Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and achievements of John James Conyers Jr., my friend, civil rights advocate, esteemed representative from Detroit, Michigan, and former Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

Today, May 16, 2024, marks his 95th Birthday.

Congressman Conyers served 52 years as a U.S. Representative from three different districts in Detroit, Michigan from 1965 to 2017.

He was one of the longest serving members of the United States Congress and the longest serving African-American Member of Congress.

Mr. Conyers won his first election to Congress with 108 votes more than his opponent.

Following that election, he won reelections with 80 percent of the vote for the rest of the time he served as an elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

During his earlier years, education was the road to success.

After graduating from Northwestern High School, Mr. Conyers served in the Michigan

National Guard from 1948 to 1950; the U.S. Army from 1950 to 1954; and the U.S. Army Reserves from 1954 to 1957.

He served during the Korean War as an officer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and was awarded combat and merit citations.

After discharge from the military, he earned both his B.A (1957) and Law Degree (1958) from Wayne State University.

Once admitted to the bar, he was an aide to Congressman John Dingell.

He also served as counsel to several Detroit-area labor union locals, and was a referee for Michigan's workmen's compensation department (1961-1963);

John Conyers was one of 13 U.S. Representatives who cofounded the Congressional Black Caucus in 1969 and helped create the CBC Foundation.

During his time in the House of Representatives he sat on the House Committee on the Judiciary where he rose in seniority to become the Ranking Democratic member from 1995 to 2007 and again from 2011 to 2017.

Mr. Conyers became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee from 2007 to 2011; and served as chairman of the House Oversight Committee from 1989 to 1995.

He was the longest-serving member of Congress, and in that capacity, he was the Dean of the House of Representatives from 2015 to 2017.

His longstanding credentials were sharpened by his work to establish equity and fairness for all.

In March 2016, Mr. Conyers and Representative Hank Johnson introduced legislation to protect consumers' access to civil courts entitled the ``Restoring Statutory Rights Acts''.

Mr. Conyers was a sponsor of the United States National Health Care Act (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act), a bill he reintroduced each session until his retirement from the House.

Another prominent bill Mr. Conyers sponsored was the ``Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act'' in January 1989.

He also re-introduced this bill each congressional term in which he served.

H.R. 40 calls for establishing a commission to research the history of slavery in the United States and its effects on current society with recommended ways to remedy this injustice. Since 1997, the bill has been designated ``H.R. 40''.

Upon leaving the House, he passed the responsibility for H.R. 40 to me.

I introduced H.R. 40 in the 117th and each Congress thereafter.

My bill does four things: It acknowledges the fundamental injustice and inhumanity of slavery; It establishes a commission to study slavery, its subsequent racial and economic discrimination against freed slaves; It studies the impact of those forces on today's living African Americans; and the commission would then make recommendations to Congress on appropriate remedies to redress the harm inflicted on living African Americans.''

John Conyers as a former ``Dean' of the Congressional Black Caucus, also joined the American Sikh Congressional Caucus; Congressional Progressive Caucus; United States Congressional International Conservation Caucus; Out of Afghanistan Caucus (Co-chair); Congressional Full Employment Caucus; Congressional Arts Caucus; Afterschool Caucuses; and the Congressional NextGen 9-1-1 Caucus.

John Conyers was a dedicated public servant who worked for the good of his constituents and the Nation.

I offer thanks to him and his family for the legacy he has left for those who continue to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman and the rest of my colleagues here for hosting this gathering today.

The introduction of the CROWN Act is an important step in the national conversation on race-based hair discrimination.

The CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair) helps protect an estimated 2.3 million Black children nationwide who are most vulnerable to race-based hair discrimination.

To date, the CROWN Act has been enacted in 24 states and numerous municipalities.

And while the CROWN Act was signed into law last year in Texas, hair discrimination in Texas is still hurting Black children and minorities across the state.

On February 22, 2024, a Texas judge ruled that the CROWN Act was not violated following the suspension of Darryl George for the length of his locs.

The judge's decision:

``The CROWN Act could've been written to provide the individuals with braids, locs and twists (to be) exempt from any hair length restrictions, but it has no such exemption,'' said Judge Chap B. Cain III, of the 253rd Judicial District Court in Chambers County. ``The CROWN Act is clear and BHISD's dress and grooming code policy is clear regarding male students.''

``Courts should always refrain from rewriting legislative text,'' Cain said, reading what appeared to be a prepared speech. ``That's not my job. Where text is clear--it's determinative--judges should not legislate from the bench and I'm not about to start today.''

``The immunity that you seek, you can have that from either of those bodies,'' Cain said. ``The legislature can go back, and I suspect they will, and they can decide that hair length cannot be regulated by the school, and then the school board's going to follow it. Or you can go to the school board and ask for a change in their policy.''

The CROWN Act is necessary legislation that explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin in areas of the law where discrimination

on the basis of race or national origin is already prohibited.

The history of hair braiding dates back 3500 BC or over five thousand years in African culture.

According to hair braiding experts, Braiding started in Africa with the Himba people of Namibia.

For a Himba woman, her hair is her power.

These semi-nomadic people live in one of the most extreme environments on earth, the deserts that border Namibia with Angola.

As water is scarce, they use a mixture of pastes on both their bodies and hair.

These pastes blend the aromatic resin of the omazumba shrub with animal fat and ground red pigmented stone. This `otjize' paste gives the women's skin and hair a distinctive red glow which symbolizes both blood, the essence of life, and the earth's rich red color.

Hairstyles play a significant role within the Himba community and reflect marital status, age, wealth, and rank within the group.

Hair braiding is a communal activity with a range of styles differing from tribe to tribe.

This origin of hair braiding is a rich and textured art form that speaks deeply to persons of African descent over millennia and resonates to this day.

Hair styles remain very significant in African American culture and are one of the many ways this culture is expressed.

Attacks on hair style are not unique to African people, Sheks, Jews, Pentecostal to name a few have hairstyles that are dictated by culture and beliefs.

Because Africans were enslaved persons does not mean they have lost all claim to African heritage, culture, or beliefs.

In the United States and among persons of African heritage the braiding of men's and boy's hair is accepted and widely practiced.

It has long been my position that discrimination based on hair texture and hairstyle is a form of impermissible race discrimination.

In 2021 the Dove CROWN Research for Girls found that:

53 percent of Black mothers, whose daughters have experienced hair discrimination, say their daughters experienced discrimination as early as 5 years old.

86 percent of Black teens who experience discrimination state they have experienced discrimination based on their hair by the age of 12.

100 percent of Black elementary school girls in majority-white schools who report experiencing discrimination state they experienced the discrimination by the age of 10.

According to a 2019 report, known as the CROWN Study, which was conducted by the JOY Collective (CROWN Act Coalition, Dove/Unilever, National Urban League, Color of Change), Black people are ``disproportionately burdened by policies and practices in public places, including the workplace, that target, profile, or single them out for their natural hair styles--referring to the texture of hair that is not permed, dyed, relaxed, or chemically altered.''

The CROWN Study found that Black women's hair is ``more policed in the workplace, thereby contributing to a climate of group control in the company culture and perceived professional barriers'' compared to non-Black women.

The study also found that ``Black women are more likely to have received formal grooming policies in the workplace, and to believe that there is a dissonance from her hair and other race's hair'' and that ``Black women's hairstyles were consistently rated lower or `less ready' for job performance.''

Among the study's other findings are that 80 percent of Black women believed that they had to change their hair from its natural state to ``fit in at the office,'' that they were 83 percent more likely to be judged harshly because of their looks.

The study indicated that Black women were 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair, and that they were 3.4 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional compared to non-African American women.

Eight years ago, the United States Army removed a grooming regulation prohibiting women servicemembers from wearing their hair in dreadlocks, a regulation that had a disproportionately adverse impact on Black women.

This decision was the result of a 2014 order by then-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to review the military's policies regarding hairstyles popular with African American women after complaints from members of Congress, myself included, that the policies unfairly targeted black women.

In 2015, the Marine Corps followed suit and issued regulations to permit lock and twist hairstyles.

The CROWN Study illustrates the prevalence of hair discrimination but numerous stories across the country put names and faces to the people behind those numbers.

In 2017, a Banana Republic employee was told by a manager that she was violating the company's dress code because her box braids were too ``urban'' and ``unkempt.''

A year later, in 2018, Andrew Johnson, a New Jersey high school student, was forced by a white referee to either have his dreadlocks cut or forfeit a wrestling match, leading him to have his hair cut in public by an athletic trainer immediately before the match.

That same year, an 11-year-old Black girl in Louisiana was asked to leave class at a private Roman Catholic school near New Orleans because her braided hair extensions violated the school's policies.

The next year, two African American men in Texas alleged being denied employment by Six Flags because of their hairstyles--one had long braids and the other had dreadlocks.

And earlier this year, there were news reports of a Texas student who would not be allowed to walk at graduation because his dreadlocks were too long.

The CROWN Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs and activities based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle if it is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin, including ``a hairstyle in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros.''

I strongly support this legislation and I will be working to protect the Constitutional Rights of all Americans in their choice of hair style and I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for yielding.

I would like to pose a rhetorical question to the gentleman: Where is the wall? Where is the wall that has been talked about now for a decade-plus?

I ask because others have had the same message, and here they come. Where is the wall?

Our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to fill their legislative agenda with platitudes, promises, broken promises, and ``I am going to get it done.'' The American people don't need ``I am going to get it done.''

What the American people need is to ensure that we have added more Border Patrol officers, which we have done under the Biden administration's plans. We will be doing that for Customs and Border Patrol. We will be doing that under the Biden effort. In addition, we will be doing more training and more recruitment.

We know that a wall, no matter how much you do, is always going to be overcome--not like the song, ``We Shall Overcome,'' when we do want to overcome in a better life and in a better world.

This is just a lot of talk. Mr. Speaker, I came to say that here is another resolution. There is no action in this resolution. It is a lot of talk.

As you remember, Mr. Speaker, how we got here was a bill that was so crushing that Republicans in the Senate could not vote for it, and that was H.R. 2. The resolution condemns many of the same policy choices on immigration, and they asked to be reversed in the last resolution. That is how bad it is. They want to reverse their own work.

Republicans now claim that no legislation is needed. Isn't that ridiculous, Mr. Speaker? They now have a bill that says that the other bills were not needed, don't listen to us.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this senseless, do- nothing resolution. Let's come together and support President Biden's leadership on immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R. 6090-- Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023.

In light of recent events across the globe and here in the United States, where anti-Semitic attacks and hate crimes have risen, this bipartisan bill is an attempt to codify the definition of ``antisemitism''

Specifically, this bill would require the Department of Education to take the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism into account when determining if an action or practice that violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was motivated by antisemitic intent.

The IHRA defines antisemitism as the following:

``Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.''

In its list of examples of anti-Semitic conduct, the IHRA includes ``[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,'' and ``[d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.''

While there is both support and opposition for this bill it is important to highlight the issues and concerns.

Namely, there is a concern that this bill will undermine free speech by codifying a singular definition of antisemitism.

Notably, however, the bill language provides a provision to explicitly protect against infringement of the First Amendment.

Additionally, while the Department of Education already utilizes this definition of ``antisemitism'' in its enforcement of Title VI civil rights claims, there is a concern that forcing the Department of Education to ``consider'' a particular definition of antisemitism does nothing to protect houses of worship, check antisemitic threats, or otherwise keep students safe on campus.

Rather, improving civil rights enforcement should be the real key to fighting antisemitism.

In May 2023, the Biden Administration created a ``U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism,'' a cornerstone of which is increasing enforcement actions by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

Since the October 7 attacks on Israel, OCR has seen a dramatic rise in discrimination claims.

President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding to OCR, but funding remained level for FY 2024.

Last year, House Republicans pushed to cut funds for federal civil rights enforcement on college campuses by 25 percent.

Ultimately, however, House Republicans refused to increase OCR's funding.

Instead, they have fought adequately funding OCR to meet the surge in antisemitism complaints because, in the political hierarchy governing their culture war priorities, undermining LGBTQ civil rights is more important than protecting Jewish students from discrimination.

I think we can all agree that the recent rise in antisemitism in the U.S. is a real problem, yet sadly House Republicans mostly ignored it.

Thus, it is important to highlight that any support for this bill should also include corresponding support for the agency tasked with investigating claims of harassment and hate.

Supporting such a measure while stripping away the tools to effectively carry out its duties is short-sided.

In particularly, as we celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month this May, I must reiterate my condemnation to the rise of antisemitism--and call on my fellow elected officials,

faith leaders, and civil society leaders to continue to condemn and combat antisemitism, and to identify and educate others on the contributions of the Jewish American community.

And so, as we celebrate the Jewish American community's contributions this month, we too must honor their resilience in the face of a long and painful history of persecution.

Indeed, as stated by President Biden in his Proclamation on Jewish American Heritage Month, 2024--we must all ``remember that the power lies within each of us to rise together against hate, to see each other as fellow human beings, and to ensure that the Jewish community is afforded the safety, security, and dignity they deserve as they continue to shine their light in America and around the world.''

Madam Speaker, I wish there were many, many minutes, but let me take this 1 minute to say to the American people: We are better than this, and to offer to all of those who are in pain, those who feel that they are not respected, who have come from the Mideast and believe that people do not respect them, yes, you are. This is America. We believe in free speech, free expression.

For those who are Palestinian, we respect your view, we respect the view of those who are from Israel, and we must show that as we go home to honor our communities. We must show that.

We must also stop anti-Semitism and show who we are. If we show them who we are, that is who we are. We must show that freedom of religion counts in America, freedom of religion, freedom of speech.

Yes, we must honor those law enforcement officers who have fallen in the line of duty. This week they have died. We want them to know that they will not be forgotten.

I stand here today as I started, Madam Speaker, by saying: We are better than this. We are Americans. We will always fight for freedom.

We will always fight for your freedom. We will always fight for your ability to say that, and I will leave this floor right now to say that speech and those words are important, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for having this Special Order Hour.

What a privilege to know Donald Payne, Sr., and to know Donald Payne, Jr.

I sat here tonight listening to my colleagues struggle with how they will describe this wonderful giant of a man, each came with their own excellent presentation, and what should we say about our dynamic duo of dad and son.

I thought, again, how privileged I was and am to have traveled with Donald Payne, Sr., the dad, and to have sat next to Donald Payne, Jr., the son, during the course of Homeland Security and a number of other committees.

Let me tell you a thing or two. Both of them knew how to make you laugh. Both of them had a sense of joy and love for people other than themselves.

To his wonderful bride and his wonderful kids--that I would ask about in the early years--let me tell them that he never forgot them and always loved them dearly.

What I loved most about Donald Payne, Jr., was that he took life's journey, and he turned it into making life better for others. He was not so much worried about himself, but about Newark's journey. He wanted to turn the disease that Black men would always be impacted by into the corner that would help Black men have better health.

He would confront this idea of cancer that was so devastating to Black men, to be able to encourage them to learn about their own lives, and to say we are going to fight this thing and we are going to beat it. That was the way Donald Payne led his life, that the cancer that he had to fight was going to be a cancer that he was going to win.

He believed in encouraging Black men to look at their own health, look at yourself in the mirror, Black men, and stand up and be a man and live a longer life and live the life that we can live together.

Let's not shirk away from the challenges that confront our community. Let us talk about that life and have the best life you can possibly have.

So for a life dealing with healthcare and cancer in Black men, he wanted them to be able to confront it head-on, and we did that.

Isn't it interesting that I remember him garnering $900 million for a transportation project, the same $900 million that I got for a transportation project? We were excited that we could take our love of transportation and bring those dollars home to Houston and to New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, there is much more that one can say, but I wanted to bring home the bacon, if you will, and, no, it will not be that. It will simply be the love we have for our fellow human beings, our neighbors. That is what we both hoped that we taught to each other and to our neighbors, and I hope that in spirit he will rest in power and rest in peace.

Let me remind you, Newark, New Jersey, and to his family, whatever he had in life, he was willing to give to others. That is what he will leave us. Whatever he had he wanted to give to someone else. Let us shout and celebrate his life and his legacy. I see you. Rest in power and rest in peace.

God bless.

Mr. Speaker, I come here today to celebrate the life and legacy of our dear Colleague and friend Congressman Donald Payne Jr.

I am deeply saddened by his passing and know that his family are experiencing the pain of grieving that only time can ease.

It is my hope that our words tonight on the friend we knew as Donald Payne Jr., will offer some measure of comfort.

Congressman Payne was not only a respected colleague but also a man of vision and compassion for the welfare of children.

I had the honor of arriving in the House of Representatives in 1995, as a freshman while Donald Milford Payne Sr. was serving as the U.S. representative for New Jersey's 10th Congressional District from 1989 until his death in 2012.

I enjoyed sitting next to Congressman Payne Jr. on the House Homeland Security Committee during the 118th Congress and knew him well from our work as Members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

During our time together in Congress we worked together on issues related to equity, justice, and fairness in the provision of federal resources for disaster mitigation, public safety, and border security.

I his work and in our conversations, Congressman Payne Jr. always expressed his devotion to ensuring that the needs of children were met.

In addition to his legislative achievements, he championed the cause of children impacted by disasters and staunchly advocated for and won changes in the Department of Homeland Security's approach in addressing the needs of children during disaster mitigation, evacuations, and recovery efforts.

Representative Payne was a man of great integrity and commitment.

He worked relentlessly to better his community.

He followed in his father's footsteps and became Congressman of the 10th Congressional District of New Jersey in 2012.

And as a Congressman, Donald Payne Jr. cared deeply about his constituents living in the Congressional District-10 and in the great state of New Jersey.

He fought tirelessly for New Jersey families and worked to create jobs and grow the economy.

It was important to him to protect and invest in our children, and to ensure the health and safety of each person who called New Jersey home.

Rep. Payne, Jr. began his long career in public service when he founded Newark South Ward Junior Democrats, becoming its first president.

He also served as an adviser to the YMCA Youth in Government program. He attended Kean College (now Kean University), where he studied graphic arts.

His many accomplishments included being a strong supporter of the Affordable Care Act, which provides thousands of New Jerseyans with access to high-quality, affordable health care.

He also advocated for investing in and protecting the health of our children and introduced the TEST for Lead Act to protect children from lead-contaminated drinking water in schools.

Congressman Donald Payne, Jr. was also a vocal advocate for cancer prevention, introducing the National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month Resolution to raise awareness about the need for regular cancer screenings.

He introduced the Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act, so Medicare beneficiaries could get polyp, or cancerous growth, removals covered during routine colorectal cancer screenings.

The bill was signed into law in 2019.

As an addition to this act, Rep. Payne, Jr. introduced the Colorectal Cancer Payment Fairness Act to make sure Medicare provides complete coverage of colorectal cancer screening tests and polyp removals by 2023, so patients don't have to pay for the procedure.

He also introduced the Donald Payne Sr. Colorectal Cancer Detection Act to require Medicare to cover FDA-approved blood-based screening tests and help Americans determine their risk for colorectal cancer.

Throughout Congressman Payne Jr.'s career, he fought to protect the rights of every American.

His unwavering support for equal justice, propelled him to vote for the passage of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

This bill increases accountability for law enforcement misconduct, restricts certain policing practices, enhances transparency in data collection and establishes national best practices and training requirements.

Congressman Donald Payne Jr. served as a senior Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and chaired its Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery during the 116th Congress and was Ranking Member in prior Congresses.

He also served as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials for the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

In that role, Rep. Payne, Jr. improved passenger and freight rail nationwide.

He protected Americans through his work to improve communications between emergency agencies and provide greater resources to aid victims during and after national emergencies.

During his time on the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, Rep. Payne, Jr. introduced the INVEST in America Act, which became the bipartisan, $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, to provide funds for critical road and rail projects, such as New Jersey's Portal North Bridge and Hudson River Tunnel in the Gateway Program.

Thanks to his efforts, the new law included $66 billion for passenger rail, the largest federal investment in rail in 50 years, and $55 billion to replace lead water pipes nationwide. In addition, the law included $8 billion for New Jersey's highways, $4.5 billion for the state's public transit, and $42 billion to improve New Jersey's traffic safety.

Congressman Payne Jr. built a record of achievement in a divided Congress.

Through his hard work and non-yielding attitude, Representative Payne introduced two bills that were signed into Public Law by President Barack Obama, including the Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act of 2015.

This bill ensures that Department of Homeland Security personnel can reliably communicate during emergencies.

He also introduced a bill to secure public areas of transportation facilities, such as airports, which was incorporated into the FAA Reauthorization Act and signed into law in October of 2018.

Representative Payne Jr. fought against discrimination and antidemocratic efforts that would seek to limit voting rights.

And as an original cosponsor of the Freedom to Vote, the John R. Lewis Act of 2021, Congressman Donald Payne Jr. help to restore voting protections from the Voting Rights act of 1965, which was abolished in the Supreme Court decision Shelby County v. Holder in 2013.

The Equality Act is yet another bill that Congressman proudly supported.

This bill addresses systemic discrimination in our schools, jobs, and communities.

And for the first time in history, ban discrimination based on actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury selection process.

To empower communities of color, I voted for the passage of the Commission to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans.

This bill will increase transparency, unity, healing, and research to address our nation's historically unequal treatment of African Americans, Indigenous Americans, Latino Americans, and minority groups, as well as the effects of systemic racism.

Congressman Donald Payne Jr. meant many things to many people.

He was a steadfast public servant, a proud father, and loving husband.

Congressman Payne was a dedicated public servant, a champion for his constituents, and a staunch advocate for social justice and equality.

His legacy of service will continue to inspire generations to come.

I offer my deepest condolences to his loving wife Beatrice and their triplets, Donald III, Jack, and Yvonne, colleagues, friends, constituents, and his dedicated Subcommittee staff and personal office staff.

Congressman Payne's memory will always remain in our hearts.

As a legislative body we must continue to forward his vision of justice, equality, and a more equitable society.

Congressman Payne Jr. will be missed dearly.

Mr. Speaker, we can do no less than to come to this floor today to be the America that we have been known around the world to have become, and that is a freedom-loving democracy standing for and watching our men and women go overseas, in many instances to shed their blood for others as well as the American people.

I cannot stand by while babies die and while mothers lose their babies in their wombs.

I stand today so that we can make sure that the people in Gaza continuously have the funding that is necessary and that Israel and Ukraine can stand up for others while they are fighting for democracy.

It is important to take note that our allies include Taiwan, as well.

It is important to note, as well, that the future of America is not yesterday. It is now.

Are we going to accept the challenge of being the kind of nation that does not only stand for itself but fights for others?

Let us vote for this funding bill because the war must end in peace and must end now. End the war now in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to express my support for the National Security Supplemental package to not only help our foreign allies but to also help protect our national interests here at home.

We need to reinvigorate our industrial base and provide Ukraine and Israel with critically needed security assistance and these bills do exactly that.

This package further helps U.S. national security interests by investing in our submarine industrial base and in other systems vital to maintaining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.

We must vote to pass this supplemental package which provides over $95 billion in funding for critical bipartisan national security priorities included in the following outlined bills.

H.R. 8038--21st Century Peace through Strength Act

I want to express support this bill, which contains a number of Republican and bipartisan bills that are generally related to sanctions on Russia and Iran.

And notably, the majority of the bills that make up this package passed the House under suspension of the Rules.

The Ranking Member will vote in support of H.R. 8038.

In particular, this sidecar bill includes the following:

A modified version of H.R. 4l75--REPO for Ukrainians Act which would authorize the President to seize Russian sovereIgn assets.

In addition to H.R. 7520--Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries act of 2024, which would protect Americans' sensitive personal data by prohibiting data brokers from profiting off our data by selling that data to foreign adversaries or entities controlled by foreign adversaries.

And H.R. 7521--Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversaries Controlled Applications--Act, which further seeks to protect Americans' sensitive data from foreign adversaries by forcing the social media platform TikTok's Chinese parent company to divest or face a ban in the

Mr. Speaker, I thought we would come here today and have a reasoned opportunity to address this question.

Let me be very clear. I have been in this body long enough to say that we have had a time where Members have been here and we have had control of the border, in the interpretation that my Republicans might say. We have had a flow of immigrants. We have had processes, and we have had challenges. We have spoken to the issue of providing funding for these challenges.

Here is what the issue is. The issue is that we have a past President who sees in his jurisdiction and career to block the flow of immigrants who are building and continuing to work with us in working on this Nation.

They come from Ukraine. They may come from Israel. They may come from Palestine. They may come from Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, those individuals need processes and they need funding. We won't even give them war funding.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I can tell you that the issue is that we are not bringing groups together who are fleeing persecution, which is what we are seeing in the individuals coming to the country now. They are fleeing persecution, and we want to reject-- we want to reject the funding.

When I was on the Homeland Security Committee, we did not do that. We provided for the NGOs. It is shameful for us to think that we can live in this country and reject the NGOs, the nongovernmental entities, who are helping those who are in need.

That is how we did our work. When we did our work, we would be able to solve the problems. Those problems would be helping NGOs. Those problems would be making sure that we gave dollars to the agencies like Catholic Charities. Can anyone believe that we don't give money to Catholic Charities anymore?

The call that we have today, Mr. Speaker, and to my good friend, the whip of the House, working with our whip, the Honorable Katherine Clark----

--is that we need to work to help those who are most desperate and most poor----

--to be able to make a difference. We are not doing that. We are rejecting that. We need to help this Nation. We are not doing that.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult time for Members because we are talking about world issues. Tomorrow, we will be talking about world issues, as well, and that is the final adjournment.

If we do not do our work, the funding of the Ukraine money, the money for Indo-Pacific security, and the money for the struggling people who need 21st century peace, and, of course, Israel and the Palestinians.

This is the example. We can't get the southern border, but we can also not provide safety for our children. These are children around the world. I have fought for Russia to stop stealing Ukrainian children. We cannot do it without providing the war funding that we need, and we cannot do southern border protection, if you will, without understanding that it is not just war that you deal with at the southern border. You deal with human beings.

Having been here for a period of time, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we are dealing with immigration. Immigration is humanity.

So I ask the people who are here in this body to deal with humanity and to deal with our children. That means we will get all the funding bills, and, yes, we will get the bills that will not make playgrounds war zones. That is what we are doing.

Let's save our children and save them now.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there is just not enough time to speak on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, as we go into a number of religious holidays, which brings us together around peace, faith, and harmony, I want us to recognize that racism is raising its own ugly head again. It is raising its head on DEI, something that most of us of a certain age have no clue as to diversity, inclusion, exclusiveness, and the many different terminologies that can be utilized. We know the question of race and who we are.

It is important, as we take to our home districts, that we embrace the diversity that is in our districts, talk about the need for harmony and unity, and, as well, that we recognize that we are better together than we are separated.

I want to offer a commitment that we stand against racism, that we acknowledge it, that we join together in supporting H.R. 40, which is a commission to study reparations and develop reparation proposals.

I look forward to us ridding ourselves of the ugly face of racism as well as ensuring that we find a way to solve why we are divided instead of united.

Racism is ugly, and we must rid ourselves of it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the full Financial Services Committee for yielding, and I thank the chairman of the full committee as well for giving me the opportunity to raise concerns and to say that we all stand with our ally Israel and the horrors of waking up and being targeted by 300 drones and being absolutely struck by this terrorist attack.

I just came from a meeting with an Iranian-American diaspora organization working for a free democratic Iran who were stunned by Israel being attacked by 300 drones. This bill has consequences which I think are extremely important and worth looking at by our constituents and our community, which is what I wish to do.

Mr. Speaker, the Iran Counterterrorism Act would require the President to obtain a congressional resolution of approval before waiving certain sanctions on Iran. This would cause us to have greater deliberation with the President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring concerns but to recognize that this is an important step that we need to digest and discuss in order to make the right decision to safeguard the people in the region but also the free, democracy-wanting people of Iran.

Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Even in this time of 2024, we need this legislation to protect now one of the most revered civil rights leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King. Yes, we need legislation that would, in fact, protect someone who simply wanted to provide justice to this Nation. He was the subject of COINTELPRO, a distorted investigation of his family, his belongings, his extended family members, and his wife, who I think at the time was expecting.

This legislation is important to save lives. It is important legislation to ensure that our intelligence community, our law enforcement community, can do their jobs, but it is not legislation that should be utilized to abuse the American people.

I rise today to speak of the concerns on H.R. 7888. It is a bipartisan bill to reauthorize an essential intelligence authority, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, and other FISA provisions before they would expire on April 19. In doing so, we find ourselves being subject to the eye of the knife, if you will, in penetrating the personal matters of individuals that have no desire to do harm to this country.

As we know all too well, expiration of 702 authorities would deprive our Federal Government of the necessary insight into precisely the threats Americans expect their government to identify and counter. We understand that, as highlighted and emphasized through Federal administration, if we lose 702, we lose vital protections to the United States and its allies from hostile foreign adversaries, including terrorists, proliferators, and spies, and to inform cybersecurity efforts.

We are also acutely aware that 702 is an extremely controversial, warrantless surveillance authority that must not be reauthorized without substantial reform to rein in warrantless surveillance of Americans. We simply cannot do that. Indeed, warrantless surveillance intended for non-American targets located abroad inevitably has resulted in the collection and capture of Americans' communications and, yes, the results of capturing information that safeguards the American people and provides us with a safety net that we can fight for justice, fight for civil rights, and yet be protected.

It is no secret that intelligence agencies have turned section 702 into a domestic spying tool used to perform hundreds of thousands of warrantless backdoor searches for Americans' private phone calls, emails, and text messages.

By the way, Mr. Chair, we have a whole new world of technology where you can probe every aspect of our lives. These searches have included shocking abuses, including against civil rights leaders, protesters, Members of Congress, 19,000 donors to congressional campaigns, political parties.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak on H .R. 7888--Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), a bipartisan bill to reauthorize an essential intelligence authority, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (``FISA''), and other FISA provisions before they would expire on April 19, 2024.

As we know all too well, expiration of Section 702 authorities would deprive our federal government of the necessary insight into precisely the threats Americans expect their government to identify and counter.

As highlighted and emphasized through federal administration, if we lost 702, we would lose vital protections to the United States and its allies from hostile foreign adversaries, including terrorists, proliferators, and spies, and to inform cybersecurity efforts.

We also are acutely aware, that Section 702 is an extremely controversial warrantless surveillance authority that must not be reauthorized without substantial reform to rein in warrantless surveillance of Americans.

Indeed, warrantless surveillance intended for non-American targets located abroad ``inevitably'' has resulted in the collection and capture of Americans' communications, too.

And it is no secret that intelligence agencies have turned Section 702 into a domestic spying tool, using it to perform hundreds of thousands of warrantless ``backdoor'' searches for Americans' private phone calls, e-mails, and text messages every year.

Yes, these searches have included shocking abuses, including baseless searches for the communications of Black Lives Matter protesters, members of Congress, 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, a local political party, and tens of thousands of people involved in ``civil unrest.''

To protect the American people, we need to maintain the vital collection authority as intended to protect our nation and national security, while at the same time strengthening its protective guardrails with the most robust set of reforms ever included in legislation to reauthorize Section 702.

Importantly, H.R. 7888, as amended here today provides several critically needed reforms--including a fix to the backdoor search loophole and a prohibition on the ``abouts'' collection provision, and ultimately seeks to accomplish the necessary balancing we seek for national security protections and the protection of American's privacy rights.

To protect the American people, we need to maintain the vital collection authority as intended to protect our Nation and national security. We must do that while at the same time strengthening its protective guardrails with the most robust set, if you will, of protection that we possibly can.

That is why I have joined with several Members, including Mr. Cline, to offer the ``abouts'' amendment. We will offer that as one of the Judiciary three. This amendment does something Congress should have done 7 years ago, prohibit the government from resuming ``abouts'' collection, a form of section 702 that poses unique risks to Americans. ``Abouts'' collection is a collection of communications that are neither to nor from an approved target of surveillance--can you imagine?--under section 702 of FISA but merely contain information related to the target.

Mr. Chair, it is unbelievable that we would go after innocent Americans and Members of Congress in the random searching and fishing of information that may not be relevant. In the past, ``abouts'' collection focused on collecting communications that include a target's email address, phone number, or Twitter handle or something like that, but in theory, ``abouts'' collection could be used to collect emails that merely mention a person who is a target of section 702 surveillance.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to indicate that we cannot pass this legislation without these vital amendments and that we cannot pass this legislation without the American people believing that when they pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, they are pledging allegiance to civil liberties, freedom, and justice and equality for all. I rise to support these amendments and as well a free nation with democracy and liberty for all.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a list of groups who support this amendment.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 12, 2024.

Dear Colleague: Please join us in supporting our amendment

to H.R. 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America

Act. Rules Amendment #5 would end what is known as ``abouts''

collection, which involves the capturing of massive amounts

of communications by government agencies such as the National

Security Agency (NSA) in which the selector, for example, an

email address, of a target appears somewhere in

communications, even if that target is not a party to the

communications. It has long been controversial.

The FISA Court previously discovered that the government

had misrepresented its activities and held that handling this

type of data was of significant concern and a violation of

the Fourth Amendment. Although the NSA abandoned the practice

of ``abouts'' collection in 2017, Congress in 2018 amended

FISA to prohibit this type of collection unless the AG and

DNI notify the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary

Committees of its plans to resume such collection. But that

only means that if the NSA notifies Congress, they can resume

``abouts'' collection at any time. Our amendment would

proactively end the practice for good.

The following groups support this important amendment:

FreedomWorks--Key Vote; Due Process Institute; Americans

for Prosperity; Project for Privacy and Surveillance

Accountability; Reform Government Surveillance; Center for

Democracy and Technology; American Civil Liberties Union;

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC); Restore the

Fourth; Defending Rights & Dissent; Brennan Center for

Justice; Wikimedia Foundation.

Demand Progress; Electronic Frontier Foundation; Project on

Government Oversight; United We Dream; Asian Americans

Advancing Justice; Muslim Advocates; Free Press Action;

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Freedom of

the Press Foundation; New America's Open Technology

Institute; Fight for the Future; Stop AAPI Hate.

We urge you to vote in favor of Amendment #5.

Sincerely,

Ben Cline,

Member of Congress.

Sheila Jackson Lee,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Chair,

I rise today in support of the Cline (VA)/Jackson Lee (TX) Amendment [#3] to H.R. 7888--Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA).

This amendment does something Congress should have done seven years ago: prohibit the government from resuming ``abouts'' collection, a form of Section 702 surveillance that poses unique risks to Americans.

``Abouts'' collection is the collection of communications that are neither To nor From an approved target of surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but merely contain information relating to that target.

In the past, ``abouts'' collection focused on collecting communications that include a target's email address, or phone address, or Twitter handle, or something like that. But in theory, ``abouts'' collection could be used to collect emails that merely mention a person who is a target of Section 702 surveillance.

Nothing in the text or legislative history of Section 702 indicates that this type of surveillance is authorized.

Under Section 702, the surveillance must target a non-U.S. person outside the United States. The term ``target'' has a well-understood meaning. When a person is a target, it means the government can collect that person's information or other data, not the communications or data of other individuals.

As we all know, ``abouts'' collection under Section 702 has a sordid history.

The National Security Agency (NSA) used ``abouts'' collection when it was conducting upstream surveillance, in other words, when it was intercepting communications directly as they transited over the Internet backbone, rather than collecting stored communications from service providers.

Not surprisingly, this practice resulted in the collection of tens of thousands of purely domestic communications--communications between and among Americans inside the United States.

Moreover, often these Americans were not even discussing the target. Instead, their communications were lumped in with other communications, transiting over the Internet backbone as a packet. The NSA was collecting the entire packet of communications, simply because somewhere in that packet was a reference to information about a target.

This was a problem from the moment Section 702 went into effect in 2008. And yet for years, the government did not disclose this problem to the FISA Court.

To the contrary, the government affirmatively misrepresented how the program was working. It was not until 2011 that the court learned the government was sweeping in tens of thousands of purely domestic communications.

The court was livid. It noted that the belated disclosure, and I quote, ``marks the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program.''

At the time, the court chose not to prohibit the use of ``abouts'' collection. But it held that special minimization rules were required for upstream communications, and that without those rules, the program would violate both Section 702 and the Fourth Amendment. One of those rules was a prohibition on U.S. person queries of communications obtained through upstream surveillance.

Five years later, the NSA discovered that its agents had been routinely violating this prohibition. But rather than immediately report these violations to the FISA Court, the NSA waited for several months. When it finally admitted the violations, the FISA Court chastised the NSA for its ``institutional lack of candor,'' and refused to approve the continuation of Section 702 surveillance until the NSA cleaned up its act.

The NSA proved incapable of bringing its agents into compliance. The agents continued to routinely search though the upstream data in an effort to find and review Americans' communications, in violation of Section 702, the Fourth Amendment, and the FISA Court's orders. Well aware that the court would not continue to approve Section 702 surveillance under these conditions, the NSA, in 2017, made the only decision it could: it terminated ``abouts'' collection.

Well, it has now been seven years since the NSA stopped ``abouts'' collection, and the government has not claimed that ending this practice has resulted in a loss of critical intelligence or had any other kind of negative impact on national security. No official has pointed to a single bad result that could have been averted through the use of ``abouts'' collection.

Collecting communications that are neither to nor from an approved target of surveillance is contrary to the text and intent of Section 702.

It inevitably results in the collection of wholly domestic communications, which Section 702 expressly prohibits.

Over the course of a decade, the NSA proved that it was incapable of operating ``abouts'' surveillance responsibly and in accordance with the law--and the past seven years shown that ``abouts'' collection is not necessary for national security.

It is time for Congress to shut the door on ``abouts'' collection.

In the future, if the government can show that it needs ``abouts'' collection for national security purposes and that it can operate the program without violating the law and the Fourth Amendment, it can come to Congress and ask for authorization. But the burden should be on the government to show the need and the ability to lawfully conduct the program.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Cline/Jackson Lee Amendment [#3].

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much.

I am delighted to be able to work with the gentleman from Virginia on what I think is crucial to codify, because as you said, the FBI had stopped doing it, but here we are again.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee.

I have the time.

I have yielded a minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

He had yielded to me, but I will be happy to yield back so he can get his time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the home of my alma mater, the University of Virginia School of Law, and the gentleman from Connecticut, also the home of my alma mater.

To be able to find collegiality in a very important question for the American people is very much a statement that should be made.

This amendment does something Congress should have done 7 years ago, as I have indicated, prohibiting the government from resuming ``abouts'' collection, a form of section 702 surveillance that poses a unique risk to Americans.

It is also very disturbing, Mr. Chair, because most Americans would scratch their heads and wonder why is this relevant to the immediate investigation. ``Abouts'' collection is a collection of communications that are neither to nor from an approved target of surveillance under 702, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, but merely contain information relating to that target. That means that you become a target because it happened to be sitting around you or it happened to be going to you or from you.

In the past, ``abouts'' collections focused on collecting communications that include a target's email or phone, address, Twitter handle, or something like that, but in theory ``abouts'' collection could be used to collect emails that merely mention a person who is a target of 702 surveillance.

I think it is extremely important to recognize ``merely mentions'' that individual, and you could have your materials, your private information, wrapped up in a roundup or a lassoing of the extended material that is scattered around you, and you could be subject to some kind of haul, if you will, a hauling in of data about you.

Nothing in the text or legislative history of 702 indicates that this type of surveillance is authorized. That is why I think this amendment with Mr. Cline is extremely important because it shows that we are working together.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Cline (VA)/Jackson Lee (TX) Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 7888--Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA).

This amendment does something Congress should have done seven years ago: prohibit the government from resuming ``abouts'' collection, a form of Section 702 surveillance that poses unique risks to Americans.

``Abouts'' collection is the collection of communications that are neither to nor from an approved target of surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but merely contain information relating to that target.

In the past, ``abouts'' collection focused on collecting communications that include a target's email address, or phone address, or Twitter handle, or something like that. But in theory, ``abouts'' collection could be used to collect emails that merely mention a person who is a target of Section 702 surveillance.

Nothing in the text or legislative history of Section 702 indicates that this type of surveillance is authorized.

Under Section 702, the surveillance must target a non-U.S. person outside the United States. The term ``target'' has a well-understood meaning. When a person is a target, it means the government can collect that person's information or other data, not the communications or data of other individuals.

As we all know, ``abouts'' collection under Section 702 has a sordid history.

The National Security Agency (NSA) used ``abouts'' collection when it was conducting upstream surveillance, in

other words, when it was intercepting communications directly as they transited over the Internet backbone, rather than collecting stored communications from service providers.

Not surprisingly, this practice resulted in the collection of tens of thousands of purely domestic communications--communications between and among Americans inside the United States.

Moreover, often these Americans were not even discussing the target. Instead, their communications were lumped in with other communications, transiting over the Internet backbone as a packet. The NSA was collecting the entire packet of communications, simply because somewhere in that packet was a reference to information about a target.

This was a problem from the moment Section 702 went into effect in 2008. And yet for years, the government did not disclose this problem to the FISA Court.

To the contrary, the government affirmatively misrepresented how the program was working. It was not until 2011 that the court learned the government was sweeping in tens of thousands of purely domestic communications.

The court was livid. It noted that the belated disclosure, and I quote, ``marks the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program.''

At the time, the court chose not to prohibit the use of ``abouts'' collection. But it held that special minimization rules were required for upstream communications, and that without those rules, the program would violate both Section 702 and the Fourth Amendment. One of those rules was a prohibition on U.S. person queries of communications obtained through upstream surveillance.

Five years later, the NSA discovered that its agents had been routinely violating this prohibition. But rather than immediately report these violations to the FISA Court, the NSA waited for several months. When it finally admitted the violations, the FISA Court chastised the NSA for its ``institutional lack of candor,'' and refused to approve the continuation of Section 702 surveillance until the NSA cleaned up its act.

The NSA proved incapable of bringing its agents into compliance. The agents continued to routinely search though the upstream data in an effort to find and review Americans' communications, in violation of Section 702, the Fourth Amendment, and the FISA Court's orders. Well aware that the court would not continue to approve Section 702 surveillance under these conditions, the NSA, in 2017, made the only decision it could: it terminated ``abouts'' collection.

Well, it has now been seven years since the NSA stopped ``abouts'' collection, and the government has not claimed that ending this practice has resulted in a loss of critical intelligence or had any other kind of negative impact on national security. No official has pointed to a single bad result that could have been averted through the use of ``abouts'' collection.

Collecting communications that are neither to nor from an approved target of surveillance is contrary to the text and intent of Section 702.

It inevitably results in the collection of wholly domestic communications, which Section 702 expressly prohibits.

Over the course of a decade, the NSA proved that it was incapable of operating ``abouts'' surveillance responsibly and in accordance with the law--and the past seven years shown that ``abouts'' collection is not necessary for national security.

It is time for Congress to shut the door on ``abouts'' collection.

In the future, if the government can show that it needs ``abouts'' collection for national security purposes and that it can operate the program without violating the law and the Fourth Amendment, it can come to Congress and ask for authorization. But the burden should be on the government to show the need and the ability to lawfully conduct the program.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Cline/Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Chair, I include in the record a letter from Representative Cline and myself listing the groups in support of this amendment.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 12, 2024.

Dear Colleague: Please join us in supporting our amendment

to H.R. 7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America

Act. Rules Amendment No. 5 would end what is known as

``abouts'' collection, which involves the capturing of

massive amounts of communications by government agencies such

as the National Security Agency (NSA) in which the selector,

for example, an email address, of a target appears somewhere

in communications, even if that target is not a party to the

communications. It has long been controversial.

The FISA Court previously discovered that the government

had misrepresented its activities and held that handling this

type of data was of significant concern and a violation of

the Fourth Amendment. Although the NSA abandoned the practice

of ``abouts'' collection in 2017, Congress in 2018 amended

FISA to prohibit this type of collection unless the AG and

DNI notify the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary

Committees of its plans to resume such collection. But that

only means that if the NSA notifies Congress, they can resume

``abouts'' collection at any time. Our amendment would

proactively end the practice for good.

The following groups support this important amendment:

Freedom Works--Key Vote; Due Process Institute; Americans

for Prosperity; Project for Privacy and Surveillance

Accountability; Reform Government Surveillance; Center for

Democracy and Technology; American Civil Liberties Union;

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC); Restore the

Fourth; Defending Rights & Dissent; Brennan Center for

Justice; Wikimedia Foundation.

Demand Progress; Electronic Frontier Foundation; Project on

Government Oversight; United We Dream; Asian Americans

Advancing Justice; Muslim Advocates; Free Press Action;

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Freedom of

the Press Foundation; New America's Open Technology

Institute; Fight for the Future; Stop AAPI Hate.

We urge you to vote in favor of Amendment No. 5.

Sincerely,

Ben Cline,

Member of Congress.

Sheila Jackson Lee,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I first start by indicating that all of the hostages should be brought home in this heinous crisis that we are facing, and the innocent women and children and others in the Palestinian crisis should be fed and protected. Additionally, we must find peace, security, and democracy in the area.

At the same time, I want to come home to America and apprise the American people that we must be concerned about having a fair and equal election season. We must be afraid of election intrusion from Russia. We must be afraid of the attack on our technological systems of elections.

Additionally, I am calling on the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies to protect the Federal elections that are coming up in the near future. Those are congressional as well as the Presidential election.

We must recognize that we are the beacon of democracy. The citadel of democracy is this place where I stand. It will not have that name unless we call upon all of our resources to make sure that we are not attacked by forces that want to change democracy in front of our very eyes.

I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying to the Attorney General: It is imperative that we have voting rights now in this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk more next week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reinforce one of the most important positions that we have in the United States, and that is the Attorney General of the United States of America.

That officer of the Nation is to provide protection when it comes to fair voting laws, to structure a scheme of social justice and criminal justice interacting together where you have justice in the eyes of the citizen, and, of course, you have a response in the eyes of the person that is the perpetrator, that they are held accountable.

So I call upon the Attorney General of the United States to defend this Nation: Defend this Nation on the grounds of more women's rights; defend this Nation on a better social voting rights structure that is not being defended; and fight for a young boy that is sitting in a classroom isolated in Texas because he does not have the right hairstyle. He is suffering because the State of Texas is not abiding by the CROWN Act.

I want the Attorney General of the United States to do its job of defending the citizens of this country and to hold those responsible who have done wrong and to be able to protect those who have not done wrong. I will follow up in the days to come.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to be very clear in the hearts and minds of Americans and the hearts and minds of Texans, the hearts and minds of the Democratic Caucus that no one in our Caucus condones the killing of innocent people no matter where we find ourselves.

So I rise today to take great issue with any suggestion that our Democratic Caucus would not fight for those who are the most vulnerable.

I recognize the Maryland delegation and the leader, Mr. Mfume, who comes to the floor to ensure that the voices of Marylanders are heard in helping to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge but also to ensure the representation of the American people that we do not discard our friends.

What we will do is demand that our friends stand up for the vulnerable, that our friends love babies and women and children, and that we make sure that there is not an unequal mistreatment of individuals who are here in this country and who are overseas.

So I must challenge any interpretation of Democrats as being anything but supportive of the President's policies, which are policies that believe in protecting human rights workers, and again, as I started out, by protecting those vulnerable persons in the--how should I say it--in the very vigorous war that is going on and the loss of life that we see.

That is why you hear a difference of opinion in the Democratic Party. That is why you hear from the majority leader of the United States Senate a different voice because that voice has to speak for, again, the most vulnerable.

At the same time, would we not want to have the Nation acknowledge the tragedy that happened in Maryland in the Baltimore Harbor where so many detrimental disasters could be forthcoming because of the terrible tragedy of the bridge coming down, the lack of

money to be able to support a new system of construction, as well to be able to pay for it.

So here is the real story. Tragedy struck the Baltimore Harbor some weeks ago. We saw not only the Maryland delegation come together, but we saw the Nation come together.

The Nation has come together to be able to speak to the pain of the people that are in Maryland, that are in Baltimore, and in particular, in the city of Baltimore. That is what happened.

So I am standing with and supporting Mr. Mfume who comes to represent the Maryland delegation to ensure that those funds are forthcoming and that they are not dismissed. I think it is extremely important that we know to help our various communities that are suffering from hurricanes, suffering from a particular type of disaster that no one had ever heard, which is the disaster of the collision of a cargo carrier, if you will, going into the Francis Scott Key Bridge that many of us remember as the source of the Star Spangled Banner.

So I would not be here if I didn't think the value that I stand for is to stand alongside Mr. Mfume to recognize that we are Americans first and that we are here to help those who are in their time of need who cannot help themselves.

That is why the President immediately went to Maryland in terms of his voice, immediately spoke up on behalf of the people of Maryland and the people of Baltimore and immediately spoke up on behalf of the Maryland Congressional Delegation which Mr. Mfume now will continue to lead. He immediately stood up because he is going to be a man of his word. He stood up because he is a man of his word that he was going to be here to stand with the great people of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to indicate my support for the funding efforts to help the great people of the great State of Maryland. Let's do it together. That is what Americans do. We help each other, and we work together.

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