Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues Congresswoman Plaskett and Congressman Veasey for hosting this special order resisting voter suppression on both the state and federal level since the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in the disastrous Shelby County v. Holder ruling of 2013.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a watershed moment for the Civil Rights Movement--it liberated communities of color from legal restrictions barring them from their essential right to civic engagement and political representation.

And yet, more than half a century later, we are still discussing voter suppression--something which should be a bygone relic of the past, yet continues to undercut racial minorities, immigrants, women, and young people.

Uncaged by the Shelby County ruling, 14 states took extreme measures to enforce new voting restrictions before the 2016 presidential election.

Many of these states have experienced increasing numbers of black and Hispanic voters in recent elections.

If not for devious, state-sponsored voter suppression policies like discriminatory voter ID laws, reduced early voting periods, and voter intimidation tactics that directly or indirectly target racial minorities, the election might have had a drastically different outcome.

To my dismay, many of the civil rights that I once fought for as a student and young lawyer have stagnated or been rolled back by conservative state and federal officials over the years.

To add final insult to injury, the Trump Administration has issued an Executive Order establishing an Election Integrity Commission to

investigate not voter suppression, but so-called ``voter fraud'' in the 2016 election.

Trump and his followers have been remarkably effective in pumping up the myth of voter fraud, but it is just that: a myth.

Between 2000 and 2014, there were 35 credible allegations of voter fraud out of more than 834 million ballots cast--that is less than 1 one-hundred thousandth of a percent.

An extensive study by social scientists at Dartmouth College uncovered no evidence consistent with Trump's wild allegations of widespread voter fraud rigging the 2016 election.

Just for the record, the popular vote of the presidential election was:

Hillary Clinton, 65,853,516;

Donald Trump, 62,884,824.

Trump's deficit of 2.9 million was the largest of any Electoral College winner in history by a massive margin, and despite the allegations of the current Administration, there have been only 4 documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election.

The Voter Fraud Commission, like many of Trump's business schemes, is a massive scam built on countless lies that do not hold up to any level of scrutiny.

As Members of Congress, we should be devoting our time, energy, and resources to address Russian infiltration of our election infrastructure arid campaigns, along with a slew of other pressing issues.

Instead, we must deal with the possibility that the Trump Administration's brazen attempt to collect the private information of 200 million Americans could very well result in the greatest breach of our national security if Trump's proposed joint U.S.-Russia cybersecurity taskforce is ever realized.

Both Democratic and Republican governors from 44 states have flat-out rejected the Trump Administration's request; saying ``no'' to senseless, dangerous power grabs is a bipartisan issue.

Instead of enjoying and strengthening the protections guaranteed in the Voting Rights Act, we--people of color, women, LGBTQ individuals, and immigrants--have been given the joyless, exhausting task of fending off the constant barrage of attacks levelled at our communities by men like Trump.

Not only are we tasked with reversing the current dismal state of voter suppression against minorities; we are forced to refute the blatant, propagandist lie of voter fraud.

We must not allow our government to slide back into the worst elements of this country's past, to stand idly by as our treasured values of progress and equality are poisoned and dismantled.

My position on this issue is directly aligned with the will of the American people.

I commend my colleagues, Congresswoman Plaskett and Congressman Veasey, for hosting this special order in opposition to the Shelby County ruling and Trump's pernicious smear campaign against this country's most historically disenfranchised.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our nation is to have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military.

We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. I was inspired to serve by President Kennedy who said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said:

``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.''

By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated. That is why today I rise to pay tribute to 14 extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are: Tiffany Williams from Spelman College and Stanford University; German Barbosa from the University of Houston; Whitley Pannell from Hampton University; Walter Abrego Sara Ali from Texas Tech University; Hadeel Abdallah from the University of Kentucky; Kaleb Taylor from Texas Southern University; Astrid Guerra from Georgetown University; Jeremiah Sung-Eun Kim from Cornell University; Naiya Speight-Leggett of Yale University; Marshall Forney of Morehouse College; Courtney Fontaine of Texas Tech University; Brock Bennett of Morehouse College; Ahmad Awwal of Texas Tech University; and Isabela Belchior from University of Houston Law Center.

Mr. Speaker, the energy, intelligence, and idealism these wonderful young people brought to my office and those interning in the offices of my colleagues help keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world.

Because of persons like them the future of our country is bright and its best days lie ahead. I wish them all well.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great, good, and forever young.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.J. Res. 92 granting consent and approval from Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to amend the Washington Area Transit Regulation Compact.

As Houston is a major transportation hub, I understand and appreciate the importance of this legislation.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), an interstate compact agency, provides transportation services to millions of people each year.

It is imperative that the WMATA be safe and effective because it is essential to the commerce and prosperity of the National Capitol Region.

The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland intend to create the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission to act as the state safety oversight authority for the WMATA system under 49 U.S.C. 5329.

In title III of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (section 3026, Public Law 114-94), the Congress provided sole authority to the Secretary of Transportation to appoint Federal Directors to the Board of Directors of

the WMATA and required the signatory parties to the Compact to amend the Compact as necessary.

This compact is created for the benefit of the people of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland so that there may be an increase in their safety, commerce, and prosperity.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res. 92

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. J. Res. 76, which grants consent and approval from Congress for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to enter into a compact relating to the establishment of the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission.

As Houston is a major transportation hub, I understand and appreciate the importance of this legislation.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), an interstate compact agency, provides transportation services to millions of people each year.

It is imperative that the WMATA be safe and effective as it is essential to the commerce and prosperity of the National Capitol Region.

The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland intend to create the Washington Metrorail Safety Commission to act as the state safety oversight authority for the WMATA system under 49 U.S.C. 5329.

In title III of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (section 3026, Public Law 114-94), the Congress provided sole authority to the Secretary of Transportation to appoint Federal Directors to the Board of Directors of the WMATA and required the signatory parties to the Compact to amend the Compact as necessary.

This compact is created for the benefit of the people of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland so that there may be an increase in their safety, commerce, and prosperity.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. J. Res. 76.

Mr. Speaker, I always applaud when the United States steps in and takes a leadership role to prevent war. I have traveled to the Mideast for many years as a Member of the United States Congress representing my constituents.

I want to express my appreciation to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for the energy that he is putting into engaging Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, and Qatar to be able to stop the blockade and the conflict that may continue to grow against Qatar.

This is a region that many of these countries have been allies of the United States, the Southern Command is in Qatar, and, frankly, I think they need to be united against those terrorists that plague them all.

I would also say that the UAE, as has been reported in the Nation's newspapers, hacked into the emails of Qatar and put words in the mouths of their government officials that were untrue. This is not the way to proceed with peace and diplomacy.

So I believe we should energetically and aggressively engage these countries to stop this blockade and begin to repair the collaborative efforts to ensure that we fight the war on terror together and not against.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Tillerson. I look forward to working with him as a Member of the United States Congress to bring peace to that region.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), the coleader of this hour, along with Delegate Plaskett, for not only their astute leadership of the hour, but certainly of their astute leadership of the issue. I am delighted to join my colleagues. I thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Cedric Richmond, for continuing to make sure that the conscience of the Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, is heard on these crucial issues.

Mr. Veasey, I am going to focus my issues--because this is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is an American issue. I do want to personally thank you for your leadership as the named plaintiff of the Texas voter ID litigation, which has been--how should I say? I wanted to say Earth-shattering--but it has been groundbreaking in its recognition of the diminishing of the rights of people to vote by a draconian voter ID law. We know that it has been somewhat modified, but your astuteness recognizes that, even in its modification, in the coming elections, we should be very wary of the effort that the State will utilize the voter ID law for voter suppression.

So today I want to rise in the backdrop of the Shelby case, which many of us are well aware of. The Shelby case, which occurred in Alabama, was the unfortunate case that turned back the clock on the 1965 Voting Rights Act that had been working for decades with absolutely no problem; but, unfortunately, this conservative-leaning Supreme Court made decisions not on what is good for America, not even on what is good in terms of the law, but decided to eliminate section 5.

I am reminded of the very astute words of Justice Ginsburg, very astute words, when she was appalled that the Supreme Court yielded to what I would consider misinterpretation, that there is no problem with discrimination and there is no problem with racism, and Justice Ginsburg very astutely said: Well, we have been very fortunate that the polio vaccination has all but extinguished polio in the United States.

That is great news. But because we have extinguished polio, does that mean we need to get rid of the polio vaccination? And any commonsense thinker, any American, any hardworking American, would absolutely, because they love their children and their families, would have a resounding ``no.''

So why would you get rid of section 5 when there is documentation, unfortunately and sadly, of discrimination and of racism? Racism is a question of being discriminated against because of race. It does not say Black, it does not say any particular type of race, but it does mention race. That means that section 5 was a protector for all Americans and giving them the added protection of one vote, one person.

So, unfortunately, on June 28, 2017--and, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the pending meeting of this established Commission, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, PACEI, is going to be meeting July 19, this week. This is a dangerous phenomenon.

The chair and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach wrote to the Nation's secretaries of state requesting extensive personal information on American voters--personal information, when we have stood in this well fighting against the PATRIOT Act when it was not written well after 9/11 because its premise was to spy on the American people and to ignore the Fourth Amendment, which is to protect Americans against unreasonable search and seizure.

This is unreasonable search and seizure. Let me list for you what this Commission is asking for. Some of this is public knowledge, but listen to this list: the full first and last names of all registrants; middle names or initials, if available; addresses, dates of birth, political party, if recorded in your State; last four digits of Social Security, if available; voter history--voter history--what elections you voted in from 2006 onward; active and inactive status.

I would venture to say that if I asked my Republican colleagues if they want their constituents sending this information in I would hear a little bit of grumbling.

Canceled status; information regarding any felony convictions.

All these are State issues.

Information regarding voter registration in another State; information regarding military status; and overseas citizen information.

First of all, there is no documentation of massive voter fraud.

``The right to vote, and the sanctity and privacy of the vote, is protected by the U.S. Constitution, including the Fifth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. Due process. All of these allow you to have a degree of privacy. It is an obligation of your administration,'' which is a letter to President Trump that I am reading from, ``to preserve the sanctity and privacy of the vote, not to undermine it as would be the case if Texas were to comply with the PACEI's unconscionable request. The only approved government use of voter registration data, outside of voting, is jury selection, not a Presidential Advisory Commission of dubious purpose formed to search for nonconsistent evidence to vindicate your false claim that you lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, the largest loss in American history, because `millions of people who voted illegally.' ''

As you well know, that was a statement that no one can document by this present administration. So this Presidential Advisory Commission is a doubling down of an executive order to find a problem that does not exist. It is a solution, a false solution, seeking to find a problem. It is a dangerous proposition. It is an invasion of the privacy of the American people. And any good person who believes in the right to privacy, any conservative, liberal, moderate, anyone with any political philosophy who believes in the Constitution of the United States should stand arm in arm together against PACEI.

It is the beginning of Big Brother, the arm of Big Brother, the frightening Big Brother, to intrude into the homes of the American people and to secure information that is, in fact, challenging whether you can move from one State to the next, challenging whether or not you can have a voter card canceled or expired, challenging individuals who have been given pardons but had a felony, and challenging military persons who move from place to place. This is an insult, and this is

clearly voter suppression, not in any way a way to speak to the issue of fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to take this very seriously. I have asked my State to stand down. I have asked the President to pull this request, and I, frankly, believe this executive order should be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two documents related to this.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 6, 2017.

President Donald J. Trump,

The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: I am writing to urge you to rescind your May 11, 2017 Executive Order establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PACEI) and to direct that the PACEI be dissolved immediately. The PACEI is charged with studying ``the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections'' and identifying ``vulnerabilities in voting systems'' that could lead to voter fraud. Many people, however, suspect that the real purpose of the Commission is not investigate widespread voter fraud, which every reputable study has already debunked as a myth, but to gather data to aid in future voter suppression efforts.

On June 28, 2017, PACEI Chair and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach wrote to the nation's secretaries of state requesting extensive personal information on American voters threatens to violate individual privacy. Specifically, the PACEI seeks to obtain, inter alia: ``the full first and last names of registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.''

Releasing the confidential voter information sought by the PACEI which will be stored in an unsecure database on unsecured servers and accessible to the public is illegal, irresponsible, jeopardizes civil liberties and privacy rights, and puts our national security at risk.

It is important that all voters, including those in the 18th Congressional District of Texas whom I am privileged to represent, be fully protected. While supplying only public voter information may seem secure, the sad fact is that it is not. There is no publicly available record for voter registration information for any state in America. Such data set is protected under the principle of collective privacy, recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark decision of NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 84 S. Ct. 1302, 12 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1964), which held that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute an impermissible chilling effect on the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Court has affirmed this principle and it is now settled law. Accordingly, Texas cannot, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, supply the private voter information requested by the PACEI. Indeed, if the information sought was public as PACEI contends, there would be no need for it to request the information from state governments.

The right to vote, and the sanctity and privacy of the vote, is protected by the U.S. Constitution, including the Fifth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. It is an obligation of your administration to preserve the sanctity and privacy of the vote, not to undermine it as would be the case if Texas were to comply with the PACEI's unconscionable request. The only approved government use of voter registration data, outside of voting, is jury selection, not a presidential advisory commission of dubious purpose formed to search for nonexistent evidence to vindicate your false claim that you lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, the largest loss in American history, because ``millions of people who voted illegally.''

Voter suppression is real but the oft-repeated claim that American elections are rife with voter fraud is a myth. A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found out of more than a billion votes cast only 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, and that event this tiny number was likely inflated because the study's author counted not just voter fraud prosecutions or convictions but all credible claims. Numerous other reports have reached the same conclusion.

Finally, it should be noted that compliance with the PACEI's voter data request would put the security of the nation's electoral processes at risk. We know from recent and painful experience, including the cyberattacks on the Veterans Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, not to mention SONY and Yahoo, that large centralized databases are targets of opportunities for criminals, terrorists, and foreign adversaries. It would be the height of recklessness for Texas to provide the PACEI with personal information of millions of person via unsecured email address to be stored in undersecured databases on undersecured servers.

This is why the large majority of states, 44 states and the District of Columbia, have refused to comply with the PACEI's data requests. To date, only five states have indicated they will cooperate with the PACEI and with a data set this small, any findings drawn by the PACEI will lack external validity and yield no generalizable conclusions. In view of all the circumstances extant, the most reasonable and accurate conclusion that can be reached about the PACEI is that it is not intended to ferret out and prevent voter fraud, but to obtain information that can be used to refine voter suppression efforts.

For these reasons, I strongly urge you to rescind your May 11, 2017 Executive Order and direct that the President's Advisory Commission on Election Integrity be disbanded immediately. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.

Very truly yours,

Sheila Jackson Lee,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by holding up this map, which indicates the colors of the individual States that are only slightly adhering to this Commission. The orange and the blue are individual States, some that are not adhering and some that are giving basic public information, but not all the personal information.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hope we can collectively fight against the suppression of voters, and I thank him for alerting the American people to this severe attempt to perpetrate a wrongness, which is that there is voter fraud, and that we should not violate the privacy of Americans.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak on House consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

I thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith and the Armed Services Committee for their work on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

As a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and Judiciary, I take our role in Congress as stewards of our nation's security seriously.

I offer my thanks and appreciation to the men and women of the armed services who place themselves in harm's way each day for the safety and security of our nation's people.

The National Defense Authorization Act's purpose is to address the threats our nation faces not just today, but into the future. This makes our work vital to our national interest and it should reflect our strong commitment to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Services receive the benefits and support that they deserve for their faithful service.

This bill encompasses a number of initiatives designed to confront the military challenges posed by violent extremism, terrorists engaging in ground wars, making more efficient the work of protecting America, addresses defense of our nation's computing networks and infrastructure, the medical health needs of men and women in the armed services, and extends economic and education opportunity to small minority and women owned businesses.

We live in a dangerous world, where threats are not always easily identified, and our enemies are not bound by borders.

Russia's aggression towards the United States has long been understood, but in 2016 the stakes were raised in terms of how far they would go to harm our nation and Democratic institutions when they interfered in our national election.

Since September 11, 2001, we have kept a steadfast commitment to ending the threat of global terror.

Boko Haram, ISIL, and AI Shabaab remind us of how fragile our nation's security could be without a well trained and equipped military.

The introduction of cyber offensive actions against the United States and our interest has altered the definition of war and with it our understanding about what is needed to combat a unique type of enemy that fights under no flag, for any nation, and can cause harm to computing networks.

I appreciate the House Armed Services Committee's continued support of our national defense and support a number of provisions in H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, such as authorities that support ongoing operations.

The amendments offered to this bill offered opportunities to address these and other Administration concerns that will improve the bill.

Let me discuss briefly the amendments I offered that were adopted by the House and included in the final version of the bill.

1. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 56 calls for increased collaboration with NIH to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer and provides $10 million in appropriations.

2. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 76 dIrects the Department of Defense to prepare contingency plans to assist relief organizations in delivering humanitarian aid in South Sudan and to deescalate conflict.

3. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 83 directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare against deployment of North Korean nuclear ICBMs to prevent damage or destruction of satellites critical to U.S. national defense and global communications.

These Jackson Lee Amendments are straightforward, and make improvements to the bill.

There were 14 additional Jackson Lee Amendments that were not included in the Rule for consideration of the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.

The Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 2810 are in four categories:

1. National Security Amendments that protect and promote national security, national defense and U.S. foreign policy interests;

2. Counterespionage and Deterrence Amendments that uphold the interests of American citizens at home and abroad.

3. Healthcare, technology and know-how, and Opportunities for Women Amendments that promote advances in PTSD and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Research and Professional Development and Business opportunities for women.

4. Cybersecurity Amendments that support the work of the DOD to ensure defense of our nation against cyberattacks.

I have submitted six amendments that protect and promote national security, national defense or U.S. foreign policy interests:

1. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 175 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide technical assistance by U.S. military women to military women abroad combating terrorism, human and narcotics trafficking and their impact on women and girls.

2. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 166 condemns the actions of Boko Haram and directs the Secretary of Defense to provide technical assistance to Nigeria in establishing a central missing persons' database and a Victims Relief Fund.

3. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 187 expresses Sense of Congress that the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program is an important U.S. foreign policy and national defense instrument of value and asks Secretary of Defense to make maximum use of it.

4. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 184 directs Secretary of State to inform Congress of the feasibility of providing training, equipment and logistics to improve air traffic control systems in African countries where U.S. military operations require it.

5. The Jackson Lee Amendments No. 76 and No. 83 that were accepted by the Rules Committee and are under consideration by the House addressed the humanitarian crisis in South Sudan, and North Korea's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Program.

These six Jackson Lee amendments would have enhanced the effectiveness of the NDAA

by protecting and promoting U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.

I have submitted three amendments to defend against espionage and provide deterrence against threats to the United States:

1. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 177 authorized the Secretary of Defense to work with local partners in providing security at civilian nuclear research centers to assure nuclear weapons do not fall into the possession of terrorists or rogue nations.

2. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 181 required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress the programs employed to ensure Department of Defense National Security Education Program students studying abroad are trained to recognize, resist, and report against foreign governmental recruitment efforts.

3. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 179 directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct and report to Congress the results of a study on whether requirement to notify Voting Action Officer within 10 days of registration in service member duty reassignment state imposes significant burden on military voters.

Two of these amendments sought to address known threats to our national interest and one would have assured that changes in voter registration rules for persons serving in the military would not impose an undue burden to their right to vote at a polling location instead of by absentee ballot.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 177 (Secure Nuclear Material in developing nations)

There is a wide array of peaceful uses for nuclear material such as nuclear power plant power generation; radiation treatment for cancer and other medical conditions; as well as research at academic and research institutions.

China and India are both pursuing nuclear power as an option to dependence on fossil fuels, while oil-rich Gulf nations are considering nuclear power with the hope of exporting more oil.

There are 65 reactors being built around the world, and 69 percent of them are in Brazil, Russia, India and China.

India has no fossil fuel resources and is expanding its use of nuclear power to address shortfalls in electric generation capacity that is out stripped by economic growth.

India goal is to have nuclear power be the source for 50 percent of its electricity needs by 2050.

I have submitted six amendments to protect women and health:

4. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 224 provides $2.5 million increase in funding to combat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

5. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 180 enforces the title and section ``Minority and Business Ownership'' to include HUZ and disadvantaged businesses.

6. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 226 directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to Congress on the ability to apply desalination technologies for drought relief for both military and civilian purposes.

7. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 431 directs that the Office of Women's Business Ownership shall include a focus on outreach and engagement of minority women owned businesses.

All six of these amendments enhance the NDAA.

I have submitted two amendments to ensure greater cybersecurity capacity and resource allocation for the purpose of protecting America's Cyber Defense interest:

1. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 182 directs the Secretary of Defense to develop plans for early detection, mitigation, and defense against state-sponsored cyberattacks regarding elections and voter engagement efforts.

2. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 183 directs the Secretary of Defense to develop effective countermeasures to defend networks against attacks by cyber weapons.

Both of these Jackson Lee amendments offered improvements to the NDAA's protection of America's cyber security.

In addition to these Amendments, I am in support of the AUMF Amendment offered by Representatives Walter Jones and John Conyers that was not made in order by the Rules Committee.

Congress has an obligation to the American people to debate the issue of war.

Our military is now in theaters of war without Congressional approval which is in contravention to the Constitution because it states that only Congress has the power to declare war.

We must continue to direct our efforts as a body to ensure that our troops remain the best equipped and prepared military force in the world. They are not just soldiers they are sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters--they are some of the people we represent as Members of Congress. Support for them is a sacred obligation of Congress, both to those who are at risk on battlefields and serving as the guard against threats around the world, but they are also those who have returned home from war.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Franks Amendment No. 13 to H.R. 2810, the ``National Defense Authorization Act'' (NDAA), which would require the federal government to conduct so- called strategic assessments of Islamic religious doctrine.

I am shocked and appalled at this blatant attempt to single out Muslims for a religious test in a direct violation of the Constitution and our nation's founding principles.

It frankly astounds me that such a hateful, discriminatory, and incoherent piece of religious bigotry has been made in order for this bill and is under consideration today.

To illustrate the sheer absurdity of this amendment, I would like to offer the amendment's sponsor a brief lesson on the history of religious persecution and freedom in the United States.

In 1620, a group of English-born Puritans braved the Atlantic Ocean in order to found Plymouth Colony in the New World of America--they were fleeing, above all else, religious persecution in England, where discriminatory religious tests were common practice and the law.

On September 17, 1878, two and a half centuries later, 39 delegates signed the United States Constitution; in Article 6, Section 3 of this Constitution, they wrote that ``no religious test shall ever be required . . . under the United States.''

In the First Amendment, they went even further: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

Every child in America knows these facts about our nation's founding.

The essential human right to freedom of worship, without fear of persecution or discrimination, is explicitly written into our genetic code as Americans.

What we do not teach our children is to associate any particular religion with the violent acts of a few extremists who claim to belong to that religion.

We understand that such an accusation would be irrational, intellectually dishonest, and ineffective at identifying and combatting the real roots of violent extremism.

It would be remiss for me to neglect to point out that the Ku Klux Klan was founded and continues to identify as a Christian organization, or that racial terrorist Dylann Roof, who murdered nine innocent churchgoers in cold blood, was himself a member of a Lutheran church.

Yet Representative Franks' amendment does not require any strategic assessments of ``violent or unorthodox'' Christian doctrine.

Instead, Amendment No. 13 wrongfully casts the specter of terrorism upon all Muslim communities and individuals through the use of coded language like ``strategic assessments.''

Nowhere does this Amendment acknowledge the fact that many Muslims, both domestically and abroad, have been contributing wholeheartedly to the U.S.'s mission to end violent extremism.

Amendment No. 13 mandates the identification of key Islamic leaders who practice any form of Islam, with no exception for those who have never violated any laws--this is not only a completely nonsensical proposition, but a dangerous violation of the principles of religious liberty, individual privacy, and equal protection as established by the First Amendment.

Amendment No. 13 requires the Secretary of Defense to create a ``team of experts'' to determine which practices and beliefs of the Islam are legitimate or acceptable--another direct violation of the Constitution.

Mr. Chair, this Amendment is a stain on our national honor and pride as Americans.

Muslim Americans make up a vital part of our nation's diverse, multicultural fabric; every day, they make valuable contributions to the arts, the economy, academia, government, military services, and much more.

If it is passed, Amendment No. 13 would only further stigmatize and alienate a vibrant community of Americans who have been subject to harassment and discrimination for years, and especially under the Trump Administration.

We are better than that and I urge all Members to join me in rejecting this terrible legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Bastille Day.

On this day we are reminded of the extraordinary resilience and democratic values that have made France an inspiration to the entire world.

Today also marks the one-year anniversary of the devastating and tragic loss of life last year in Nice.

We remember to keep the injured and the deceased in our hearts, and we remind ourselves of the strong, persevering character of the French Republic.

Time and time again, all throughout history, the French were able to demonstrate strong leadership through tragic times, and that is why the United States stands in unyielding solidarity with the people of France, which like the United States, is one of the most welcoming nations in the world.

Mr. Speaker, for centuries Paris has been known to the world as the City of Light.

The title is richly deserved, because Paris has been a world leader in the march of human progress in the arts, culture, science, democratic theory and governance.

I am proud to mention that in my own city of Houston, we commemorate Bastille Day with special celebrations that feature art, dancing, and food.

France embraces the challenges and opportunities of the modern world.

France, and the values it cherishes, showcases a nation that has faced and prevailed against the most sinister of lethal adversaries.

However, we will always ensure that they never confront these adversaries alone; they will be joined by the United States and the other countries of the civilized world.

The French are justly proud of their national motto; ``Liberte, egalite, fraternite,'' (liberty, equality, fraternity) and no perpetrator can ever succeed in leading them to renounce their heritage of freedom and justice.

Mr. Speaker, we are not Republicans and we are not Democrats. We are Americans, and we draw together around the protecting of America's security.

With that in mind, you can imagine my shock as a member of the Judiciary Committee to find out that a KGB agent was in a meeting with Jared Kushner, who now has a security clearance, and Donald Trump, Jr., among others.

I was shocked to find out that the lawyer who was present in that meeting had a $200 million lawsuit to stop being sued on the money laundering, and that that lawsuit was settled by the Trump Justice Department for $6 million--$200 million down to $6 million. To the American people, that means that the $200 million that was owed to this government turned out to be $6 million.

That is why I will have a resolution to ask the President to step down. And, as well, to introduce a resolution--a constitutional resolution--to begin a constitutional investigation into whether or not we are protected here in this Nation.

Our security is our greatest priority.

I would also suggest that the sanctions bill that was voted on in the Senate must be voted on in the House now. We cannot still continue to hide the ball. Sanction the KGB, sanction Mr. Putin, sanction Russia. They are, in fact, here to demolish the democracy of this Nation.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2018, which authorizes $2.5 million in increased funding to combat and treat Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Had it been made in order, this Jackson Lee amendment would have provided additional funding to be used toward outreach activities targeting hard to reach veterans; especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas.

Mr. Chair, along with traumatic brain injury, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD is the signature wound suffered by the brave men and women who fought or are fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.

For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images seen by American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war.

In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face.

Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th birthday.

But there always comes a reckoning.

And it usually comes after the stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your thoughts and memories.

And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.

PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes.

People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb (especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become violent.

They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult.

Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma, called flashbacks, in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep.

A person having a flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again.

Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD.

These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety disorders.

The Jackson Lee Amendment recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human and that they carry their experiences with them.

Ask a veteran of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad.

The Jackson Lee Amendment would have helped ensure that ``no soldier is left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country.

Mr. Chair, I also want to speak in support of the amendment to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2018, offered by Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers, and supported by Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California, Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina, myself, and many other colleagues but not made in order by the Rules Committee.

The Conyers Amendment is simple and straightforward, stating:

``Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against North Korea.''

Interviewed by Reuters in the Oval Office on Apri1 27, 2017, the President stated:

``There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely.''

According to media reports, military strikes against North Korea remain an option for the President and his national security team.

Earlier this year, the Trump Administration sent an aircraft carrier and a nuclear-powered submarine to the region in a show of force.

Of course, direct U.S. military action runs the risk of massive North Korean retaliation and huge casualties in Japan and South Korea and among U.S. forces in both countries.

The Conyers Amendment would make clear and explicit that nothing in the FY2018 NDAA can be construed as congressional authorization or acquiescence regarding the use of military force against North Korea.

The Framers understood that while the military does the fighting, the entire nation goes to war.

That is why the Framers lodged the power to declare war in the Congress, the branch of government closest to the people.

They knew that the decision to go to war was too important to be left to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise or well-informed he or she might be.

The President must consult with Congress and to obtain an AUMF before undertaking any military offensive against North Korea.

Over the last 16 years, we have seen 3 Presidents use the 2001 Afghanistan AUMF as a blank check to engage in serious military action.

In 2016, the Congressional Research Service issued a report detailing 37 unclassified uses of this authorization in 14 countries, including for operations at Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, and recent military action in Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen.

The overly broad 2001 AUMF represents a critical deterioration of Congressional oversight, which should be repealed, rather than repeated with respect to North Korea.

As our brave service members are deployed around the world in combat zones, Congress is missing in action.

As provided under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, absent a Congressional declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force, the President as Commander-in-Chief has constitutional power to engage the U.S. armed forces in hostilities only in the case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

As a co-equal branch of government, it is Congress's right and responsibility to be fully consulted regarding any potential plans to conduct military operations in North Korea, to assess whether such action is in the national security interest of the United States and its allies, and to withhold or grant authorization for the use of military force based on this assessment.

As we have learned from the painful and bitter experience of the past 16 years, at the initiation of hostilities, the costs in terms of blood and treasure of U.S. military interventions abroad are often underestimated and the benefits overstated.

For example, more than 6,800 American service members gave the last full measure of devotion to their country on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq, with hundreds of thousands more returning with physical, emotional, or psychological wounds that may never heal.

The direct economic cost of the war in Afghanistan exceeds $1.07 trillion, including $773 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds, an increase of $243 billion to the Department of Defense base budget, and an increase of $54.2 billion to the Veterans Administration budget to address the human costs of the military involvement in Afghanistan.

We should not repeat the mistakes of the past and my position on this issue is directly aligned with the will of the American people.

I commend my colleague, Congressman Conyers for offering this important amendment and am disappointed that it was not made in order.

I am confident that depriving Members of the opportunity to debate and vote on the Conyers Amendment will strengthen our resolve to restore Congress's preeminent constitutional role in the decision to take the nation to war.

If it had been made in order and approved, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 179 would have directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct, and report to Congress within 180 days, the results of a study regarding whether the requirement to notify a Voting Action Officer within 10 days of registering to vote in a state where a service member resides, due to a duty reassignment, imposes a significant burden on military voters.

Members on both sides of the aisle want our men and women in the armed services to be able to vote.

Unfortunately, they often cannot, despite the option of casting an absentee ballot if they are deployed overseas.

For most of U.S. history, military personnel have been barred from voting by State laws and constitutions that specifically restricted military personnel from voting.

Following the Civil War, many of these laws began to change because so many citizens served in the military.

Today, there is a Federal Voting Assistance Program that assists military voters and their families living in the United States and abroad to vote in public elections.

Work has been done and is continuing to be done to make the absentee voting experience for military voters as easy as possible, but there are still issues with receiving a ballot and being able to return it by the deadline.

The military population is extremely mobile.

Since voting materials are postal materials that cannot be forwarded, it is important for them to provide their election office their current address annually, as well as after every move, because information provided is the only way of election agencies can contact them.

Military personnel are often relocated because of reassignments, which are outside of their control.

The process for voting is difficult for persons serving in the military and adding a requirement that military voters who decide to register where they may have been reassigned may need more than 10 days to meet the requirement of notice to their Voting Action Officer.

This Jackson Lee Amendment directs the Department of Defense to study and report to Congress the impact the 10 day requirement and whether it imposes an undue burden on military voters who seek to cast their ballots in person.

Military voters should have the option of casting an in-person ballot, while they serve our nation at a station or on assignment in the United States.

This Jackson Lee Amendment would have ensured that our men and women of the armed services have equal access to the ballot and the opportunity to cast a vote, without fear of violating a 10 day deadline.

I am disappointed that this Jackson Lee Amendment was not made in order, but I will continue working with my colleagues to find ways to ensure our armed services men and women have equal and just access to voice their opinion by casting a voting ballot.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2018, which would have required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on programs and procedures employed to ensure students studying abroad through Department of Defense National Security Education Programs are trained to recognize, resist, and report against recruitment efforts by agents of foreign governments.

This training would have been helpful for students such as Glenn Shriver, an outstanding college student-majoring in international relations at a college in Michigan and interested in seeing the world.

Seeking new experiences, Glenn traveled to China during the 2002-2003 academic year to Study Abroad in one of Shanghai's universities and practice his Mandarin.

During his study abroad program in China, Glenn developed an interest in Chinese culture and considerably improved his fluency in Mandarin, so after graduating from college in 2004, he returned to the China to continue his language studies and to look for work.

After seeing potential in Glenn, a Chinese official going by the name of Amanda approached him and asked him to write papers and paid him $120.

In the following months, Glenn took some $70,000 from the woman and her associates, and eventually sought a U.S. government job with the aim of accessing classified information with the purpose of providing it to Chinese officials until his scheme was uncovered and he was arrested by the FBI in 2010.

To a recent college graduate, $70,000 seems like a lot of money if they are graduating with high student loan debt, and the promise of even more can be too tempting to pass up.

There are other means and methods for foreign agents to attempt to course, trick or in some other way deceive a college student into becoming a tool of that government.

The Jackson Lee Amendment would have laid the foundation for protected students attending domestic institutions of higher education by providing them with the training necessary to recognize, resist, and report recruitment efforts by agents of foreign governments when they occur in the United States.

Congress should not assume that foreign governments seeking to recruit students attending institutions of higher learning will limit their efforts to students studying abroad.

Had it been made in order and adopted, the Jackson Lee Amendment simply would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on whether U.S. students attending institutions in the United States would benefit from similar or some aspects of the training described in the bill.

We have seen and learned so much regarding Russia's efforts to influence our nation's elections in large part by leveraging relationships between Russian agents and key individuals in President Trump's Campaign.

Although the work to investigate what took place continues, we should take steps today to make sure that young people attending institutions of higher learning are equipped with the knowledge and training needed to resist influence of a foreign government.

Although I am disappointed this important amendment was not made to order, I will continue to work with my colleagues to find ways to train our young people studying abroad on ways to detect, resist, and report attempts to recruit them by hostile foreign nations and actors.

Had it been made in order and approved, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 182 would direct the Secretary of Defense to develop plans for early detection, mitigation, and defense against state sponsored cyberattacks targeting federal public election assets, election administrators, election workers, or voter engagement efforts.

The aim of this amendment is to ensure that elections, and the peaceful transfer of power, which are pillars of our democracy, remain secure and are not undermined by external factors.

Last year, during one of the most contentious elections we have seen, a foreign state commenced a series of spearphishing attacks with the goal of penetrating the networks of a variety of Republican and Democratic Party organizations.

This foreign adversary was Russia, whose intelligence agencies worked under the directive of Vladimir Putin with the goal of making Donald Trump the 45th President of the United States.

Russian interference may have begun as early as 2015, and lasted through the winter of 2016. While at first, the hacking may have been done with the aim of foreign intelligence collection, by July 2016, Russian intelligence weaponized their information and worked to damage Hillary Clinton's campaign.

While the exact extent of Russia's influence on our elections may never be known, the fact is that Russia successfully intervened in our democracy and American intelligence agencies have determined that they have the capability and motivation to do so once more.

The Jackson Lee amendment would have helped to ensure that this never happens again.

Neither Russia, nor any other country, will ever have a say in our democratic processes.

The Jackson Lee Amendment would protect our election administrators, our election workers, and our voter engagement efforts.

I am disappointed that this amendment was not made in order, but I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that the United States has the proper technology, capability, and methods to defend our elections against malicious foreign state-sponsored cyberattacks.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Texas for their leadership, making their way through a very important action on behalf of the American people, and that is the defense authorization. I thank them for the amendments that were made en bloc, and I hope to speak quickly about these important amendments.

I am very grateful. Over the years, I have consistently introduced the triple negative breast cancer amendment because of the many women in the United States military who benefit from the research necessary.

My amendment authorizes and encourages increased collaboration between the DOD and the National Institutes of Health regarding combating triple negative breast cancer.

It has a particular impact on African-American women, but it impacts White women, Hispanic women, and others, as well. This is a serious illness that affects between 10 to 17 percent of female breast cancer patients and is more likely to cause death.

My amendment would help to save lives. I am delighted because this would impact Active-Duty women, as well as veterans; but, in particular, Active-Duty women with testing. It affects women under 50 years of age, and, therefore, women who would be in the United States military.

I am very grateful for the acceptance of the South Sudan amendment. My amendment directs the Department of Defense to prepare contingency plans to assist relief organizations and delivery of humanitarian assistance efforts in South Sudan and to engage in consultation with South Sudan military counterparts to deescalate conflict.

Famine in South Sudan has been created by conflict. On February 20, 2017, famine was declared formally in two counties of Unity State. 100,000 people will be in jeopardy of dying from famine. It has come about between the conflicts between the President and his former Chief of Staff, or his former Vice President.

We need to have the engagement to save lives, and I thank the support for this amendment.

Likewise, the North Korean ICBMs. As I was in Europe, during the Fourth of July, my amendment, in particular, supports upholding the goals of the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water; addresses the fact that our Nation should take the next step in preparing for a nuclear North Korea; and establishes that the stakes may be far greater.

We have all been discussing the question of North Korea and ICBMs. We have to be studious in assessing it.

Let me also say, however, that I am disappointed that the amendment dealing with the AUMF on North Korea did not get in. I believe it is an important issue that we must be concerned about.

I want to continue to work with the committee on PTSD and ensuring that, even though authorized, more funding can come. I had asked for $2.5 million.

And then I want to indicate the importance of recognizing, in light of the large footprint that Russia now has in its effort to undermine the democracy in this country, that we be very concerned about recruitment of college students by foreign agents.

I had an amendment for us to be concerned about that. I look forward to working with the committee. I plan to introduce this as legislation because a young man by the name of Glenn Shriver, an outstanding college student, majoring in international relations at a college in Michigan, while doing a study abroad in China, developed an interest in Chinese culture, and he was sought after by the Chinese.

I also want to work with the committee on addressing the question of elections for our soldiers.

And, finally, I want to make sure that we stop cyber attacks by foreign entities into our elections.

But, I am asking support for my amendment on the Korea ICBMs, the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer, and the support of helping humanitarian aid get to South Sudan.

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member and chairman, and I ask support for my amendments.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe.

I especially wish to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for including Jackson Lee Amendment No. 56 in the Chairman's En Bloc Amendment to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for the work that we have done in a bipartisan manner on human trafficking, sex trafficking. Let me thank the gentlewoman, the sponsor, and the cosponsor, Mr. Clay, for their leadership on this legislation and for recognizing that we must give direction, as Members of the United States Congress, to how grants are to be utilized. This is a very, very important initiative to be able to help our law enforcement.

Let me give you the real life of some of those who have been sex- trafficked.

The life of Esperanza: She was waiting for a cousin outside her high school in Mexico one day when a strange man drove up in a car and forced her inside with him and sped way. At that moment, Esperanza had, in effect, become a sex slave. ``He beat me; he raped me,'' she told

Mr. Speaker, second, we must provide our law enforcement with the necessary tools to fight the epidemic.

I would like to thank Agent Roskey, our fervent Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, and chiefs before him for their entire effort and collaboration. Houston law enforcement has been working diligently, but they have limited funds.

To be able to use the Byrne grants in this effective way to save one more life, to stop another little girl from detouring from high school involuntarily and then be steered off, become pregnant, and no mercy given, driven to another country to continue to be utilized, abused, victimized, beaten, I think this legislation clearly speaks to the millions of little girls and boys who are not in line but apt to be victims from all over the world coming to the United States, finding themselves in hot points, victimized, and maybe even tragically losing their life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 2480, the ``Empowering Law Enforcement to Fight Sex Trafficking Demand Act of 2017.''

This bill would amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to include an additional permissible use of amounts provided as grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, also known as the Byrne JAG Program, to combat human trafficking (including programs to reduce the demand for trafficked persons).

This legislation was introduced by Representative Vicky Hartzler (R- MO) on May 17, 2017 and I am proud to be a Co-Sponsor in this step forward to addressing concerns about sex trafficking in our cities.

Sadly, Sex Trafficking, like labor trafficking, is a modern-day form of slavery that includes U.S. citizens, foreign nationals, women, men and children as victims equally.

The epidemic of this abhorrent practice of sex trafficking is growing, which makes the need for consideration of all measures to help law enforcement prevent these crimes from occurring even more imperative.

First, sex trafficking occurs nationwide, and data from the National Human Trafficking Hotline show that reports of human trafficking cases have almost doubled in most states, including Texas, from 372 reported cases in 2012 to 670 reported cases in 2016; with sex trafficking accounting for more than 75% of all human trafficking cases reported.

Too often, thousands of young people--overwhelmingly women--have been kidnapped around the world and taken against their will to the United States, where they serve as sex slaves and become victims of these horrendous crimes--especially children--whom are afraid to seek help from law enforcement because of the risk that they will be treated as criminals rather than the victims they undoubtedly are.

Take Esperanza for example. She was waiting for her cousins outside of her high school in Mexico one day, when a strange man drove up in a car, forced her inside with him and sped away. At that moment, Esperanza had in effect become a sex slave.

Esperanza was an innocent child when she first became a victim of sex trafficking. Her 47 year old trafficker brought her to a madam at a Cantina, who taught her how to have sex with adult men for profit, and the trafficker would beat and rape this young child whenever she tried to escape.

Eventually Esperanza became pregnant and was driven across the Mexico-U.S. border onto Houston, Texas my congressional district, where her baby was taken by her perpetrator as insurance, in order to force Esperanza into his world of sex slave trade.

Like so many children living the daily nightmare of human trafficking, Esperanza was terrified to tell anyone what was occurring. ``I really wanted to speak up, to ask the police for help,'' Esperanza said. ``But I got caught up by the threats he would make towards my daughter. I didn't want anything to happen to her.''

After waiting for this horrific nightmare to end, Esperanza eventually was rescued in a raid of the Cantina, thanks to the bravery and steadfast approach of Houston's finest, like Agent Steve Roskey, a native Houstonian, then with the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in Houston.

Esperanza's prayers were answered because once she started telling Agent Roskey and the other Houston officers her story of how she got here, what she was forced to do, the identification of her trafficker and the taking of her baby, Houston's finest and Agent Roskey immediately started knocking on the perpetrator's family members' houses, knocked on his friends' houses, and after the family and friends became irritated, they eventually dropped off the child to a cousin. The child was safe.

Thankfully, although traumatized, Esperanza survived the horrors of human trafficking but not all victims are as fortunate because there are many sad stories laced in this practice, which is why these unfortunate victims, like Esperanza, who fall prey to human trafficking, should absolutely not be treated as criminals for their involvement in these sex, and labor acts.

Second, we must provide our law enforcement with the necessary tools to fight this epidemic. I would like to thank Agent Steve Roskey, our fervent Houston Police Chief, Art Acevedo, his entire department, and various other entities for all the hard work they are doing daily to combat this epidemic in sex trafficking.

Houston's law enforcement are working diligently to take our city back from the grips of those who seek to perpetuate this appalling practice of sex trafficking.

Like Houston, law enforcement everywhere are fighting mightily oftentimes, with limited funds to crush the glaring statistics reported across this country by the National Human Trafficking Hotline.

Hence we must provide them with meaningful resources to make this goal a reality, and ensure that victims are not penalized for the illegal enterprise of the traffickers that exploit them.

This is why we must empower our law enforcements everywhere, through the Byrne JAG Program, to fight the demand for sex trafficking by supporting this bill.

Finally, we understand it is already possible for state and local jurisdictions to use JAG Grant Program funding to combat human trafficking, including demand reduction, under the current purpose areas.

However, I support adding an additional purpose area for these grants that emphasizes the need to fund initiatives that target and fight human trafficking, as proposed under this bill.

H.R. 2480 will ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies have the funds needed to implement more programs to combat human trafficking such as that which occurred at the Cantina in Esperanza's case and all the trafficked victims rescued there that day.

The addition of this purpose area would allow state and local jurisdictions to target and penalize buyers who drive the demand for sex acts, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation; including the demand for sex trafficking involving children.

An example of a project that could be funded by the addition of this purpose area is training for a multi-jurisdictional task force to conduct proactive stings on buyers in an effort to combat human trafficking, like the Cantina raid in my home district in Houston.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguish gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), a member of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, who has a long history of dealing with the vulnerable children, children who have been in the foster care system, and a leading voice on the issue of sex and human trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), a colleague of the sponsor of the bill, Mrs. Hartzler from Missouri. I thank him for his leadership on the issues of sex trafficking and human trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri.

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

Let me thank the sponsor of this bill for her leadership. I am delighted to work with her as a cosponsor. And the speakers on the outside who are cosponsors, I thank them for their important contribution.

I simply want to take this time to close and to say to all of us: Don't forget the Esperanzas--plural--and their little boys as well, who are sex trafficked. Let us not forget them.

The addition of this purpose area added to the Byrne grants would allow States and local jurisdictions to target and penalize buyers who drive the demand for sex acts, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation, including demand for sex trafficking involving children. An example of a project that could be funded by the addition of this purpose area is training for a multijurisdictional task force to conduct proactive stings on buyers in an effort to combat human trafficking, just like what was done at the cantina raid in my home community in Houston.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission officer was one of those who helped bring this cantina, this substitute for sex trafficking kingpin down, and saved Esperanza.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the authors of the legislation, Mr. Smith and Ms. Bass, for their leadership, and thank Chairman Royce for again reemphasizing the importance of this in terms of all committees, including the number of committees that have been noted.

Let me thank the cosponsors for acknowledging as well, Frederick Douglass. It is right that he was born in slavery, but he reminded us that there is no power without struggle, and there will have to be a struggle to end sex trafficking and human trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the 1990s, when I met my first real modern-day slaves on the border of Bangladesh, where we were seeing women fleeing who had been trafficked and who had been utilized sexually. Their parents had sold them out of desperation.

They were actual true slaves who were fleeing to the border of Bangladesh. That is a startling and stark recognition that in the 1990s, and now in the 21st century, slavery still exists.

I am delighted to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and to have worked on these issues, and to acknowledge the commemoration of Mr. Douglass' 200th birthday.

So I am grateful for the $130 million in current funds appropriated to ensure a robust response to fight human trafficking; again, to do this at home and abroad; and to acknowledge the alliance to end slavery and trafficking at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, who are supporting this.

The bill would also provide human services grants, opportunities to be used for educating children and staff in U.S. schools about human trafficking. Of course, it would help my own center in Houston, the Center to End Trafficking and Exploitation of Children, or CETEC. I thank them for their great work. It is the only center of its kind in Texas established to combat minor sex trafficking. In addition, this important bill helps many others.

Let me conclude by simply saying that I support the idea of holding airlines accountable. We have been working with them. Homeland Security has been working with them. The flight attendants want to be engaged. All of us should be engaged in fighting sex trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, unable to cope with the brutal fact that he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by 2.9 million votes, the largest vote deficit of any president in American history, Donald Trump tweeted that he would have won the popular vote but for ``millions of people who voted illegally.''

Instead of producing any credible evidence to support this claim, a hoax that has been repeatedly and decisively debunked by experts, the President doubled down and issued an Executive Order establishing the ``Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity'' (PACEI), appointing Kris Kobach, anti-immigration warrior and poster-child for voter fraud conspiratorialists everywhere, to lead the Commission.

It would be more accurate to characterize the PACEI as the ``Presidential Advisory Commission on Vote Suppression.'' Voter suppression is real but the oft-repeated claim that American elections are rife with voter fraud is a myth.

According to a comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post, out of more than a billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014, only 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud were found, and even this tiny number was likely inflated because the study's author counted not just voter fraud prosecutions or convictions but all credible claims. Numerous other reports have reached the same conclusion.

Any lingering doubt regarding the true purpose of the PACEI should be laid to rest by the request made by Commissioner Kobach on June 28, 2017 when he wrote each of the nation's state secretaries of state requesting that they provide the Commission with ``the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.''

The information requested by the Commission will not prevent voter fraud. It will violate rather than protect voter privacy.

And it will make it easier to craft legislation and devise campaign strategies intended to suppress the vote in urban clusters and among targeted demographic groups, particularly minority voters.

It is important that all voters, and the people of the 18th Congressional District of Texas whom I am privileged to represent, be fully protected.

While supplying only public voter information may seem secure, the sad fact is that it is not. There is no publicly accessible database of voter registration information in any of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.

That is because information of this kind is protected from public disclosure under the settled principle of `collective privacy' recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark decision of NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 84 S. Ct. 1302, 12 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1964), which held that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute an impermissible chilling effect on the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment, a holding that has been affirmed repeatedly.

Accordingly, neither Texas nor any state can, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, supply the voter information requested by the PACEI.

Indeed, if the information sought was as public in nature as PACEI contends, there simply would be no need for it to request the information from state governments.

Trump's voter suppression commission is a solution in search of a problem.

Contrary to what Trump and Kobach would have the public believe, American elections are not rife with widespread voter fraud. Studies have shown that it is more likely an American ``will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.''

No, the major ill affecting our election system is not that too many people vote due to voter fraud, but that too many people are prevented from voting due to vote suppression schemes such as discriminatory photo identification requirements, curtailment of early voting, too few polling stations leading to long lines and excessive wait times, and purging of election rolls.

Even in the wholly unimaginable event that the commission created by Donald Trump and led by Kris Kobach could be trusted enough for states to cooperate by sharing their voter data, there is no reasonable basis for assuming that information would be kept secure and the privacy of voters protected.

Recent cyberattacks have made clear the vulnerability of large central databases to cyberattack. An information security breach at the Department of Veterans Affairs compromised sensitive personal data of 26.5 million persons and cost the VA between $100 million to $500 million to remediate; another occurring at the Office of Personnel Management impacted 22 million current and former federal employees, many of whom held sensitive security clearances; and the attack on Yahoo, the mother of all security breaches, resulted in 1.5 billion user accounts being compromised.

Because large centralized databases are targets of opportunities for criminals, terrorists, and foreign adversaries, it would be the height of recklessness for Texas or any state to provide the PACEI with personal information of millions of persons via unsecured email to be stored in undersecured databases on undersecured servers.

One of the biggest strengths of the American election system is its decentralized nature.

Aggregating all voter data into one centralized database with questionable security protections makes that data highly vulnerable to a cyberattack that could lead to the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans being stolen and misused.

Voter privacy and the integrity of the secret ballot are integral to American democracy. Voter privacy rights should and must be protected.

This is especially true since we know for certain that adversaries like Russia are actively involved in cyberwarfare campaigns to undermine our democracy.

There is no denying that our election system is under assault, but not in the way Trump imagines.

Instead of wasting taxpayer money to fund an investigation into voter fraud, which is as mythical as a unicorn, American democracy would be better served by focusing on and correcting the real problem with our elections--voter suppression and external, illegal, and international interference in our national elections.

I am not opposed to employing reasonable, legitimate, and workable means to safeguard the integrity of our electoral system and to protect the precious right to vote. But Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is incapable of doing either and thus should be disbanded and dissolved immediately.