Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 28) providing for a correction in the enrollment of S. 782, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is game seven of the World Series. Best hitting team in baseball, the Houston Astros Orange, vs. the best pitching team in baseball, the LA Dodgers Blue. The series is tied up three games apiece.

Top of the second inning, Springer is at the plate. It is the third pitch. Springer loads up and belts it. Home run. Springer smacks his fifth round tripper of the World Series. The Astros are up 5-0.

Next inning--next several innings--all the bats are silent, except LA, the best record team in baseball, gets a run.

It is the bottom of the ninth. The Astros take the field. Score: 5-1. One out. Two outs. Houston pitcher Morton sends a sinker straight across the plate. It is a ground ball. Three outs.

It is all over but the shouting. Astros win! Astros win! Astros win! World Series Champions of 2017.

The championship predicted in 2014 by ``Sports Illustrated'' with Springer on the cover finally happens after 55 years.

And the city of Houston goes ASTRO-nomical.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Buck) for yielding and for doing this Special Order.

Most Members of Congress agree, I believe, that the Constitution should be followed. There are certain rights in the Constitution that are very, very important to all of us. One of those is the right of privacy, enumerated specifically in the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment is unique to America. Other countries don't have the Fourth Amendment. We have it in the United States to protect the privacy of Americans.

Let me give you a little history.

As Congressman Buck pointed out, back in 1986, which was an eternity ago when you start talking about the digital age, Congress passed legislation to protect the emails that people had on their server for 6 months. The idea was that people wouldn't keep their emails. They would delete them, and 6 months was a good enough time to protect those emails from the spies in our government--I will use that phrase, that is my phrase--and that is the current law. But here is what has happened over that 30 years.

Many Americans stored their emails after that 6-month period. They store them in the cloud, for example. Americans store their schedules in the cloud. They store photographs in the cloud.

When Americans store those items that are over 6 months old in the cloud, they are not protected against the search by our government of that email, of those photographs, of that schedule. In fact, searches can take place without the knowledge of the person whose email is being searched, without the approval of that individual, and the government never notifies that individual that that email stored in the cloud was searched because, under current law, the American citizen is only protected for emails stored on their server up to 6 months.

So after about 4 years of working on this legislation with my friend Zoe Lofgren from California, bipartisan, we presented to Congress H.R. 387, the Email Privacy Act. As Congressman Buck said, on February 7, to be exact, of this year, that passed by voice vote on this floor, and we sent it down the hallway to the siesta Senate to take a vote over there, and they have yet to vote on it.

So what does that legislation do? It protects the right of privacy of Americans. It requires government to follow the Constitution.

I was a former criminal court judge in Texas for 22 years. Like Mr. Buck, I was also a prosecutor in the DA's office in Houston.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution--remembering that this is unique to America--protects Americans, their persons, their houses, their papers, and their personal effects from the intrusion of government unless government has probable cause and government gets a search warrant. That is the law. That is the Fourth Amendment.

If government has a probable cause, go get a warrant from a judge. I signed hundreds of warrants from law enforcement as a judge.

A simple example: the government can't search our mail, snail mail as it is now called. When you put a letter in the mailbox and the postmaster picks it up and sends it across the fruited plain and it lands in somebody else's mailbox, government cannot generally go into that letter and seize it for any purpose unless they have a warrant to do so.

There are some exceptions, but government can seize your emails after 6 months if they are stored in the cloud, as I already mentioned, without a warrant. So this legislation basically requires government to follow the Constitution.

We have heard about the widespread abuse--that is my opinion--of the NSA over the last several years, the government agencies that felt like they had a blank check to search and seize Americans' information without their knowledge, without their approval, and without a warrant. This legislation goes to prevent that and simply requires that information stored in the cloud--emails, photographs, schedules, or whatever--the government can go get it, but the government has got to get a search warrant to seize that information.

That is what this legislation does. It protects the Fourth Amendment. It protects Americans. It is simple legislation. It passed the House on voice vote, yet the Senate refuses to protect Americans from unlawful searches without the knowledge of Americans. We need to pass the legislation that Zoe Lofgren and I have sponsored that has passed the House to protect that basic right.

Mr. Speaker, I think our Senators would all vote ``yes'' for the legislation. They believe in the Constitution like the rest of us. They believe in the Fourth Amendment like the rest of us.

So let's get a vote. Another piece of legislation the House has passed. We have done our job. We want the Senate to follow up and pass this good legislation to make it the law of the land so Americans are more secure in their papers and their effects and their homes.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, ever since she was a little girl, Silvana loved to play hockey. In her Massachusetts hometown, hockey was more of a way of life than just a sport.

Her parents knew she was talented, and supported her dream to play even in college. When she was offered a scholarship in 2011, to be the goalie for the University of Connecticut, Silvana felt like all of her dreams had come true, so she eagerly accepted.

She pulled out of her driveway with her packed clothes and hockey gear, but she could have never known that in a few days her life would change forever. She could not have foreseen how a lifetime of hard work and ambition would suddenly disappear tragically.

Like all new students, she was eager to immerse herself in her new college life. On the third day at the university, Silvana went to a house party with some new friends she met. But, after two drinks, she began to feel dizzy, numb, and lethargic. She quickly lost the ability to walk, and she became very ill. As she drifted out of consciousness, a male hockey player at the party instructed others to carry her to his bedroom. When she woke up, she found him on top of her, sexually assaulting her.

She immediately turned to the university for help and reported the assault at The Women's Center. But the counselor did not tell her to call the police, advise her to press charges, or help her in any way.

Silvana then went to the on-campus doctor. But instead of treating her like a victim and offering her the care and support she needed, the doctor told her that he didn't want to know who assaulted her. Get this, Mr. Speaker: the doctor told her, the remedy was for her to transfer to another university. This is awful.

One in five women on our university campuses are sexually assaulted. Of those, less than 25 percent even report the rape.

It took an extraordinary amount of courage for Silvana to report that sexual assault, especially to multiple people she didn't even know. She was offered no help or no support by anyone. She was alone, and she felt it.

The doctor wasn't trained to deal with rape victims and made it clear he wanted nothing more to do with Silvana. The university clearly viewed Silvana as a burden, just another statistic they didn't want to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, universities in the United States should be required to have a victim advocate on staff, a sexual assault victim advocate. Also, to ensure that this doesn't happen to more victims at hospitals, I have introduced legislation that would require a hospital to provide access to a staffer--it is called a SAFE, sexual assault forensic examiner--who is trained to provide care and be sensitive to trauma rape victims, or have a plan to get that victim to a nearby hospital that does. Universities and nearby hospitals need to work together to make sure that rape victims are treated appropriately when they are assaulted on campus.

The bill that I just mentioned is named the Megan Rondini Act. It is in honor of a college sexual assault victim on the University of Alabama campus, who was a Texas student, who was denied access to post- rape treatment at a hospital. The university didn't help her, and the local law enforcement didn't help her.

In Megan's case, because she was alone and abandoned by all three of those entities, when she returned to Texas, she later committed suicide.

Anyway, after the rape of Silvana, the university left Silvana to pick up the pieces of her shattered life. She was traumatized and depressed. Claiming that she wasn't stable enough, the hockey coach removed her from the team. She never played a single game of hockey in college. She withdrew from the University of Connecticut shortly thereafter, but her rapist stayed on his hockey team and played for the university. Silvana had to successfully sue the university to get justice. She had to take the matter to court, where society and our justice system should have helped her initially.

Mr. Speaker, rape is never the fault of the victim, yet Silvana felt that she was the one being blamed for what happened to her.

We as a society must demand our universities and hospitals protect and care for sexual assault victims. No longer should they be allowed to suffer alone and be abandoned. No more excuses.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 425) to authorize the revocation or denial of passports to individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attack last night in New York City comes as a devastating reminder that the enemies of liberty will not cease.

Eight people were killed and 11 more were injured in what law enforcement officials are now calling New York's deadliest terror attack since 9/11.

The perpetrator of this attack was radicalized domestically by ISIS, highlighting the grave threat posed by this terrorist propaganda.

Mr. Speaker, the terrorist last night was an immigrant from Uzbekistan, but we know that even within our midst, there are Americans who sympathize with those who seek to destroy our freedom.

As many as 250 American citizens have sought to travel to Syria, and more than 100 have joined ISIS' ranks. Many of these individuals have received terrorist training while overseas. Some are under the command and control of terrorist leaders who have instructed them to attack the United States whenever. Others are inspired by the perverted ideology of hate that the terrorists post on social media sites. Many of these are American social media sites.

These American citizens are a direct threat to our homeland. Unfortunately, our current safeguards are insufficient to protect us against such vulnerability.

In 2014, a 22-year-old Florida native became the first American to carry out a suicide bombing in Syria. He had battled hard and been trained by al-Qaida's Syrian affiliate for some time. This same American was waved through U.S. border inspections when he traveled home to Florida a year earlier.

After spending some time in Florida, the man made his way back to Syria to kill in the name of al-Qaida. When he ultimately blew himself up in May of 2014, al-Qaida released a video of his last will and testament. He said: ``You think you are safe where you are in America. You are not safe.''

Mr. Speaker, today we are at a dangerous crossroad. As ISIS loses more territory in its so-called caliphate and it collapses, the threat to our homeland will really grow. Americans who have been fighting with ISIS will be looking for ways to come home to stage deadly attacks.

In recent weeks, a man from Alexandria, Virginia, was convicted on terrorism charges for joining ISIS. He was sentenced to 20 years in the penitentiary. This terrorist traitor to our Nation named four other Westerners who had joined ISIS and who left Syria with intentions to do harm in their home countries.

Law enforcement officials and terrorism experts have been warning of this foreign fighter threat for years. This is a serious threat, and we must address it before it becomes worse.

Having betrayed our Nation, we must revoke the privileges that come with an American passport. That is why my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), and I introduced H.R. 425, the Foreign Terrorist Organization Passport Revocation Act. It authorizes the Secretary of State to revoke passports of those who have joined foreign terrorist organizations.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, this is a legal term, what a foreign terrorist organization is. It is only those organizations.

These individuals are U.S. citizens, but they betray our country. They should clearly not be allowed the privilege of international travel with an American passport, and they should definitely not be able to come back into the United States when they travel overseas, such as in Syria. This bipartisan bill will also stop these Benedict Arnolds from using their passports to travel to other war zones or cross borders to attack any of our allies.

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing in current regulations specifically to support foreign terrorist organizations. The Secretary of State does not have the authority to revoke passports on a broad national security basis.

It is time our laws change and catch up with the modern world and the new and real threats to our Nation. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. This bill would not strip American of their citizenship. It would deny those Americans who have sided with foreign terrorist organizations the privilege of travel internationally.

The bill also would not impinge on any American's due process rights if they want to appeal the revocation of their passport. Anyone whose passport is revoked or denied is eligible for a due process hearing within 60 days. The bill would actually increase oversight on this process by requiring the State Department to report directly to Congress whenever the Secretary moves to revoke or deny an American's passport on these grounds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) for working with me on this bill. We both sit on the Committee on Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade as the chair and ranking member. We have both been working on this issue of foreign fighter threats for some time, and we believe this is a good first step to protect our homeland.

I also want to thank Chairman Royce for his help in getting this important bill passed in the committee, and also Ranking Member Engel from New York, where this unfortunate tragic event occurred last night.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this: the traitors among us who have chosen to

make their allegiance to a murderous ideology instead of the country that gave them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must face the consequences. If you take up arms with our enemies, you deserve to be treated like one.

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

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

I want to emphasize again our prayers for the folks in New York City and for the appreciation of our first responders, who are always there, as you personally know, Mr. Speaker. And the New York tragedy is an example of how they respond and chase and go after terrorists rather than run from terror.

One other thing I want to mention is the Foreign Affairs Committee, we work primarily bipartisan, Mr. Speaker. That shocks a lot of folks here in Washington, D.C., and it sure shocks a lot of folks back home. But most of the

things that come before the House floor have been bipartisan pieces of legislation.

We spend a lot of time on legislation and almost always come to the House floor with unanimous votes, or mostly unanimous votes, on the committee level. We work very well on these issues because these are not partisan issues; these are American issues that we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, there are about 61 designated foreign terrorist organizations that our State Department has said are foreign terrorist organizations and, to prevent individuals in America who side with these organizations, who support these organizations, who are part of these organizations from traveling around the world and coming back home, based upon their activities, this legislation by Mr. Keating is introduced. Keep them from traveling, because we know who those people are, and keep them, especially, from coming back to the United States.

So what would happen if a passport is revoked and some American is in Syria and is radicalized and he tries to get on a plane? Well, he is not allowed to get on the plane. He is stopped, and then he is turned over, eventually, to Department of Homeland Security and our Justice Department and handled that way.

Now, there are only a few places under our law where a person's passport can be revoked. Not paying your child support, drug trafficking, sex tourism--those are three of the examples. So we are not talking about a lot of examples, but we are talking about this example.

I am a former judge, and I know Mr. Keating is a former prosecutor. Due process for Americans is always important. The Supreme Court has already ruled on whether or not passports can be revoked under certain circumstances, and they have affirmed the authority of the State Department to revoke passports in specific cases based upon national security reasons.

This bill allows for due process of those people who have their passports revoked. This is a good step in protecting the United States. This is bipartisan legislation. I think it is very important that we take this step.

Once again, my prayers, our prayers, are for those folks in New York. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to allow terrorists to have their day. We are not going to allow them to have their way.

And that is just the way it is.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Sergio Jose Martinez was trolling a parking garage in sanctuary city Portland, Oregon, armed with a knife. He set his sights on his prey, a defenseless 65-year-old woman, and he attacked her.

But the woman fought back and pressed the panic button in her car. Martinez, the coward, fled the scene, but he was caught. Get this, Mr. Speaker: Martinez, after serving several stints in U.S. penitentiaries, has been deported over 20 times. But the criminal does his time, gets deported, and just comes back into the United States.

Our border protectors do the best they can, but they are outmanned, outgunned, and outfinanced by the drug cartels, criminal gangs, and outlaws trying to enter the United States.

The Border Security for America Act authorizes a border wall, both physical and virtual, puts more boots on the ground, more boats in the water, and gives more equipment to our law enforcement.

We must keep criminals like Martinez out of the United States.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, governments, militaries, and civilizations sometimes ignore history to justify their actions against individuals.

A bit of history is important here. When the British controlled the Colonies, they heavily taxed the Colonies. Citizens had to pay a tax on goods they brought in to the Colonies. The Colonies had no say on the imposition of those taxes. That is another issue.

The King issued writs of assistance. What that was was a piece of paper allowing the British military to go into businesses and homes, unreasonably, to search to see if the Colonies were paying the tax on imported goods. For example, John Hancock was a merchant. They would search his business to see if he had a tax stamp on the rum he brought the Colonies.

The right of privacy and the right to say something about your taxes were two reasons for the American Revolution that came about. The right of privacy is a natural right, as Thomas Jefferson said, one of the rights given to us by our Creator.

So, our ancestors wrote the Fourth Amendment, unique to the United States, and here is what it says:

``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation''--that means the officer has to swear to it--``and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized''--Fourth Amendment.

So what does that have to do with us today? I will explain.

Congress has passed the FISA legislation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows government to go after terrorists and people who are working as an agent of a foreign government and search their information. They go to a secret court and get a secret warrant-- it is called a FISA warrant--from a FISA judge to allow that search of all that information. Separate the bad guys from Americans who they may be communicating with unrelated to terrorism. They may be cousins talking about whatever. But government, our government, NSA, seizes that information on Americans--emails, conversations, text messages-- seizes all that information and keeps it forever.

And here is what happens in the violation of Americans' right of privacy: Government then can go back into that information, unrelated to terrorism, to search to see if those people are paying their taxes. Maybe somebody didn't pay their taxes on importation of Irish whiskey. So the government, IRS, files a criminal case against that American citizen.

Remember, all of that information was based upon no probable cause warrant issued by a real judge.

We are getting ready to reauthorize, maybe, FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Before we do that, we need to protect Americans' right of privacy. It is in a section called 702. It really gets down in the weeds. 702 has been abused by government to seize American information and then keep it forever. Government then peruses that, based upon their high-tech guys in the NSA, to see if crimes were committed or not. They have no warrant, no probable cause, nobody sworn to the warrant.

I used to be a judge. I signed lots of probable cause warrants. But here it is just seized because government says: Well, we have got it because we were looking for a terrorist and it is an incidental search, and we want to keep it.

That is a violation of the Constitution. We should make sure Americans' right of privacy is protected before we reauthorize FISA.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this article, ``Secret Court Rebukes NSA for 5-Year Illegal Surveillance of U.S. Citizens,'' to illustrate.

Secret Court Rebukes NSA for 5-Year Illegal Surveillance of U.S.

Citizens

(By Tim Johnson)

Washington.--U.S. intelligence agencies conducted illegal

surveillance on American citizens over a five-year period, a

practice that earned them a sharp rebuke from a secret court

that called the matter a ``very serious'' constitutional

issue.

The criticism is in a lengthy secret ruling that lays bare

some of the frictions between the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court and U.S. intelligence agencies obligated

to obtain the court's approval for surveillance activities.

The ruling, dated April 26 and bearing the label ``top

secret,'' was obtained and published Thursday by the news

site Circa.

It is rare that such rulings see the light of day, and the

lengthy unraveling of issues in the 99-page document opens a

window on how the secret federal court oversees surveillance

activities and seeks to curtail those that it deems overstep

legal authority.

The document, signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, said the

court had learned in a notice filed Oct. 26, 2016, that

National Security Agency analysts had been conducting

prohibited queries of databases ``with much greater frequency

than had previously been disclosed to the court.''

It said a judge chastised the NSA's inspector general and

Office of Compliance for Operations for an ``institutional

`lack of candor' '' for failing to inform the court. It

described the matter as ``a very serious Fourth Amendment

issue.''

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable

searches and seizures by the government, and is a

constitutional bedrock protection against intrusion.

Parts of the ruling were redacted, including sections that

give an indication of the extent of the illegal surveillance,

which the NSA told the court in a Jan. 3 notice was partly

the fault of ``human error'' and ``system design issues''

rather than intentional illegal searches.

The NSA inspector general's office tallied up the number of

prohibited searches conducted in a three-month period in

2015, but the number of analysts who made the searches and

the number of queries were blacked out in the ruling.

The NSA gathers communications in ways known as

``upstream'' and ``downstream'' collection. Upstream

collection occurs when data are captured as they move through

massive data highways--the internet backbone--within the

United States. Downstream collection occurs as data move

outside the country along fiber optic cables and satellite

links.

Data captured from both upstream and downstream sources are

stored in massive databases, available to be searched when

analysts need to, often months or as much as two years after

the captures took place.

The prohibited searches the court mentioned involved NSA

queries into the upstream databanks, which constitute a

fraction of all the data NSA captures around the globe but

are more likely to contain the emails and phone calls of

people in the United States.

Federal law empowers the NSA and CIA to battle foreign

terrorist actions against the United States by collecting the

electronic communications of targets believed to be outside

the country. While communications of U.S. citizens or

residents may get hoovered up in such sweeps, they are

considered ``incidental'' and must be ``minimized''--removing

the identities of Americans--before broader distribution.

The court filing noted an NSA decision March 30 to narrow

collection of ``upstream'' data within the United States.

Under that decision, the NSA acknowledged that it had erred

in sweeping up the communications of U.S. citizens or

residents but said those errors ``were not willful.'' Even

so, the NSA said it would no longer collect certain kinds of

data known as ``about'' communications, in which a U.S.

citizen was merely mentioned.

The NSA announced that change publicly on April 28, two

days after the court ruling, saying the agency would limit

its sweeps to communications either directly to or from a

foreign intelligence target. That change would reduce ``the

likelihood that NSA will acquire communications of U.S.

persons or others who are not in direct contact with one of

the agency's foreign intelligence targets.''

The court document also criticized the FBI's distribution

of intelligence data, saying it had disclosed raw

surveillance data to sectors of its bureaucracy ``largely

staffed by private contractors.''

The ``contractors had access to raw FISA information that

went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's

requests,'' it said, adding that the bureau discontinued the

practice on April 18, 2016.

Mr. Speaker, we must remember history. We must not abuse the Fourth Amendment. It is Congress' responsibility to protect the natural right of citizens' right of privacy. Get a warrant or don't make the search.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Suzanne thought that Jason was the perfect boyfriend. He was protective, loving, and attentive. But after he moved in with Suzanne, she noticed his darker side. He became obsessive, jealous, and enraged. He began shoving and striking her. Once, he pushed her so hard her head smashed against the wall.

Fed up with his excuses, she made him leave, but her safety was short lived. One night as Suzanne returned home with friends, Jason ambushed her and forced her into the house at knifepoint. Horrified, her friends ran into the street to flag down the police.

Despite Suzanne's pleas, Jason stomped on her face and neck until she was unconscious. Then she later woke up to find him pouring boiling water over her body. About that time, the police broke in and saved her life.

Mr. Speaker, this month is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Domestic violence is a health issue, and it is also a criminal matter. As my grandmother used to say: ``You never hurt somebody you claim you love.''

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, when Derrick Harper stood in front of a Pittsburgh judge a few months ago, it was clear the defendant was a special kind of evil person.

For years, Harper and his crew of deviants ran the city's most brutal and ruthless sex trafficking ring. The traffickers lined their pockets by forcing young women to have sex with countless men every day. Any woman who attempted to escape their custody was tortured and gang raped.

To degrade and dehumanize them, Harper shaved the women's heads with butcher knives and branded them with hot irons.

Harper was the ring leader of this massive trafficking organization, but it wasn't until four of his young victims bravely escaped and testified against him that justice was served.

His attempts to rob these women of their dignity had failed, and his reign of terror was finally over. Seeing the true depravity, the judge sentenced the defendant to 289 years in the penitentiary.

As a former judge, I applaud this judge. Criminals need to be locked up, not victims. America must track down and prosecute these slave traders and rescue the victims from this scourge.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Iran continues to be one of the two greatest threats to the United States' national security and to global security. The other, of course, is North Korea.

It has become very clear that the Iranian deal has not moderated the regime. Regardless of where people are on whether we should have signed it or not signed it, it hasn't stopped the aggressive activity and belief of the regime.

I believe that they are still developing or trying to develop nuclear weapons. No one denies that Iran is actively working toward developing a delivery capability for a nuclear payload. Iran's ballistic missile program is going to be and already is a menace not only to the United States, but to Europe and other parts of the world.

Iran is working with North Korea to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching our shores. These two nations engage in their activity and belief in hate--hate--of freedom to destroy the United States and our some of our allies. We should understand that this is a reality and the threat is now. We should deal with both of those countries accordingly, not in 10 years.

This legislation, Mr. Royce's Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act, is very crucial.

We must hold the Ayatollah accountable for threatening the global security and our security.

We must hold the Ayatollah and the IRGC and Hezbollah accountable for the people that have been murdered throughout the world because of their response to hate, their hating of all peoples who don't agree with them.

We must target the entire global supply chain of Iran's ballistic missile program. I believe the Ayatollah, Mr. Speaker, when he tells us, on a periodic basis, ``Death to America.'' I believe him when he says that. That is their foreign policy to the United States: ``Death to America.'' Americans should believe this.

Mr. Speaker, we must make sure that he does not have the capability to achieve a delivery system of his nuclear weapons, and I urge voting in favor of H.R. 1698.

Mr. Speaker, I also do want to mention another bill that I think is important that we pass today, Mr. Deutch's H.R. 359.

In 2013, the European Union finally came around to designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but for reasons that make absolutely no sense to me, the Europeans only designated Hezbollah's military wing, not the political wing. By distinguishing between a terrorist group's so-called military and political wings, it seems like we have legitimized this group's deadly behavior.

Mr. Speaker, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and wherever you look in the Middle East and you find trouble, you will find the IRGC and Hezbollah working together. These two agencies from Iran are the gestapo actors for the Iranian Ayatollah, and it is time that we hold them accountable for what they are doing. We must pass these pieces of legislation, and this will go a long way in doing that.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the saber-rattling rogue regime of North Korea should be back on the state sponsors of terrorism list, and here is why:

This year, the North Korean regime kidnapped, tortured, and killed American citizen Otto Warmbier.

In 2014, North Korea launched a cyber terrorist attack against Sony Pictures. A U.S. court also found, in 2014, that North Korea materially supported terrorist attacks by Hezbollah in Israel.

In 2010, another court found that North Korea provided support for the terrorist organization the Japanese Red Army for their 1972 attack at an Israeli airport.

In 2009 alone, there were three weapons shipments from North Korea to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

U.S. officials have said North Korea aided Assad the Butcher by setting up a nuclear reactor that was destroyed by Israel in 2007.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism, so let's let them officially wear the title along with their buddy, Iran.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Officer Floyd East, Jr., of the Texas Tech Police Department recently responded to a routine student welfare check at the dormitory. Callers reported a 19-year-old individual named Hollis Daniels, who was acting erratically and potentially had a weapon.

So Officer East went to Daniel's dorm room, and he discovered drugs and drug paraphernalia. Hollis, the defendant, was arrested and taken to the station for a standard debriefing.

But that is when the intake procedure at the police station went haywire. The defendant was not adequately searched before booking. Suddenly, the dastardly criminal whipped out a gun and fired pointblank into 48-year-old Officer East's head, instantly killing him. This is a photograph of Officer East. Yet another peace officer, another guardian of the thin blue line, murdered for no reason.

The suspect then fled, going on the lam, taking Officer East's body cam with him. The university went on lockdown, anxiously waiting for the killer to be found. Sure enough, thanks to the quick actions of the Texas Tech police force, the outlaw was located on campus and apprehended again.

Officer East was an El Paso, Texas, native. He is survived by his wife, Carmen, and two daughters, Anna and Monica. The funeral was a solemn remembrance wrapped up with the release of over 1,000 black and blue balloons, which flooded the west Texas blue sky, all in Officer East's memory.

Peace officers from all over Texas, and even other States, showed up for the funeral. As the body passed the Army National Guard Armory, officers and military stood at attention and saluted Officer East's body.

Officer Floyd East began his career with the Texas Tech Police Department on December 1, 2014. He started as a security guard at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in El Paso, Texas.

While working as a security guard, he went on to school at El Paso Community College Law Enforcement Academy to obtain his basic peace officer license to be a peace officer in the State of Texas.

Court documents show that the defendant, when he was arrested, concealed a weapon in his pants; and when Officer East's back was turned, the coward drew the weapon and murdered Officer East. The weapon that he had was stolen.

The defendant is charged with capital murder, and a $5 million bond is set. May Texas justice occur.

Mr. Speaker, our men and women in blue voluntarily do everything they can to help protect and serve our communities, especially at our colleges and universities. For these remarkable men and women, their safety, like all peace officers, is never guaranteed. While the badge and the uniform represent safety for citizens, for some reason, in our society it becomes a target for other people, like this defendant.

Officer East worked with university students, helping protect young Texans eager to learn on their university campus. He was senselessly killed. There is never an answer for murder, except to hold the person who did the murder accountable.

The defendant's friends quickly jumped to the defendant's defense online, claiming Daniels was not a monster. Mr. Speaker, college students do make mistakes. A mistake is like missing class and sleeping in. Mistakes are not murdering people.

The defendant is totally responsible for his own actions. He can't blame the drugs, he can't blame the fact that he was young, or he can't blame the fact that he was not thinking right.

Mr. Speaker, I was a judge in Texas for 22 years and heard cases like the murder of Officer East. People are responsible for what they do. In our society, we cannot have this feeling that people are not responsible and that something else calls them to do things. People are totally responsible for the choices that they make.

I have heard all of the excuses. I have heard: ``Oh, I was too young.'' ``Oh, I was too old.'' ``I was on drugs.'' ``I was affluent.'' ``I wasn't affluent.'' I have heard all of the excuses.

There is no excuse. People, like this defendant, are responsible for their actions.

Officers like East are a cut above the rest of us, and they protect us from harm's way and they protect us from evildoers. He is of a rare breed, he is the Texas breed of law officers that sacrifice for the rest of us.

Taps have been played for Officer East. He has been laid to rest. We pray for his family, friends, and those officers in west Texas and Texas Tech University.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Chairman Goodlatte for bringing forth this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I am a lawyer, like many of our members on the Judiciary Committee. I served as a prosecutor and as a judge, and we have a lot of those legal beagles on our Judiciary Committee.

Although I worked primarily in State court as a judge and a prosecutor, I have always had great respect for those people in the Justice Department who work on behalf of the people of the United States in Federal court. However, over the last few years, my opinion of the Justice Department has changed, and it has changed not for the better.

It has changed because I see that the Justice Department is acting as a political entity. I didn't say partisan entity. I said as a political entity, making decisions that appear to be based on politics rather than the law and policy.

This legislation does one thing: it tries to elevate the Justice Department back to a nonpolitical entity, which it has, unfortunately, in my opinion, become a political entity. It is unfortunate that it has become that. Some of the things that the Justice Department has done, and this legislation I think would prevent, would be to make sure that the Justice Department does not become a political entity in determining settlements of lawsuits that the Justice Department files on behalf of the American public.

So what happens is that these lawsuits are settled, and then the Justice Department tells the defendant: We the people are suing. You contribute to this entity and this will all go away. This case will be settled. There won't have to be a trial.

So that is what has been happening over the last few years.

In 2012, the Department of Justice forced Gibson Guitars to pay a $50,000 ``community service payment'' to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, even though the Foundation was not a victim of the crime that Gibson Guitars was involved in. It had no connection to that case.

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation received a bigger windfall again in 2012, when the government required British Petroleum--we all remember the BP spill--to donate $2.5 billion to the Foundation over a 5-year period in connection with the criminal investigation of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Discretion on the part of the Department of Justice on where the money goes smells, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't pass the smell test.

In 2006, the Department of Justice forced a wastewater plant that had been accused of violating the Clean Water Act to give $1 million to the United States Coast Guard Alumni Association. Now, I love the Coast Guard. We probably all love the Coast Guard. But government shouldn't be making a decision to give taxpayer money, or money, to any association. It is political decisions that the Justice Department has been making.

The wastewater treatment firm was also forced to pay another $1 million to the Greater New Haven Water Pollution Control Authority in Connecticut to fund unspecified environmental improvement projects.

A recent attack on the DOJ bank settlement with Goldman Sachs required a $250 million fee to be assessed, financing donations toward affordable housing. This is a political decision by the Justice Department. And there are many other examples that we will put into the Record. This should not be a Department of Justice decision on a settlement. If they sue somebody and

they settle the case, the money should go to the victims of that lawsuit. It should not go to the Department of Justice's discretion to pick political entities.

Remember, I didn't say partisan. I just said political entities. Go to the victim. Go to the Victims of Crime Act. Go to where crime victims get funds. Go back to the U.S. Treasury, but the money should not be discretionary with the Justice Department.

But let's take the politics, the decisionmaking, and the credibility--or lack of credibility--of the Justice Department in settling cases on behalf of the United States people, and take it away from the Justice Department and put it where it is supposed to go: to the victims of that lawsuit.

That is where it should go. And if it doesn't go there, then it should go to the Victims of Crime Act, a Federal Government entity where funds for criminal violations go into a fund. Or it should go to the United States Treasury.

Remove the politics no matter who the President is. Remove the politics of the Justice Department so they can regain credibility with the American people for being involved in justice, not politics.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Harvey ravaged the coast of Texas, hammering it with 50 inches of rain, massive flooding, and massive damage.

After the rain stopped, the decision to release water from Addicks and Barker Reservoirs and Lake Conroe have left many questions in the Houston area. The release of this water caused even more flooding downstream.

Why did the Corps of Engineers open Barker and Addicks Reservoirs for 15 days? Why weren't the communities of Humble and Kingwood given proper notice of the historic release of floodwater from Lake Conroe by the San Jacinto River Authority? And there are more questions.

I have introduced the Texas Flood Accountability Act. This legislation requires the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate the cause of the floods and what can be done for long-term plans to prevent flooding in the future. They must produce this plan within 90 days after enactment.

We must move from paying for disasters to preventing them. We need a plan, Mr. Speaker.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Angie described Amherst College as her dream school. A vibrant American teenager, she couldn't wait to start her new life at the perfect college.

Like all universities, Amherst painted itself in a positive light. It had a good reputation. But Angie had no way of knowing the dark reality hiding behind that facade.

Her initial memories of her freshman year play along a familiar and happy college narrative. Her life was full of new friends, new experiences, and new challenges. But on May 25, everything changed. That happy narrative came to a screeching halt.

An acquaintance of hers invited her over to watch a movie in his campus dorm room. Tired from a long day of classes, Angie finally drifted off to sleep. The next thing she knew, she woke up to find this individual on top of her sexually assaulting her.

The morning after the attack, Angie felt that she was in a daze, and she acted like she was in a daze. The illusion of college life filled with smiling faces and good times had been shattered.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Department of Justice, one in five women are sexually assaulted during college in the United States--one in five. Of those, less than 25 percent report the sexual assault.

So Angie, fearing that she would be ignored, doubted, and dismissed, carried on in hopeless silence. In the 4 months following her rape, she fell deeper and deeper into depression.

Finally, when the burden became too heavy to bear, she summoned all her remaining strength and courage and went to the campus counselor. But she was shocked at the counselor's response.

The counseling center didn't believe she was sexually assaulted. The counseling center said that she should forgive the rapist. They told her there is nothing they could do or would do. There was no point in pressing charges; her rapist was close to graduating anyway.

But she could not forget what had happened to her. She couldn't deal with the sexual assault. Mr. Speaker, a rape victim cannot just forget what has happened to them.

Mr. Speaker, I was a judge for 22 years and a prosecutor for 8 in Texas. I saw a lot of sexual assault victims, a lot of them. They deal with what happened to them every day, and they feel like the rapist tried to steal the soul of the victim.

A rape victim once told me: ``Judge, rape is a fate worse than death.'' And to a lot of victims, that is exactly the way they feel. It is worse than being murdered.

These sexual assault victims need support, understanding, and care to become survivors. They first need somebody who will listen to them.

Amherst utterly failed Angie, and that failure pushed her deeper and deeper into despair. When she voiced that she had been having suicidal thoughts, university police forcibly escorted her to the emergency room and left her there.

The doctor who examined her had no training on how to deal with traumatized rape victims. Utterly lacking in any kind of compassion for what had happened to her, the doctor told her that she was being irrational and that her story just didn't make any sense to the doctor. He didn't believe a school like Amherst would allow her to be raped, and he thought she just must be crazy. He ordered that she be admitted into a psychiatric ward and washed his hands of the entire situation.

For 5 days, Mr. Speaker, Angie sat shaking in a sterile room behind locked doors. She becomes the prisoner for the sexual assault that happened to her.

A victim's pain and suffering should never be increased because the hospital doesn't have staff trained to provide victim services for sexual assault victims. So to ensure this doesn't happen to more victims like Angie, I have introduced legislation, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), my good friend, that would require a hospital to provide access to a staffer who is properly trained to provide care sensitive to the

trauma victim and is concerned about what they have experienced, or have a plan in place to get the victim to a nearby hospital that does. This is called a SAFE.

The law should be changed to require a hospital to have a SAFE or a SANE--that is a sexual assault forensic examiner or a sexual assault nurse examiner--on staff or have one at a nearby hospital.

This bill is named for Megan Rondini. Megan Rondini is another victim of sexual assault on campus. She was from Texas and went to the University of Alabama, and she was denied proper post-sexual assault treatment at a hospital. This will ensure victims get the care that they need. Megan couldn't deal with what happened to her, and she finally committed suicide.

Mr. Speaker, we need to, as a body, be concerned about sexual assault victims and provide this basic legislation so universities are trained or have somebody on staff nearby who can deal with sexual assault victims. That is the least we can do for people like Angie and Megan Rondini.

And that is just the way it is.