland Security Committee, including Chairman Michael

McCaul (R-Texas).

The bill would require Homeland Security Secretary John

Kelly to send a report to relevant congressional committees

describing policies and procedures used by the DHS to

coordinate the disclosure of what are called ``zero days''--

cyber vulnerabilities that are unknown to a product's

manufacturer and for which no patch exists.

The federal government decides whether to disclose zero

days to the private sector through the vulnerabilities

equities process (VEP), which was first acknowledged by the

Obama administration in 2014 but is still shrouded in

secrecy. While the government is said to err on the side of

disclosure, the VEP has proven controversial because so

little is known about it.

The process has attracted increased scrutiny in the wake of

the outbreak of the ``Wanna Cry'' ransomware, which is

believed to be based on a hacking tool developed by the

National Security Agency.

Lawmakers in both chambers have sought to boost

transparency of the VEP.

On Wednesday, Jackson Lee touted the legislation as

providing an opportunity for Congress to better understand

the process by which the DHS shares threat information

with private companies and how that information benefits the

private sector.

``Because vulnerabilities can be used by adversaries, it is

important that the sensitive information is managed securely

and the details are guarded against premature disclosure,''

Jackson Lee said during a committee markup.

``There's no security in keeping zero day events secure and

not working on solutions,'' she said. ``The protection is in

finding the zero day events, creating solutions, sharing the

solutions broadly, then disclosing the vulnerabilities to the

public.''

The report mandated by the legislation would include an

annex of information on specific instances when the DHS

disclosed vulnerabilities to private sector companies in the

previous year and information on how industry acted on the

information. It could also contain information about how the

DHS is working with other federal agencies and departments,

as well as owners of critical infrastructure, to mitigate the

threat of these vulnerabilities.

Kelly would be required to submit the report, which would

be unclassified but could have a classified annex, within 240

days of the enactment of the legislation.

The committee approved the legislation in a voice vote with

no amendments, sending it to the full House for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3202, and I thank my manager as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerabilities Disclosure Reporting Act.

I thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson for their leadership on putting the security of our nation's cyber assets first whether they are computing resources used in voting technology or industrial control systems that support the delivery of electricity, oil and gas, or management of transportation systems all are vital to our nation.

H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Reporting Act, which I introduced, 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 report may also contain a description of how the Secretary of Homeland Security is working with other Federal entities and critical infrastructure owners and operators to prevent, detect, and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities.

The reason that I worked to bring this bill before the Full House for consideration is the problem often referred to as a ``Zero Day Event.''

Zero Day Events are vulnerabilities in software or firmware that have gone undetected or undisclosed, but if exploited by terrorists could cause great harm to computer networks, data, or complex computing dependent systems.

Our nation's electric power grid; industrial control systems that operate bridges, dams, water treatment facilities or food processing plants are all vulnerable to the potential harm that could be caused if a weakness in software or firmware goes undetected.

Critical infrastructure must be secured against terrorist attacks that may use Zero Day Event vulnerabilities to attack critical infrastructure or civilian government agency computing assets.

Zero Day Events discovered in commercial software applications such as the ``Heartbleed'' and OpenSSL cryptographic software library vulnerability.

Proactive and coordinated efforts are necessary to strengthen and maintain secure critical infrastructure including assets that are vital to public confidence in the cyber nation's safety.

This bill supports the ongoing work of the Department of Homeland Security in security civilian agency and coordinating with private sector computing network owners and operators.

The nation's critical infrastructure is diverse, complex, and interdependent.

The overwhelming majority of critical infrastructure is privately owned or managed.

Critical Infrastructure owners and operators are uniquely positioned to manage risk to their operations and assets.

What is needed is a better understanding of how vulnerability discoveries lead to better protection for computing networks.

Zero Day Events require a coordinated approach to assignment of responsibility for developing patches or solutions, and a means of effectively distributing the solution without alerting potential terrorist or cyber criminals.

H.R. 3202 provides the Congress with the opportunity to understand the process and procedures used by the Department of Homeland Security and the benefit these disclosures may have for private sector entities participating in programs in support of cybersecurity.

I thank Lillie Coney of my staff and Jean de Pruneda a Fellow on the Committee on Homeland Security for their work on this important legislation.

I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3202.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 3202, The ``Cyber Disclosure Reporting Act.''

I thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson for their leadership on putting the security of our nation's cyber assets first whether they are computing resources used in voting technology or industrial control systems that support the delivery of electricity, oil and gas, or management of transportation systems that are vital to our nation economic health.

H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Reporting Act, which I introduced, 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 report may also contain a description of how the Secretary of Homeland Security is working with other Federal entities and critical infrastructure owners and operators to prevent, detect, and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities.

The reason that I worked to bring this bill before the Full House for consideration is the problem often referred to as a ``Zero Day Event.''

A Zero Day Event describes the situation that network security professionals may find themselves when a previously unknown error or flaw in computing code is exploited by a cybercriminal or terrorist.

The term ``Zero Day Event'' simply means that there is zero time to prepare a defense against a cyberattack.

When a defect in software is discovered then network engineers and software companies can work to develop a ``patch'' to fix the problem before it can be exploited by those who may seek to do harm.

H.R. 3202 seeks a report on the ongoing Department of Homeland Security's policies and procedures for coordinating cyber vulnerability disclosures such as Zero Day Events with private sector partners.

Because vulnerabilities can be used by adversaries it is important that this sensitive information be managed securely so details are not routinely made available neither to the public nor to Congress.

H.R. 3202 provides the Congress with the opportunity to understand the process and procedures used by the Department of Homeland Security and the benefit these disclosures may have for private sector entities participating in programs in support of cybersecurity.

I thank Lillie Coney of my staff and Jean de Pruneda a Fellow on the Committee on Homeland Security for their work on this important legislation.

I urge members of the House to vote in favor of H.R. 3202, the Cyber Vulnerabilities Disclosure Act.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3202 will give this body important information on our government wide efforts to secure civilian agency networks and the collaborative ongoing work to provide information to private sector partners on computing vulnerabilities.

There's no security in keeping zero day events secure from disclosure and not working on solutions.

Cyber security is found in finding the zero day events, creating solutions to defend against them, and sharing the solutions broadly so that they can be deployed.

Once solutions are in place the Zero Day Event should be disclosed to the public so that scholars and researchers can learn from the experience.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 3202.

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