Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, my amendment is similar to an amendment of mine that passed the House 243-180 in the FY2017 NDAA. This amendment mirrors language that I have introduced called the SEND Act.

While the Department of Homeland Security--not the Department of Defense--is tasked with maintaining the safety of our southern border, it has long received help and assistance from the DOD and our military.

One of the ways the DOD helps the border patrol is through the transfer of equipment it deems ``excess'' to its needs.

Under current law, the transfer of this ``excess'' equipment already gives preference to counterdrug, counterterrorism, and border security activities.

My amendment simply takes that preference a step further, giving border security preference for a few specific pieces of equipment which are particularly useful for border security applications: unmanned surveillance vehicles including Aerostat blimps, night-vision goggles, and Humvees.

The border patrol is the first and last line of defense against those criminal gangs.

In my home state of Texas, and in other border states like New Mexico and Arizona, the war against the cartels is an ongoing affair. Cartels are involved in labor and sex slavery.

Just last week in Southern Texas, border patrol agents raided a home to find 37 illegal immigrants, including three children.

These men, women and children were being held by cartel drug runners for ransom.

I've been to the border countless times, Mr. Chair.

I've spoken with the men and women who have sworn to protect the good folks of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico from the dangerous people who cross the southern border.

A Texas Ranger told me that they are outmanned, outgunned, out- financed and out-equipped by the drug cartels.

I've heard firsthand the need these men and women have for new equipment, specifically the equipment I just listed.

In fact when I recently visited the border in April, I met with the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande sector and they informed me that in areas where they were using Aerostat surveillance blimps, crossings were way down.

When asked what we could do to help the sector, the answer was clear: More Aerostat blimps.

Well, that is what we are trying to do here with this amendment, Mr. Chair.

This idea isn't new. In 2010, with our help, the excess equipment program sent 6 excess military Humvees to Texas Border Sheriffs. Often, before this transfer, the border sheriffs were forced to chase the drug cartels in Crown Victorias.

This amendment mandates that DOD give border security applicants an additional preference for the equipment listed in this amendment.

I've heard from our agents down on the border and this is the equipment they need.

Let's put this ``excess'' equipment to use on the southern border in the war against the drug cartels and help bring security, peace of mind, and more safety to those Americans living in the area.

Mr. Speaker, Peace Officers Miguel Moreno and Julio Cavazos of the San Antonio Police Department were responding to a routine call when they were approached by two individuals. Suddenly, one dastardly criminal pulled out a firearm and began shooting at both officers.

As the shots rang out, both officers were hit. 32-year-old Officer Moreno took a bullet to the chest, collapsing to the ground. Officer Cavazos ran to his fellow officer, Moreno, pulling him out of the line of fire despite being shot himself. He fired back at the outlaw, hitting the mark; and, in my opinion, justice was then served.

Despite Cavazos' quick actions, 32-year-old Officer Moreno succumbed to his injuries. Another life needlessly stolen from the thin blue line.

Miguel Moreno was a 9-year veteran of the force. He woke up each morning ready to serve and protect his community. His life was stolen by an evil villain with no socially redeeming value.

Moreno stood for everything that is good in America. As we mourn his loss, we should thank the good Lord that such people as he ever lived. He was part of the rare breed, the American breed. Our peace officers are the best we have. America needs to stand with peace officers. We should stand with the thin blue line--the line that separates the lawful from the lawless.

God bless Officer Moreno and his family.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, as fireworks boomed in the sky above the Bronx, 48-year-old law officer Miosotis Familia sat in a mobile command unit. She was a good officer.

Known for her no-nonsense approach to law enforcement, she was friendly with the neighborhood, spoke Spanish, and was always quick with a smile and a wave. But suddenly, an evil outlaw appeared at her window and, with a heart fatally bent on mischief, pointed a .38- caliber revolver through the window and pulled the trigger, cold- bloodedly murdering Officer Familia.

She wore the uniform with the badge, the shield over her heart.

Officer Familia was one of 10 siblings from an immigrant family from the Dominican Republic, and she had three children of her own.

Our men and women in blue are being targeted, gunned down for simply wearing the uniform, gunned down by the scourge that prey on the police.

Congress should take action and protect those who serve our Nation every day, all day, on the streets of America. Senator Cornyn and I have introduced the Back the Blue Act of 2017, which increases the penalties for the soulless criminals who intentionally target the law enforcement community.

Peace officers are the last strand of wire in the fence between the law and the lawless, between good and evil.

Taps has been played for the end of watch for Officer Familia. Her life may

be gone, but her service and sacrifice are a reminder of those who give their lives to the thin blue line.

So back the blue, Mr. Speaker, back the blue.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, over more than 70 years we have developed a strong strategic partnership with India. We have a lot in common when it comes to national security and counterterrorism.

But our partnership doesn't end there. Our trade relations have grown increasingly stronger over the years. In 2016, our trade with India totaled nearly $115 billion, making India our largest goods trading partner.

Over the past year, we've also been exporting more and more LNG to India. 65 percent of Indians are under 35 and the U.S. has more natural gas than we can use. Trade in energy with India just makes sense. It helps both of us and deepens our bilateral ties.

Earlier this month, Secretary Perry approved an LNG export application that will send 1.8 billion cubic feet per day to India: Mr. Speaker, the world's largest democracy and the oldest democracy are natural partners.

Our shared values and interests ensure that our strategic partnership of over 70 years will endure.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate South Korean President Moon Jae-in on his recent election. He will be visiting the U.S. this week and I'd like to be among the first to extend a hand of welcome.

South Korea is one of the United States' most critical allies. Not only do our two nations share a thriving economic partnership, but we cooperate closely on some of the most important security threats facing our world.

South Korea's neighbor to the North is one of these threats. Little Kim is no friend to the United states and he is no friend to the Republic of Korea.

I look forward to seeing how President Moon and the Trump Administration use this opportunity to deepen our friendship and further our economic and security cooperation. The U.S.-ROK alliance was forged in blood and continues under our shared commitment to democratic principles.

Working together, we can combat the forces of evil in this world.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot. We hear every day about healthcare.

This is a healthcare bill. It is for the health of Americans, the physical health of people, so that they have the right to good health, health that is sometimes prevented by those people who are foreign nationals that commit crimes in the U.S., go to prison, get deported, go back, come back to the U.S., and commit another crime. It is a healthcare bill. And I would hope that our friends on the other side would vote for at least one healthcare bill this year, and this is that bill.

The idea that a person could commit a crime in this country, get deported, come back, commit more crimes back and forth across the border, as we have heard, and continue to do it with lawlessness and arrogance is nonsense because the law is not enforced.

Our cities talk about the immigrant communities that live there. I live in Houston, Texas. This bill helps protect the immigrant population. We have got MS-13 gangs, criminal gangs, who come to the U.S. They set up shop in our immigrant communities, they terrorize those communities, and they do it with lawlessness because they believe, if they ever get caught, they will eventually be able to come back into the United States and continue their wicked ways.

This bill helps prevent that. If cities do not want to protect their immigrant communities, and law enforcement does not want to help enforce the law, then those communities shouldn't get Federal funds for law enforcement. That is what these two bills do.

So I would hope Members of Congress would understand the importance that this bill deals with criminal aliens that run through the United States committing crimes, get deported, and continue to come back. This legislation helps us, all together, to protect the American health of everybody--those people who live in big cities and those people who live in small cities. It is a bill that protects the people who live in the United States and makes them healthier because we make sure that those people, who want us to be unhealthy by their criminal violent acts, are not in the United States.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, July 4, 1776, Philadelphia, 56 misfits, rebels, and freedom fighters all filled a small room with the intent to form a new nation. They pledged their lives, their honor, and their futures on one simple idea: that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As these ideas were put forth on paper, it was clear to the Founders that governments are instituted among men to preserve those rights. In that hot room, these 56 men put together the first foundation of our government, declaring independence from King George III.

From July 4, 1776, forward, the term ``independence'' has defined America. After 7 long, grueling years of war, America gained that independence.

So Tuesday, as Americans across the Nation watch parades packed with patriotic red, white, and blue and families gather for picnics, hot dogs, barbecue, and fireworks, all small towns and big towns throughout the country will remember and pay tribute to our Founders who instilled those three principles in our government: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Stars and Stripes are forever. Happy birthday, America. Happy Fourth of July.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk about persecution, worldwide, of people of the Christian faith. We don't hear much about Christian persecution through world media, and I think it is important that Americans understand that persecution of minority religious groups throughout the world continues, and especially continues against Christians.

Each month, Mr. Speaker, 332 Christians are killed, 214 churches are destroyed, and 772 forms of violence are committed against Christians. Once again, every month, 332 Christians are killed, 214 churches are destroyed, and 772 forms of violence are committed against individuals of the Christian faith.

In 2013, Christians faced persecution in 102 out of 190 countries. For the second year in a row, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the entire world.

In 2016, 90,000 Christians were killed for their faith worldwide. In 2016, roughly 600 million people were prevented from practicing their faith through intimidation, forced conversions, bodily harm, or even death. Many Christians are brutally murdered simply for their belief in Jesus.

Oppression is not limited to Christians worldwide. Religious minorities throughout the world are restricted in their practices or persecuted for their beliefs. Eighty-two countries, worldwide, require people in minority religious groups in that country to register with the government, while 99 countries restrict their practicing of religion.

Here are the top 10 Christian persecution countries in the world.

It is no surprise that North Korea is number one on the hit list that wants to punish and persecute Christians. Little Kim takes delight in torturing people, especially people of religious beliefs, including Christians. Christians are often sent to prison camps for just owning a Bible. Those Bibles are smuggled in through other countries, but generally they come from South Korea.

Approximately 80,000 to 120,000 are imprisoned in labor camps for their religious beliefs. That is 80,000 to 120,000 people are in prison camps, labor camps, because of their religion in little Kim's dictatorship of North Korea.

So, number one is North Korea. I will give you the other nine, Mr. Speaker.

Somalia is number two; number three is Afghanistan; Pakistan is number four; Sudan is number five. Of the 10 worst countries for Christian persecution, number six, no surprise, is Syria. Iraq is number seven; Iran is number eight; Yemen is number nine; and Eritrea is number 10 of the top 10 countries that persecute Christians for simply believing in the Christian faith.

The Pew Research Council says 95 percent of the countries in the Middle East and North Africa have instances of government harassment or use of force against religious groups; 75 percent had instances of government harassment against even Muslims, people that believe differently than the government faith.

In Asia, there has been an uptick in persecution by governments in Islamic extremism. Christians in this region are targeted by national religious movements--the Muslim, the Hindu, and the Buddhist--in countries like Pakistan, India, and Myanmar. Christians around the world routinely face blasphemy laws for simply speaking about their faith.

A country that I haven't mentioned yet is Communist Vietnam. Yes, Mr. Speaker, whether we leave off that phrase Communist Vietnam, they are still a communist country, an atheistic country. New laws led by the government punish anyone who dares to practice their religion or speak out against the authoritarian regime.

New laws are being used to crack down on citizens' basic human right of the right to believe and practice their religion. New rounds of arrests this year are proof.

Human Rights Watch says 110 people are prisoners of conscience or imprisoned in harsh conditions after unfair trials. These prisoners are not criminals, but the government thinks they are criminals because they practice their religion. They are advocates for human rights and social justice. They are pastors and priests. They are in jail for believing in the Almighty. Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh has been in prison in Vietnam since 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I might add here that prisons in Vietnam haven't changed much over the years. It is still a Communist country, and when you go to jail in Vietnam, you are in a prison like no other. Those prisons still exist, and they house people because the government puts people of Christian faith in jail.

Pastor Nguyen has been tortured and beaten. He has no contact with his family. They give him food, and they make fun of him because in the food they give him, they break up glass and put the glass in that food.

He is being held in solitary confinement, and all because he took a stand for Christianity and he told officials--and he told officials from the United States--about his treatment in jail. The security officials not only give him physical torture, they give him mental torture as well.

His wife has also suffered for her faith. Last year, she was beaten and jailed while peacefully campaigning for religious freedom.

You see, Mr. Speaker, when they go out in Vietnam and advocate the human right of religious freedom, the Government of Vietnam persecutes

them for that--beats them, tortures them, and puts them in jail. Americans need to be aware of what is taking place in this country and others.

His wife suffered for her faith, but she continued to preach the word even against this evil injustice.

Even to this day, the Vietnamese Communists harass her as well as her husband who is incarcerated.

Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim majority nation. But there are communities of Hindus and Christians and Buddhists. These three groups of religious individuals are persecuted because they are not the faith of the government.

There is an alarming shift in tolerance. Indonesia used to claim and be, to some extent, tolerant of other religious faiths other than the Muslim faith. They were proud of that. But there is a shift in the government to not tolerate religious minorities.

Recently, the governor of Jakarta was sentenced to prison for 2 years for blasphemy against the Muslim faith. His charge is based on statements the governor made about the Koran that were seen as offensive to Islam, therefore offensive to the government, and there he goes, off to jail in Indonesia.

Religious tolerance and free speech is being lost, while in Indonesia hard line Islamic forces are encouraging this persecution.

Pakistan. Pakistan is a country I have talked about frequently on this House floor, but Pakistan churches have been bombed and people have been killed.

In one town, a 14-year-old Christian boy, because he was a Christian, was beaten and set on fire. Persecution of the young. Persecution of the elderly. All because of their religious faith.

In Pakistan, Pakistan not only persecutes Christians, they persecute other Muslims who don't agree with the government position on Islam, including the Murji'ah.

In the Middle East, Egypt has recently come under scrutiny because of the increase in attacks from Islamic extremists who target Christians.

In May, gunmen forced Coptic Christian pilgrims from buses, took them out of the buses, and executed 28 of them because they were Coptic Christians.

Palm Sunday this year, twin bombings on Christian churches in Egypt killed almost 50 people. A man cloaked in explosives snuck through security and detonated his bomb, killing 28 and wounding 70.

At the same time, another suicide bomber attacked St. Mark's Church in Alexandria, Egypt, killing another 17 people, and injuring scores more.

Over a 3-day period in 2013, Coptic Christians experienced the worst attack against their churches in 700 years in Egypt. Forty churches were destroyed, and more than 100 other sites were severely damaged.

One boy was beaten to death for wearing a cross around his neck. He is walking down the street, he has got a cross around his neck, and, lo and behold, he is attacked, beaten to death because of his religious belief.

Tens of thousands of Coptic Christians have fled the country. Well, no kidding. They are leaving because their lives depend on it.

ISIS has decimated ancient Christian communities in the Middle East as well. We have this issue of governments persecuting Christians or allowing persecution to exist. But alongside this, we have this terrorist group ISIS that it is part of their mission wherever they are in the world to kill people who don't agree with their religion. And, of course, that includes Christians as well.

In Iraq, before there was ISIS, there were approximately 300,000 Christians who lived in Iraq. No one knows how many remain today, but hundreds of thousands have left the country or been killed.

In Mosul, for example, 10 years ago, about 35,000 Christians lived in Mosul--10 years ago. Now there are 20, maybe 30 Christians. They have been killed, tortured, or fled the country.

ISIS' campaign to destroy historic sites and monuments of Christians is now something that the world media is talking about. ISIS destroyed the monastery of St. Elijah outside Mosul. This monastery stood there in Mosul for 1,400 years, and here comes the terrorist group ISIS that tears it down because it is a site where Christians practiced Christianity.

ISIS has been so fervent in their killing of Christians that this House even passed legislation stating that ISIS is committing genocide against Christians. And they are.

So you got ISIS in different parts of the world. One of their goals is to kill religious folks who disagree with them, especially Christians. And to some extent, they have been very successful at that.

When we talk about destroying and eliminating ISIS, we need to remember that we will eliminate their genocide against Christians as well, if we destroy ISIS.

In Iran, Open Doors USA ranked the persecution level of Christians in Iran as extreme. Religious police move about the city kind of like the Gestapo, and when they suspect Christians are gathering for worship, they raid the homes, arrest the leaders, and destroy Bibles. That is what the religious police, the Gestapo police as I call them, in Iran do.

Iranians who come to study in the United States and become a Christian, they can't go back to Iran. They go back to Iran, Iran puts them in jail, and they suddenly disappear. Converts to Christianity face charges of apostasy and possible death sentences if they ever return. People who become Christians in Iran, who make that choice as a believer, also know that their days are numbered in Iran if the religious police catch them.

In Libya, the Islamic State captured and beheaded 21 people because they were Christians. I don't think that we should be insensitive to this act of beheading folks altogether because of their religious faith. We shouldn't be insensitive because it continues on in Libya as well.

In Libya, where they murdered the 21 people, the victims' families wanted to build a church in their honor. Well, as they were building the church, they were beaten by people who were of the Muslim faith to make sure that that church did not exist. And that is Libya.

In Syria, the head of the Franciscans in the Middle East has reported that of the 4,000 inhabitants of the village of Ghassanieh, no more than 10 people remain in that town, and they have been killed by Assad's thugs and the militant groups like ISIS. Christians have really got it bad in Syria because everybody is after them. You got ISIS that is after them, and then you got Assad the dictator, the brutal dictator, he kills them as well.

Moving on, I want to mention Russia. Russia seems to be something everybody wants to talk about. Why don't we talk about Russia and what they are doing to Christians today.

I went to the Soviet Union back in the 1980s, when it was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union persecuted people who were religious at all. I mean, if you owned a Bible, you are going to jail. If you tried to worship, you are going to jail. They constantly did that under the Soviet regime of people of any religious faith. Primarily it was Orthodox Christians, and it was also Jews.

The wall came down, and now we have Putin in charge. The world needs to understand that Putin is moving in the direction of persecuting people of religious beliefs just like when he was a member of the KGB under the Soviet Union. Putin. I call him the Napoleon of Siberia. So what are they doing?

Well, they are starting out with laws requiring missionaries to have a permit, and they make house churches illegal. What is a house church? A house church is where two or three are gathered together in a house in the Lord's name and try to worship. You can't do that. That is against the law.

If you are going to worship, you have to get a permit to worship in a structured building, and only certain religious groups get a permit to even practice any religion. That is difficult in itself. So you have to be in a structured building approved by the government, and that particular denomination or religious faith has to have a permit to do so.

If you are in Russia, you cannot practice religion online. You know, that online happens all over the world except if you are in Russia, you are not going to be able to promote any type of religion or you are going to jail. This is the greatest threat to Christianity in Russia since the Soviet days. We haven't heard much about that. We

have heard other things, but this is something that we need to be aware of, the persecution of people because of religious faith.

One of my daughters recently went to Russia, and she experienced and saw this very thing that I am talking about. No home church worship services, only structured buildings where you have the Russian police watching what takes place. So they are moving in a direction like they were under the Soviet days of persecuting people who have religious faith.

Putin is taking Khrushchev's--I am older than you are, Mr. Speaker. I remember when Khrushchev was here. He made the comment when he was the dictator of the Soviet Union that Christianity will never exist in the Soviet Union. It cannot. I don't think it can be legislated out, but Khrushchev was determined to make sure that Christianity and other religious faiths did not exist in the Soviet Union. Of course, I believe it will continue whether or not Christians are persecuted anyway.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that people from Texas should get more time because we talk slower, and might even think slower. But, anyway, I appreciate the 12 minutes, and I will use it.

Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor, and other Members are cosponsors, of a bill that will provide expedited visa protection and processing for Christians and Yazidi refugees from the Middle East. They are targets of genocide in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and Libya, and we hope to expedite visas for those people who are trying to flee religious persecution.

Hopefully, the President of the United States will address the issues of human rights violations in Vietnam. Members of Congress, including myself, have asked the President to address this when he deals with the country of Vietnam.

And, of course, there is other legislation sponsored by Mr. Trent Franks from Arizona which calls upon the U.S. to use its influence in the United Nations to condemn the ongoing sexual violence against women and children of religious faith.

These young women and girls are being sexually assaulted because of their religious faith or their religious beliefs. A lot of that is being done by ISIS.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of other things.

Watchdog groups report that each month 332 Christians are killed by their faith and 214 churches and Christian properties are destroyed. Of course Christians, like other religious minorities, have been persecuted for years. A little history is in order here, Mr. Speaker.

In this country, we have religious freedom. We are a nation that believes that all people should have religious freedom.

When our Forefathers got together and they declared independence from Great Britain, which we will celebrate next Tuesday, and they got together and they wrote the Constitution, they added 10 Amendments to the Constitution.

The First Amendment of the Constitution is not first by accident. It is first because it is the most important of all rights, and there are five rights in the First Amendment. The first right in the First Amendment is the most important right. Here is what it is, and I will read just a portion of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

Religious freedom is the number one right of Americans. It doesn't just say to believe what you want to believe. It says you have the right to practice it, to get out there and practice it, even in public, number one.

Number two, ``Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress. . . .''

There are five rights in the First Amendment. The first one: religious freedom.

Many, many people came to this new world seeking religious freedom. That is why they came here, primarily Christian religious freedom. They were being persecuted in Europe. They came to the United States and made sure that we do not persecute people of religious faith.

The opposite is true. It is a right. I feel very strongly, as I think most people do, that it is the first right, and it is the most important right. And it is a human right. It is not just a right for Americans. It is a right for all people.

People in Syria, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and all those countries I mentioned, those people--who we don't know who they are--have the right, the human right, of religious freedom. That is a basic right of all people everywhere. I hope that we as a people encourage other people and governments throughout the world: Let folks worship the way they want to worship because it is a human right, and, I believe, that we have gotten it from the Almighty.

And the last thing I would comment on is we need to be careful in this country that we don't end up persecuting by legislation or by the judiciary, infringing upon the First Amendment, the first right, of the free exercise of religion. That is a story for another day, Mr. Speaker.

So, as we get close to the Fourth of July, the Declaration of Independence--our ancestors got together and said they wanted freedom, and they pledged to themselves and to others their sacred honor. Many of them lost everything, the war between us and England, the biggest and most powerful empire that had ever existed. It took over 7 years, but it was worth it.

That is why the Fourth of July is important, because it is a declaration of independence. And it is also, as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, a statement of human rights--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are instituted among men to secure those rights.

Mr. Speaker, on the Fourth of July, we need to remember our country, remember the people who lived here and gave us this country, and it is our job to make sure we keep it.

And that is just the way it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell Megan's story from her point of view and her beliefs.

She was smart, kind, ambitious, and funny. She loved other people.

After attending high school in Austin, Texas, she enrolled in the University of Alabama. She had a beautiful life--that is, until she was sexually assaulted in January of 2015.

After a night of drinking with her friends, Megan was ready to go home and go to bed. However, a finely dressed young businessman who referred to himself as ``Sweet T'' offered to give her a ride.

You see, Mr. Speaker, ``Sweet T'' was from the richest family in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and just so happened to be a big financial backer of that university.

Megan didn't remember climbing into his sleek Mercedes, but she woke up at his Southern mansion and knew something was wrong. Megan said she resisted his initial advances and repeatedly told him she wanted to go home. He refused to do so. Instead, he sexually assaulted her, and then he fell off to sleep.

She tried to get out of the room, but the door was locked. Desperate to escape, Megan climbed out of the mansion's second-story bedroom window and went to his car looking for her keys. It was there that she discovered a handgun Sweet T had in the car all the time but took it for her safety on her walk home.

Doing everything a rape victim should do, she immediately called the police and went to the hospital. But it is here, Mr. Speaker, that the system, she says, started to fail her.

The hospital wasn't sufficiently trained in sexual assault procedure and botched the rape kit. Megan then went to the police station to give her statement about what happened to her. But it was there she was treated with disdain and disbelief by Tuscaloosa's police department. After all, Megan was

claiming that the son of one of the wealthiest families in Tuscaloosa had raped her.

Despite her insistence that she said ``no,'' the police did not believe her. She said they didn't want to believe her. An officer asked her why she didn't punch or kick the rapist. The police thought it must have been consensual since she did not violently resist the attacker, and they moved on.

But, Mr. Speaker, rape victims can never move on. It is something they carry with them for the rest of their lives. The scars left by the rape do not fade away for victims.

Mr. Speaker, I was a prosecutor and judge in Texas for over 30 years. I met a lot of rape victims, and I learned how these attacks sometimes devastate their lives forever.

Sexual assault is a very different type of crime. It rips the identity, the self-worth, and the very soul of the victim apart. It is the victim's belief, in some cases, that it is a fate worse than death.

It is easy to second-guess what someone should or should not have done after emotional trauma of sexual assault, but Megan believed she did everything a rape victim is supposed to do:

She sought help, but she found none. The university failed her. The counselor assigned to her knew of the rapist's family name, so the university wouldn't give her any assistance and provided no other counselor. Megan was dismissed, ignored, blamed, and forgotten.

In the months following the sexual assault, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. She was so depressed, she left the school and returned to Texas. Still feeling like there was no way to escape her pain, Megan took her life.

Rape, Mr. Speaker, is never the fault of the victim. She deserved better.

Now, I don't know whether the perpetrator in this case is guilty or not. I am giving you Megan's point of view. But what Megan believed was that she was failed by the hospital, law enforcement, and the University of Alabama.

This past February before her death, Megan filled out a mental health clinic intake form at her new school, Southern Methodist University. One question asked if there had been any major losses, changes, or crises in her life. She wrote: ``Raped, bullied by police, and I changed university.''

Mr. Speaker, it is important and it is imperative that we understand victims of sexual assault. She got the death penalty for being the victim of sexual assault. She is not here to tell her story today, and I am telling it for her.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the day that Osama bin Laden, the world's number one terrorist, met his maker was a great day in the war on terror. But finding America's most wanted terrorist hiding in Pakistan was no easy feat.

Pakistani Dr. Afridi worked with our CIA to help determine and confirm Osama's hiding place in Pakistan by using DNA evidence. But after Osama bin Laden was killed, Pakistan threw Dr. Afridi in jail.

Why?

Because he helped the United States find Osama bin Laden.

Pakistan claims to be United States' number one counterterrorism ally, yet they hypocritically hold this hero in a Pakistani prison. Pakistan is no friend of the United States. They are on the wrong side on the war on terror. Pakistan hid Osama bin Laden from the world.

Dr. Afridi deserves a medal for aiding the elimination of Osama bin Laden, not life in prison. Pakistan should free him, and it is time to declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, in Texas, whether you are two- stepping, herding cattle, or sitting in the summer heat enjoying some barbecue, you will rarely find Texans without their boots. And, Mr. Speaker, the finest boots in Texas were made by Houston legend, Rocky Carroll.

This week, after a long and colorful life, Rocky died.

The moment I met Rocky, I was immediately struck by his swagger. He looked like an outlaw out of an old western movie. He was proud of the fact that he worked 25 years with the Harris County Sheriff's Department.

Through the course of his life, Rocky also handcrafted boots for seven Presidents, celebrities, the Queen, the Pope, and many others.

I once performed a small wedding ceremony for Rocky and his new bride, Judge Denise Collins. And right before the wedding started, in walked Rocky's friend, President George H.W. Bush. Rocky knew everybody.

And while the walls of his shop, which really looked like an old barn, were adorned with photos of famous people, most of his customers were regular folks like me.

Rocky Carroll was larger than life and uniquely Texan to the core. We will miss our dear friend, bootmaker for the Presidents, bootmaker for the stars, and bootmaker for regular folks.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, when our forces invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the goal was simple: remove the terrorist group, the Taliban government that sheltered the plotters of the 9/11 attacks on America, and destroy al-Qaida, a terrorist group. This was a NATO operation.

A little history is in order.

The United States was attacked. The member nations of NATO agreed that this was an attack on one nation, and NATO agreed to retaliate to the terrorist attack under article 5 of the NATO agreement. Article 5 has been talked about recently in the press.

So these 28 nations, NATO, went into Afghanistan, a haven for terrorists who sought to attack and kill Americans. That was 16 years ago. This is the longest war in American history, and yet it is still going on.

Let's examine how all of this is taking place and center on one nation, Pakistan, and their role in all of this.

The Taliban, since that attack, has waged an insurgency in Afghanistan, a neighbor to Pakistan, and destabilized the country, creating a perfect condition for terrorists to exploit in Afghanistan and spread that terrorist activity to other parts of the world.

The Taliban and al-Qaida have launched many of their attacks in Afghanistan from their neighbor, Pakistan. Recently, a Taliban sneak attack killed more than 160 Afghan soldiers, prompting the defense minister and the army chief of staff to resign.

The Taliban, a terrorist group, doesn't just stage attacks. They seize territory. The Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction said, in January, that 172 Afghan districts are controlled, influenced, and contested by the Taliban.

Al-Qaida has a long history and loyalty to the Taliban--two terrorist groups working together. Osama bin Laden swore his allegiance to the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, even before the 9/11 attack on the United States.

When bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, Ayman al-Zawahiri renewed that oath and cemented ties between al-Qaida and the Taliban. Wherever the Taliban is, you will see that al-Qaida is not far behind.

Since 2010, the United States incorrectly claimed that al-Qaida had just a little, small presence in the country, limited to only 50 or 100 fighters. Well, we know now that is absolutely incorrect.

Then, in 2015, the shocking U.S. raid in Afghanistan uncovered a massive al-Qaida training camp for terrorists, rounding up over 150 al- Qaida terrorist activity individuals. This was more fighters in one raid than the U.S. claimed existed in the entire country.

By the end of last year, U.S. officials announced that 250 al-Qaida terrorists were killed or captured in 2016.

The point here is that United States intelligence has been wrong about the activity of terrorists in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, but we are getting it right now.

Along with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, we have another terrorist group-- I should have brought a chart to list all of these--the Haqqani Network.

Who are these folks?

It is another terrorist group linked to al-Qaida and the Taliban. The Haqqani Network is responsible for more American deaths in the region than any of the other terrorist groups that I have already mentioned.

The Haqqani Network attacks inside Afghanistan, and they have been directly traced back to Pakistan. All roads to terror lead to Pakistan.

In fact, in 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to the Senate, ``the Haqqani Network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.'' What is that? That is the military arm of the Pakistan Government working with terrorist groups throughout the world.

The truth is, Pakistan has ties to about every terrorist group in Afghanistan, and we know that the Taliban terrorist group is based out of Pakistan.

It came as no surprise that when the U.S. drone strike killed the leader of the Taliban in 2016, guess where he was? He was in Pakistan hiding out.

There is a laundry list of evidence of Pakistan's support for terrorist groups, and I think a little more history is in order because this activity by Pakistan has been going on for years and has been below the radar. So let's just list some of the counts of the indictment against Pakistan and their terrorist activity.

Let's go back to 1980. Pakistan actively assisted countries like North Korea, Iran, and Libya in their efforts to build a nuclear weapon.

Now, where are we today?

Iran, the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, got some of its nuclear ability from Pakistan. North Korea, on the other side of the globe, guess what, they are developing nuclear capability, and we can trace some of their roots for their science back to Pakistan.

Since 1980, Pakistan has provided a safe haven and support, as I mentioned, for the Haqqani Network. The Haqqani Network operates many places in the world, including Lebanon, a threat to Israel.

Since the 1980s, Pakistan has hosted multiple madrassas that indoctrinate thousands of Pakistani young who join radical groups. That is a nice way of saying terrorist groups.

One Pakistan madrassa, which receives millions of dollars in state funding, has so many prominent terrorists in its alumni that it has the name of the University of Jihad.

I will continue. Since 1990, Pakistan has supported terrorist groups in Kashmir, like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, called the LeT, and other terrorist groups in its proxy war with India. These groups have carried out attacks inside India, such as the 2001 attack against the Indian Parliament.

Since the 1990s, Pakistan has allowed those terrorist groups like the LeT to openly fundraise in the country of Pakistan. Beginning in the 1990s, Pakistan provided training, advisers, intelligence, and material support for the Afghan Taliban, a specific terrorist group that operates in Afghanistan based in Pakistan.

Pakistan had forged the alliance between the al-Qaida and the Taliban before 9/11, and Hamid Gul, the former head of Pakistan's ISI, is called the father of the Taliban.

Pakistani nuclear scientists met with senior al-Qaida--this is a terrorist group--leadership in 1998, to discuss the terrorist group's desire to acquire nuclear technology.

In 1998, several Pakistani officers were killed in an al-Qaida training camp by the United States. Well, what were they doing there? They were training the al-Qaida in terrorist activities. This was a retaliation by the U.S. for the Africa Embassy bombings.

In 2001, Pakistan ISI helped revive the Afghan Taliban after it was defeated by the United States in the Northern Alliance. While Pakistan is fighting the Pakistani Taliban, it allows the Afghan Taliban, or what it refers to as the good Taliban, to operate freely in its territory.

Let me try to explain this. There is the Pakistani Taliban. It operates in Pakistan. The Pakistan Government goes after those people because they are causing crimes in Pakistan. But there is the Afghan Taliban that operates out of Pakistan that is supported by ISI and works in Afghanistan to kill NATO forces, including Americans. Pakistan says: oh, we are after terrorists. We are going after them. They are

only going after those terrorists that operate in their country against Pakistanis, not terrorist groups that operate in other parts of the world against Americans.

After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Osama bin Laden and many senior al-Qaida leaders fled to Pakistan. Many of them are still there. Pakistan facilitated arms purchases and foreign fighter flows for al-Qaida as the war continued.

Since 2004, eight major terrorist plots against Western countries were planned in Pakistan.

In 2008, the GAO--that is the folks who take care of our money, or at least try to track it--found that the Pakistan Government may have falsified claimed costs for providing support to the United States-led military operations. What does that mean?

We give to the Pakistan Government to help their military supposedly go after terrorists, and they give us back vouchers to say: well, this is what we did. Well, our government went through these vouchers and found out that Pakistan lied about this. They were asking for money for an activity that never occurred. So they tried to cheat the American public on these reimbursements. And there is more.

In November 2008, LeT conducted the Mumbai attack in India that killed more than 160 people with Pakistani assistance. Remember, LeT is a terrorist group.

In 2009, a Taliban leader, who had begun peace negotiations with the Afghan Government to stop the killing and the war, was arrested by Pakistan authorities for negotiating a peace talk because Pakistan did not want and does not want peace in Afghanistan.

In 2010, Pakistani intelligence is believed to have leaked the identity of an American CIA intelligence chief based in Pakistan. Of course, he had to flee the country.

In 2010, Pakistan closed the NATO supply route in Afghanistan for one week in response to NATO's helicopter strike that killed three Pakistani soldiers.

Documents leaked in 2010 revealed direct meetings between ISI and the Taliban to organize and orchestrate attacks on American soldiers in Afghanistan. That was in 2010.

I will continue. The terrorist perpetrator of the 2010 attempted car bombings in Times Square, that is in the United States, was known to have undergone weapons training in Pakistan.

In 2011, Osama bin Laden, we all know who he was, the number one terrorist in world history, well, he was found and killed in Abbottabad outside of Pakistan's version of West Point. In other words, you have a military installation, you have Osama bin Laden hiding in his big old home there, and the Pakistanis had been hiding him out. He was found there, Americans went and took him out, didn't tell the Pakistani Government because they would have moved him again.

We have evidence that Pakistan supports terrorism. What happened was, Pakistan scrambled American-made jets to go after the Americans who took out the Taliban. Fortunately, the Americans were able to get away and they were not attacked by the Pakistan Government.

To show how supportive Pakistan is, one of our helicopters, you may remember, had stealth on one of its rotors. Well, it crashed there, and they turned that evidence over to the Chinese and let them take whatever evidence they wanted to show the stealth in that helicopter.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you how much time I have left.

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

In 2011, Pakistan jailed Dr. Afridi, who helped the United States track down Osama bin Laden, and he is still in jail.

So Pakistan claims that they are a help to the U.S. in tracking down terrorism in the world, but they are not. The evidence shows the difference. Whose side is Pakistan really on?

After the 2011 raid to kill Osama bin Laden, Pakistan, as I said, invited the Chinese to inspect the wreckage on the stealth helicopter that the U.S. forces left behind. If people are allies of the U.S., they don't turn over technology to China.

Once again in 2011, Pakistan ISI poisoned CIA Chief Mark Kelton following the Osama bin Laden raid.

In 2011, Pakistan shelling killed 42 Afghanistan civilians. Pakistan is notorious for its blasphemy laws which are used to persecute numerous minorities, including Christians. Asia Bibi, a Pakistan Christian mother of five, was sentenced to death for blasphemy in 2011.

Pakistan launched counterterrorism raids in 2014 into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, yet turned a blind eye to the Haqqani Network and the Afghanistan Taliban operatives in the area.

In September of 2016, Pakistani terrorists attacked an Indian military base in Kashmir, killing 17 Indian soldiers. Indian officials say the terrorists were from a group backed by the Pakistani ISI and were using weapons with Pakistani markings.

In 2017, Pakistani cross-border shelling forced hundreds of Afghanistan villagers to flee their homes and further strained relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Well, no kidding.

Let me give you some other evidence, Mr. Speaker, and let me make this clear. The issue here is not the people of Pakistan. The issue is not Americans of Pakistani descent. Our quarrel and our issue is not with those folks. I represent a lot of Pakistani Americans. Good folks. Hardworking individuals.

The issue is with the United States' relationship with the Government of Pakistan that is playing the United States. Recently, before the United Nations Security Council, H.E. Mahmoud Saikal, Ambassador, Permanent Representative from Afghanistan spoke to the U.N. He has an excellent speech. The speech is Afghanistan's relationship with Pakistan.

I am not going to read his entire speech, but I do want to make a couple of comments from his point of view about Pakistan and their terrorist activity.

He says: ``In recent months, dozens of terrorist attacks across Afghanistan have claimed scores of innocent lives. In January, three simultaneous terrorist attacks in Kabul, Kandahar, and Helmand provinces killed and maimed over 160, including six UAE diplomats. In February, the Supreme Court, our symbol of justice, was attacked, causing numerous fatalities. Last week, two separate attacks in the heart of Kabul killed many civilians. Finally, just two days ago, Afghanistan's largest hospital was attacked, leaving over 140 killed and wounded, many of whom were doctors, nurses, and patients. The Taliban''--terrorist group--``have claimed responsibility for most of these attacks, but regardless of whose names are being labeled on these attacks, our own investigations have clearly established that they were generally plotted beyond our frontiers,'' namely, in Pakistan.

I include in the Record the entire speech of the Ambassador to the

I will just make one more comment on the speech. The Ambassador says: ``Pakistan talks one policy, but walks the other.''

I will continue. The World Muhajir Congress has written a letter to the United States Congress. Who are these folks? Well, they represent the views and interests of the Muhajirs. They are decendents of Muslims who migrated from India to Pakistan at the time of the partition of India in 1947.

They write a letter, and the title of their letter is: ``World Muhajir Congress request U.S. Congress to cut off military aid to Pakistan.''

They go into detail talking about the terrorist activity of the Government of Pakistan, and not only in Pakistan, but in borders across the world. They ``request Trump administration and the U.S. Congress to cut off military aid to Pakistan. Pakistan army and intelligence agency ISI is mainly using this military aid''--American military aid--``to kill innocent Muhajirs, Baloch, and Pashtoons. The double game of Pakistan's security establishment with U.S. administration must come to an end, which has put lives of U.S. and NATO soldiers in danger in Afghanistan.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letter.

[From World Muhajir Congress, June 15, 2017]

World Muhajir Congress Request US Congress To Cut Off Military Aid to

Pakistan

World Muhajir Congress represents the views and interests

of Muhajirs--descendants of those Muslims who migrated from

India to Pakistan at the time of the Partition of India in

1947 at appropriate international forums.

Indeed, our forefathers had created Pakistan as a homeland

for Muslims in India primarily to safeguards their political

and economic interests. However, their idea of Pakistan

envisaged a secular state where other religious minorities

would be guaranteed equal rights and complete religious

freedom. The founder of Pakistan Mohammad Ali Jinnah--known

as Quaid e Azam--left no doubts about his vision for Pakistan

when he chose a number of non-Muslims in the first Cabinet

for Pakistan. In his address to the First Constituent

Assembly of Pakistan, Mr Jinnah made his views abundantly

clear when he said, ``in course of time Hindus would cease to

be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the

religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each

individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the

State.''

Unfortunately, the British Raj had left behind a huge

Indian army at the time of Partition that was mainly

comprised of Punjabi Muslims. This Punjabi Army soon took

control of every major institution in Pakistan and never let

the true democracy flourish. Protecting the interests of

Punjabis has been the primary mission of this Army since the

creation of Pakistan, even if it had to at the cost of

national interests. Denial of basic constitutional rights to

majority Bengali population and subsequent disintegration of

Pakistan's Bengali-majority East Pakistan is just one

example.

In the last few decades, Pakistan's Punjabi-dominated

security establishment has blatantly used religion, Islam, as

its major tool to perpetuate its domination over other ethnic

groups in Pakistan, Muhajirs, Balochs and Pashtoons in

particular. The Army itself has gradually become highly

radicalized and seems obsessed with the idea of dominating

the entire region. The most alarming trend in the last three

decades, however, has been the creation and blatant use of

`religious proxies' by Pakistan Army to promote its sinister

agenda of Punjabi dominance over Pakistan as well as the

region.

Jihadi terrorist outfits created by Pakistan Army have

caused havoc in the last three decades both inside and

outside Pakistan. Even though hundreds of thousands of

Pakistanis have died as a result of attacks carried out by

these ruthless proxies of Pakistan's security establishment,

the targets of these terrorist outfits have never been

confined to Pakistan and pretty much every country in the

region has suffered at the hands of these terror groups.

Whether it is the world's ``most wanted'' man Osama bin

Laden or the chief of Taliban Mullah Omar; whether it is al-

Qaeda's ideological founder Ayman al-Zawahiri or TTP Amir

Mullah Mansoor Akhtar or 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh

Mohammad, they all have lived and freely operated from

Pakistan. It is not even remotely possible that such

notorious mass murderers could have lived and operated from

Pakistani soil without the overt or covert support from ISI.

In fact, thugs of every fanatic religious outfit are still

freely operating in Pakistan, particularly in Karachi, very

often under the overt protection of Paramilitary Rangers. We

have video evidence confirming that militants of banned

extremist religious outfits are allowed to freely collect

donations in Karachi to wage ``Jihad against America.''

The region as well as the world has suffered enough due to

the mindless policies and treachery of Pakistan's Punjabi-

dominated security establishment. In fact, ethnic minorities

of Pakistan have been the biggest victim of Pakistan Army and

its intelligence agencies' ruthless pro-Punjabi policies.

Over 20 thousand Muhajirs have been killed by Pakistan's

state agencies since 1992 alone. Two federal governments in

Pakistan were deposed on the charges of extrajudicial

killings of Muhajirs in Karachi but none of the culprits was

ever punished. Tens of thousands of Balochs have been killed

by Pakistan's security agencies in the country's largest

Balochistan province. Hundreds of ethnic Pashtoons too have

either been killed and injured or made homeless by Pakistan

Army in the last few years under the garb of security

operations in the country's northern areas.

Pakistan Army and ISI are actively silencing every sane and

secular voice in Pakistan and are supporting, arming and

training every jihadi terrorist outfit under the sun. In

recent days, General Janjua, the former Crops Commander of

Balochistan, now the country's security czar, has facilitated

legislation that now allows graduates of religious

seminaries (Madrassahs) to receive Commission in Pakistan

Army. The previous Director General of ISI (now the head of

Pakistan's National Defense University) General Rizwan Akhtar

has even proposed to `incorporate militants belonging to

banned extremist religious outfits into paramilitary forces.'

The region is burning due to the highly unprofessional and

irresponsible policies and acts of Pakistan's military

establishment and ISI. The entire world is suffering. As the

British Prime Minister Mrs. Theresa May said following the

most recent terrorist attack in London ``enough is enough.''

It is about time for the world to act against this madness

and put its foot down.

World Muhajir Congress sincerely request Trump

Administration and US Congress to cut off military aid to

Pakistan. Pakistan Army and intelligence agency ISI is mainly

using this military aid to kill innocent Muhajirs, Baloch and

Pashtoons. The double game of Pakistan's security

establishment with US administration must come to an end

which has put lives of US and NATO soldiers in danger in

Afghanistan.

So what does all this mean?

I have given 20 or 30 enumerated counts of an indictment against Pakistan, alleging them of supporting terrorism in the world.

What can we do about it?

Pakistan is not an ally of the United States. But the United States, every year, gives millions of dollars to Pakistan. Congress has even brought this up before, has tried to cut some of that money off. It has passed the House, but it has never passed and become law. And we continue to give them money.

The United States does not, and should not, continue to give Pakistan money because the money we give them goes to ISI, and that money goes to support terrorist activity in Afghanistan that kills Americans.

Why are we doing this?

But we continue to do it, for some reason that I think is absurd.

So the first thing we need to do is cut off the aid to Pakistan. We don't need to pay them to kill us; they will support killing Americans on their own. Cut off the aid.

The second thing we do is to label Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism. That is what they are: a state sponsor of terrorism. Congress needs to label them and make that designation so they suffer the consequences for their terrorist mischief throughout the world.

And the third thing we do is we need to remove and revoke their major non-NATO ally status. That is a fancy word for: because Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally, they get certain benefits, militarily, that other countries don't get.

Revoke that. Quit giving them military aid. Quit giving them money. Designate them as a state sponsor of terrorism, and remove the major non-NATO ally status against Pakistan. There needs to be consequences for this long history, that most Americans are not aware of, where Pakistan says one thing and, like the ambassador said, does something else; and those consequences need to come down to get attention.

The longest war in American history continues today, and it is a war supposedly against terrorism. But Afghanistan still is a hotbed because of what takes place and supported from Pakistan. The Afghan Government knows it, we know it, and the Pakistan Government knows it.

So there must be consequences. I think Pakistan is found guilty of supporting terrorism, and there should be action by the United States immediately to do these three things.

And that is just the way it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, Americans' privacy is under attack, this time by the spying eyes of our own U.S. Government. And people across the U.S. are wondering what is this section 702 issue.

Well, Mr. Speaker, section 702 is a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We call it FISA. It permits government to monitor the communications of suspected foreign agents, including terrorists, and to find out, in that communication, if that foreign agent wants to hurt us.

However, sometimes these individuals under surveillance communicate with American citizens, and this surveillance allows the conversations of ordinary citizens to be recorded, and that includes text messages, emails, and the conversation itself.

But what many Americans don't realize is these secret communications are not destroyed by the intelligence agencies. They are kept and kept forever. In fact, the government stores this data, and often goes back into that data and searches it, without a warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, for information on American citizens.

What we do with the foreign agents, hey, it is okay. But government then takes that information they have seized on Americans and then goes back and looks through it without a real warrant. That includes the IRS, the FBI. And they get the NSA to give those conversations on Americans, unrelated to the conversation with the terrorist, and they use that information to maybe prosecute them for some unrelated offense years later. Usually, this subsequent search is for reasons wholly unrelated to the original collection.

Essentially, the government uses this procedure to spy on Americans who may have done no wrong, and the search is not based on probable cause, not based on a real warrant from a real judge.

The National Security Agency is designed to keep a close watch on terrorists and foreign agents, not Americans. NSA surveillance is supposed to keep us safe from those foreign agents who wish to do us harm.

But before the Federal Government decides to invade the privacy of Americans, they should obtain a real warrant. Under current law, FISA courts, those are secret courts that operate in secret and issue secret warrants--I have got a whole issue problem with secret courts in this country anyway, based upon the history of the Star Chamber in England.

However, those secret courts allow government to search and collect that data, and the FISA courts almost always grant the requested warrant on the foreign agent.

Our Founders feared that a government powerful enough to commit unreasonable searches and seizures on Americans should be closely watched. That is why they crafted the Fourth Amendment, to protect our right to privacy. As a former judge, I heard issues on the Fourth Amendment every day. And let me read it again, especially for those folks in NSA.

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

That applies to the NSA. If they can get a warrant from a real judge based on probable cause to search that data on Americans, go for it. But they can't. They just seize the information and peruse it later and get information on Americans and then prosecute them.

This kind of reverse targeting on Americans is not what Congress intended under 702 of the FISA authorization bill. Technology may change, but our Constitution never changes, and spying on Americans just has to stop.

Americans should not be forced to sacrifice liberty and constitutional rights for security, especially for overreaching Federal bureaucrats.

Regardless of the result surrounding the alleged incidental capture of campaign officials' conversations, the American public must realize the implications of this little provision called 702. Reverse targeting of Americans without a search warrant based on the Fourth Amendment has got to stop. Can't do it.

But right now Congress has the ability to reform overreaching law as part of the larger FISA reauthorization process that will take place this year.

Opponents of 702, the concept that you can't spy on Americans, are wishing for what they call a pure reauthorization of FISA, without any new safeguards. They argue that these mass invasions of privacy will make us safer.

Those who preach we must sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of false security are wrong. We must never abdicate our rights because the national spy agency, NSA, demands it.

In fact, even a FISA court judge found that NSA analysts had been collecting searches that violate the procedures under FISA ``with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the court''. The FISA court called this a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.

Well, no kidding. It is a violation of current law, but the NSA violates current law and spies on Americans.

After these findings were released and NSA was caught, the NSA pledged to stop the warrantless surveillance of Americans. But, Mr. Speaker, their promise is useless.

FISA and 702 must be fixed by inserting the specific language that prohibits reverse targeting on Americans without a valid search warrant. If government wants information on Americans, get a warrant.

Without clear and specific language, our intelligence agencies will continue these unconstitutional searches, even if they promise to end their procedure.

But we can't trust the NSA not to spy on Americans, so Congress needs to have an open debate on the spying of Americans and not reauthorize the FISA procedure unless we make sure that the American right of privacy is protected. Congressional action must be taken on this issue.

It is time to end spying on Americans. If you want to spy on an American, get a real warrant from the Fourth Amendment. Continue that surveillance of foreign nationals. That is a different issue. But you can't do both. You must protect the American right of privacy.

Congress has that obligation because that is our job to enforce the Fourth Amendment right of privacy.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, 15-year-old Bianca struggled with insecurities and depression, so she turned to social media for comfort and companionship. She met a person named Ariel, to her later displeasure, but after he brought her to a seedy motel room and forced her to watch as he raped two other girls, she knew she had walked right into the bonds of sex slavery.

Held captive, he put up advertisements about her on the notorious backpage.com, selling her to dozens of men a day. After 2 years of this hell, Bianca finally escaped, bolting from the motel room, and found safety, finding a police officer. Four days later, her trafficker was arrested and thrown behind bars.

Unlike Bianca, many victims don't escape this trafficking. That is why Senator John Cornyn and I have introduced the Abolish Human Trafficking Act that increases funding for law enforcement to find and arrest traffickers like Ariel and helps restore and rescue victims.

We must use every tool in our resources we can find to help stop the scourge of human trafficking.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, last year Al-Qaeda nearly downed an airliner in Somalia using an explosive disguised as a laptop. This bomb got past X-ray machines and blew a gaping hole in the aircraft.

Al-Qaeda has been working for years to create sophisticated explosives that can target airplanes. It came as no surprise that last week the Department of Homeland Security announced new security restrictions on electronics on board certain U.S.-bound flights.

These new restrictions are deadly serious. Al-Qaeda has units deployed in places like Syria, Pakistan, and Turkey that are dedicated to planning attacks against the West.

The hysteria around this announcement is purely political. Everyone should be concerned about the growing threat from al-Qaeda. We must not allow politics to divide us in the face of a mortal enemy seeking to kill and injure as many Americans as possible.

I commend the Department of Homeland Security for responding to crucial intelligence and taking this step to protect the American people. And that's just the way it is.