Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the anti-Semitic United Nations has struck a new low, demanding that Israel prohibit Jews from settling in the West Bank. Guess who was supportive of this absurd resolution in betrayal of our closest ally? The United States.

Once again, this administration is on the wrong side. It has alienated what few international friends we have. Secretary of State John Kerry arrogantly declared: ``Israel can either be Jewish or democratic; it cannot be both.''

Mr. Speaker, let's think about that statement. The United Nations' mandate separating Jews from Palestinians in the West Bank is segregation. Segregation is not democratic.

The United States and the U.N. have no legal business telling a sovereign nation where people should live or shouldn't live in that country. Who in the world do we think we are? Would we approve of the U.N. telling us that one race or ethnic group could not live in one region of the United States? Absolutely not.

Thankfully, this State Department will soon be clearing their desks at Foggy Bottom--and good riddance. It is time for a new State Department that supports America's friends and not our enemies.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, this week we learned that three British school girls between the ages of 15 and 16 left their families and have gone to fight with ISIS in Syria.

How were they recruited to join? Well, apparently through social media. And they are not alone. Terrorists have used Twitter to radicalize thousands of young impressionable minds throughout the world and recruit new jihadists. They have also used it as a way to fundraise millions of dollars for their reign of terror. ISIS also uses Twitter to broadcast its barbaric acts and propaganda to the world.

On February 3, ISIS tweeted a video of its evil, horrific burning of a captured Jordanian pilot. Last August, when ISIS released a gruesome beheading of American journalist James Foley, it did so on, yes, Twitter. There are many more examples.

All of these groups--ISIS, AQAP, AQIM--are officially listed as designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations by our government. Federal law prohibits giving aid or helping a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. These FTOs use Twitter, an American company, as a tool, and no one is stopping them.

Why are American companies and the U.S. Government allowing social media platforms to be hijacked by terrorists? Some suggest that if the U.S. Government were to shut down terrorists' social media accounts, such measures would be violating terrorists' free speech rights. They are wrong. There are no constitutional protections to those who incite violence. No one supports the Bill of Rights more than I do, but free speech has its limitations, just as there are no constitutional protections for child pornography.

Terrorists should not have access to an American-controlled social media platform so they can kill, rape, pillage, and burn. There is precedence for this position. The Supreme Court has already ruled and held in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project that if someone has aided a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, they do not have constitutional protections of free speech.

Twitter has argued that the Feds do not want the terrorists' Twitter accounts taken down because they, the Feds, want to track the bad guys. However, keeping these Twitter accounts up has neither stopped nor slowed the terrorists' recruitment, propaganda, calls for violence, or fundraising efforts. Instead, allowing the terrorists to continue using Twitter has helped radicalize hundreds of foreign fighters and raised millions of dollars for them.

The sad reality is that today, there are more terrorists using social media than ever before. Private American companies should not be operating as the propaganda mouthpiece of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

Mr. Speaker, during World War II, we never would have allowed America's foreign enemies to take out ads in The New York Times recruiting Americans to join the Nazis and go abroad and fight and kill Americans. Today is no different. Social media companies need to do more. Private companies not only have a public responsibility but a legal obligation to be proactive.

Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that it is unlawful to provide a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization--like ISIS--with ``material support or resources,'' including ``any property, tangible or intangible, or services.'' That is about as comprehensive as you can get. You don't need to be a law school professor to understand this law actually applies to Twitter.

It is mind-boggling to think that those who behead and burn others alive are able to use our own companies against us to further their cause. This is nutty. But that is exactly what is occurring. As a result, there are more than 15,000 foreign fighters, many of whom have been radicalized online, now fighting in Iraq and Syria. That is more than there were in the 14 years of war in Afghanistan.

Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations should not be allowed to use private American companies to reach billions of people with their violent hate propaganda and recruitment. It is time to put a stop to this. It is time for Twitter to take down terrorists' accounts.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, he was only 37 years of age--a father, husband, community leader. He was Houston's Fire Captain Dwight Bazile.

Captain Bazile, known as B.B. to his fellow firefighters, was helping to put out a fire at a duplex when he suffered cardiac arrest. He collapsed in the street and was rushed to the hospital, where he died. He was doing his job. He was saving others when his life was taken. B.B. was described as having a gentle and caring personality.

Mr. Speaker, firefighters are a special breed. They run into the flames that everyone else is trying to escape from. They work to restore order from chaos. That is why we call them first responders-- because they are the first to help the people.

Firefighters are a courageous and tenacious breed. They are uniquely American.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that all people are created equal, but few become firefighters. Captain Bazile was one of those people.

We remember Captain Bazile and pray for his family. He was one of Houston's finest. He died on duty--the duty of protecting and serving the people of Houston, Texas. He was quite a man, Mr. Speaker.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, it was in the cold, dark, damp, moldy walls of a beat-up old Spanish mission that was already 100 years old at the time. He was a 27-year-old lawyer from South Carolina and also from Alabama. He was the commander of 187 volunteers from 13 countries and most of the States in then the United States. His men were surrounded by several thousand of the enemy. It was the Alamo. It had been turned into a makeshift fort, and the commander was William Barret Travis.

Mr. Speaker, he wrote the following letter 179 years ago this very night, February 24, 1836. It is entitled Commander of the Alamo, February 24, 1836:

To all the people of Texas and all Americans in the world,

fellow citizens and compatriots:

I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under

Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual bombardment and

cannon fire for over 24 hours, but I have not lost a man. The

enemy has demanded surrender at its discretion; otherwise,

the fort will be put to the sword. I have answered that

demand with a cannon shot, and the flag still waves proudly

over the north wall. I shall never surrender or retreat.

I call upon you in the name of liberty and patriotism and

everything dear to our character to come to my aid with all

dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and

will no doubt increase to 3 or 4,000 in 4 or 5 days.

If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain

myself for as long as possible and die like a soldier that

never forgets his honor and that of his country. Victory or

death.

Signed, William Barret Travis, Commander of the Alamo.

Besides Travis, there were other famous people: Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, Jim Bonham, and many others. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that all of these people were volunteers. They came from most States, 13 foreign countries. They were black, they were brown, and they were white.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the names of the 187 volunteers who were at the Alamo and died on March 6, 1836.

?, John, Unknown, A Black Freedman, Unknown; Abamillo,

Juan, Unknown, Garrison Member, Texas; Allen, James L., 21,

Garrison Member, Kentucky; Andross, Miles DeForest, 27,

Garrison Member, Vermont; Autry, Micajah, 43, Garrison

Member, North Carolina; Badillo, Juan Antonio, Unknown,

Garrison Member, Texas; Bailey, Peter James, 24, Garrison

Member, Kentucky; Baker, Isaac G., 32, Garrison Member,

Arkansas; Baker, William, Unknown, Garrison Member, Missouri;

Ballentine, John J., Unknown, Garrison Member, Pennsylvania;

Ballentine, Richard W., 22, Garrison Member, Scotland; Baugh,

John J., 33, Captain, Virginia; Bayliss, Joseph, 28, Garrison

Member, Tennessee; Blair, John, 33, Garrison Member,

Tennessee; Blair, Samuel, 29, Captain, Tennessee; Blazeby,

William, 41, Captain, England; Bonham, James, 29, Second

Lieutenant, South Carolina; Bourne, Daniel, 26, Garrison

Member, England; Bowie, James, 40, Colonel, Kentucky; Bowman,

Jesse, 51, Garrison Member, Tennessee.

Brown, George, 35, Garrison Member, England; Brown, James

Murry, 36, Garrison Member, Pennsylvania; Brown, Robert, 18,

Garrison Member, Unknown; Buchanan, James, 23, Garrison

Member, Unknown; Burns, Samuel E., 26, Garrison Member,

Ireland; Butler, George D., 23, Garrison Member, Missouri;

Cain, John, 34, Garrison Member, Pennsylvania; Campbell,

Robert, 26, Lieutenant, Tennessee; Carey, William R., 30,

Captain, Virginia; Clark, Charles Henry, Unknown, Garrison

Member, Missouri; Clark, M. B., Unknown, Garrison Member,

Mississippi; Cloud, Daniel William, 22, Garrison Member,

Kentucky; Cochran, Robert E., 26, Garrison Member, New

Hampshire; Cottle, George Washington, 25, Garrison Member,

Tennessee; Courtman, Henry, 28, Garrison Member, Germany;

Crawford, Lemuel, 22, Garrison Member, South Carolina;

Crockett, David (Davy), 50, Colonel, Tennessee; Crossman,

Robert, 26, Garrison Member, Pennsylvania; Cummings, David

P., 27, Garrison Member, Pennsylvania; Cunningham, Robert W.,

32, Private, New York.

Darst, Jacob C., 43, Garrison Member, Kentucky; Davis,

John, 25, Garrison Member, Kentucky; Day, Freeman, 30,

Garrison Member, Unknown; Day, Jerry C., 18, Garrison Member,

Missouri; Daymon, Squire, 28, Garrison Member, Tennessee;

Dearduff, William, Unknown, Garrison Member, Tennessee;

Dennison, Stephen, 24, Garrison Member, England or Ireland;

Despallier, Charles, 24, Garrison Member, Louisiana; Dewall,

Lewis, 24, Garrison Member, New York; Dickinson, Almaron, 36

Captain, Pennsylvania; Dillar, John Henry, 31, Garrison

Member, Tennessee; Dimpkins, James R., Unknown, Sergeant,

England; Duvalt, Andrew, 32, Garrison Member, Ireland;

Espalier, Carlos, 17, Garrison Member, Texas; Esparza,

Gregorio, 34, Garrison Member, Texas; Evans, Robert, 36,

Garrison Member, Ireland; Evans, Samuel B., 24, Garrison

Member, New York; Ewing, James L., 24, Garrison Member,

Tennessee; Fauntleroy, William H., 22, Garrison Member,

Kentucky; Fishbaugh, William, Unknown, Garrison Member,

Unknown.

Flanders, John, 36, Garrison Member, Massachusetts; Floyd,

Dolphine Ward, 32, Garrison Member, North Carolina; Forsyth,

John Hubbard, 38, Captain, New York; Fuentes, Antonio, 23,

Garrison Member, Texas; Fuqua, Galba, 16, Garrison Member,

Alabama; Garnett, William, 24, Garrison Member,

Virginia; Garrand, James W., 23, Garrison Member,

Louisiana; Garrett, James Girard, 30, Garrison Member,

Tennessee; Garvin, John E., 27, Garrison Member, Unknown;

Gaston, John E., 17, Garrison Member, Kentucky; George,

James, 34, Garrison Member, Unknown; Goodrich, John C.,

27, Garrison Member, Virginia; Grimes, Albert Calvin, 19,

Orderly Sergeant, Georgia; Guerrero, Jose Maria, Unknown,

Garrison Member, Texas; Gwynne, James C., 32, Garrison

Member, England; Hannum, James, 21, Garrison Member,

Pennsylvania; Harris, John, 23, Garrison Member, Kentucky;

Harrison, Andrew Jackson, 27, Garrison Member, Tennessee;

Harrison, William B., 25, Commanding Officer, Ohio;

Haskell, Charles M., 23, Garrison Member, Tennessee.

Hawkins, Joseph M., 37, Garrison Member, Ireland; Hays,

John M., 22, Garrison Member, Tennessee; Herndon, Patrick

Henry, 32, Garrison Member, Virginia; Hersee, William Daniel,

31, Sergeant, England; Holland, Tapley, 26, Garrison Member,

Ohio; Holloway, Samuel, 28, Garrison Member, Philadelphia;

Howell, William D., 39, Garrison Member, Massachusetts;

Jackson, Thomas, Unknown, Garrison Member, Ireland; Jackson,

William Daniel, 29, Lieutenant, Ireland; Jameson, Green B.,

27, Lieutenant, Kentucky or Tennessee; Jennings, Gordon C.,

56, Corporal, Connecticut; Jimenez, Damacio, Unknown,

Garrison Member, Unknown; Johnson, Lewis, 23, Private,

Virginia; Johnson, William, Unknown, Garrison Member,

Pennsylvania; Jones, John, 26, Lieutenant, New York; Kellogg,

John Benjamin, 19, Lieutenant, Kentucky; Kenny, James, 22,

Garrison Member, Virginia; Kent, Andrew, Unknown, Garrison

Member, Kentucky; Kerr, Joseph, 22, Garrison Member,

Louisiana; Kimbell, George C., 33, Lieutenant, Pennsylvania.

King, William Philip, 16, Garrison Member, Mississippi;

Lewis, William Irvine, 30, Garrison Member, Virginia;

Lightfoot, William John, 31, Third Corporal, Kentucky;

Lindley, Jonathan, 22, Garrison Member, Illinois; Linn,

William, Unknown, Garrison Member, Massachusetts; Losoya,

Jose Toribio, 27, Private, Texas; Main, George Washington,

29, Second Lieutenant, Virginia; Malone, William T., 18,

Garrison Member, Virginia or Alabama; Marshall, William, 28,

Garrison Member, Tennessee; Martin, Albert, 28, Garrison

Member, Rhode Island; McCafferty, Edward, Unknown,

Lieutenant, Unknown; McCoy, Jesse, 32, Garrison Member,

Tennessee; McDowell, William, 42, Garrison Member,

Pennsylvania; McGee, James, Unknown, Garrison Member,

Ireland; McGregor, John, Unknown, Second Sergeant, Scotland;

McKinney, Robert, 27, Garrison Member, Tennessee; Melton,

Eliel, 38, Lieutenant, Georgia; Miller, Thomas Redd, 31,

Garrison Member, Virginia; Mills, William, 20, Garrison

Member, Tennessee; Millsaps, Isaac, 41, Private, Tennessee.

Mitchasson, Edward F., 30, Private, Virginia; Mitchell,

Edwin T., 30, Private, Unknown; Mitchell, Napoleon B., 32,

Private, Tennessee; Moore, Robert B., 30, Garrison Member,

Virginia; Moore, Willis A., 28, Garrison Member, North

Carolina; Musselman, Robert, 31, Sergeant, Ohio; Nava,

Andres, 26, Sergeant, Texas; Neggan, George, 28, Garrison

Member, South Carolina; Nelson, Andrew M., 27, Garrison

Member, Tennessee; Nelson, Edward, 20, Garrison Member, South

Carolina; Nelson, George, 31, Garrison Member, South

Carolina; Northcross, James, 32, Garrison Member,

Virginia; Nowlan, James, 27, Garrison Member, England or

Ireland; Pagan, George, 26, Garrison Member, Unknown;

Parker, Christopher Adams, 22, Garrison Member, Unknown;

Parks, William, 31, Garrison Member, North Carolina;

Perry, Richardson, 19, Garrison Member, Texas or

Mississippi; Pollard, Amos, 32, Garrison Member,

Massachusetts; Reynolds, John Purdy, 29, Garrison Member,

Pennsylvania; Roberts, Thomas H., Unknown, Garrison

Member, Unknown.

Robertson, James Waters, 24, Garrison Member, Tennessee;

Robinson, Isaac, 28, Fourth Sergeant, Scotland; Rose, James

M., 31, Garrison Member, Ohio; Rusk. Jackson J., Unknown,

Garrison Member, Ireland; Rutherford, Joseph, 38, Garrison

Member, Kentucky; Ryan, Isaac, 31, Garrison Member,

Louisiana; Scurlock, Mial, 26, Garrison Member, North

Carolina; Sewell, Marcus L., 31, Garrison Member, England;

Shied, Manson, 25, Garrison Member, Georgia; Simmons,

Cleveland Kinloch, 20, Lieutenant, South Carolina; Smith,

Andrew H., 21, Garrison Member, Tennessee; Smith, Charles S.,

30, Garrison Member, Maryland; Smith, Joshua G., 28,

Sergeant, North Carolina; Smith, William, 25, Garrison

Member, Unknown; Starr, Richard, 25, Garrison Member,

England; Stewart, James E., 28, Garrison Member, England;

Stockton, Richard Lucius, 19, Garrison Member, New Jersey;

Summerlin, A. Spain, 19, Garrison Member, Tennessee; Summers,

William E., 24, Garrison Member, Tennessee; Sutherland,

William DePriest, 17, Garrison Member, Unknown.

Taylor, Edward, 24, Garrison Member, Tennessee; Taylor,

George, 20, Garrison Member, Tennessee; Taylor, James, 22,

Garrison Member, Tennessee; Taylor, William, 37, Garrison

Member, Tennessee; Thomas, B. Archer M., 18, Garrison Member,

Kentucky; Thomas, Henry, 25, Garrison Member, Germany;

Thompson, Jesse G., 38, Garrison Member, Arkansas; Thomson,

John W., 29, Garrison Member, Virginia; Thurston, John M.,

23, Second Lieutenant, Pennsylvania; Trammel, Burke, 26,

Garrison Member, Ireland; Travis, Wlliam Barret, 26,

Lieutenant Colonel, South Carolina; Tumlinson, George W., 22,

Garrison Member, Missouri; Tylee, James, 41, Garrison Member,

New York; Walker, Asa, 23, Garrison Member, Tennessee;

Walker, Jacob, 36, Garrison Member, Tennessee; Ward, William

B., Unknown, Sergeant, Ireland; Warnell, Henry, 24, Garrison

Member, Unknown; Washington, Joseph G., 28, Garrison Member,

Kentucky; Waters, Thomas, 24, Garrison Member, England;

Wells, William, 47, Garrison Member, Georgia; White, Isaac,

Unknown, Sergeant, Alabama or Kentucky.

White, Robert, 30, Captain, Unknown; Williamson, Hiram

James, 26, Sergeant-Major, Pennsylvania; Wills, William,

Unknown, Garrison Member, Unknown; Wilson, David L., 29,

Garrison Member, Scotland; Wilson, John, 32, Garrison Member,

Pennsylvania; Wolf, Anthony, 54, Garrison Member, Spain;

Wright, Claiborne, 26, Garrison Member, North Carolina;

Zanco, Charles, 28, Garrison Member, Unknown.

Mr. Speaker, this hardy band of frontiersmen and patriots, shopkeepers, lawyers were a frightful sight to see. They did not wear uniforms. They wore what they worked in. They entered the Alamo, and they stood there for 13 days, fought here at this place, and all died for Texas freedom.

They fought against a dictatorship, a dictator by the name of Santa Anna. He had abolished the Constitution of Mexico. Texas was a part of Mexico at the time. He had abolished the Constitution and set up a dictatorship.

That is what started the Texas war of independence against Mexico.

You notice that the flag that is flying over the Alamo is the Mexican flag. The Mexican eagle has been removed, and it has the date 1824 on it. That is the date that the Republic of Mexico established a Constitution. The defenders of the Alamo were hoping to reestablish a democracy in Mexico, which Texas was a part of.

After the Alamo fell, after 13 days and all 187 of the Texans were killed, other Texans went ahead and rallied for Texas independence from Mexico. As I said, the defenders of the Alamo were from all races. Nine, maybe 11 were Tejanos. Tejano is a uniquely Texas name. Those are individuals of Mexican or Spanish descent that were born in Texas, thus the name Tejano.

The Alamo was important for a lot of reasons, but, one, it stopped Santa Anna's invasion of Texas. Texas was one of several states in Mexico that had rebelled against Santa Anna's dictatorship.

On this other chart here, there are numerous states in Mexico that were established, but several of those, including Texas, Coahuila y Tejas, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Yucatan, all of them rebelled about the same time against Mexico, in 1835, 1836, because Santa Anna established a dictatorship and abolished the democracy.

None of these other states that rebelled were successful in creating independence except Texas. Santa Anna used his army and went through his own country, destroying and defeating any resistance to his dictatorship, and he had taken all of these states back, so to speak, when he invaded what is now the State of Texas. So he had well-seasoned troops when he came into the State of Texas in 1836.

It all started, really, in the year of 1835. In October of 1835, the Mexican Army had come upon a small town in Gonzales, Texas, and had demanded that the townspeople turn over to the Mexican Army a small cannon that they had to defend themselves from Indians in the area. The locals, the Texans, refused to turn over the cannon.

They, in fact, made a flag. They called it the Come and Take It flag, that had a white background and then painted in a cannon that said, ``Come and Take It.'' That is the famous Come and Take It flag that was used, the first flag that was used in the Texas war of independence.

After a skirmish where several shots were fired by both sides--I don't think anybody was hurt very bad--the Mexican Army left, but most importantly they left without taking the arms, the cannon from the Texas people who lived in Gonzales. That was the spark that started the Texas war of independence and revolution.

There were several other skirmishes, and by February of 1836, Travis and his band of volunteers had found themselves in the Alamo to thwart the invasion of the larger army of Santa Anna that was coming from the south. Their defense of the Alamo for 13 days gave the rest of Texas time to build another army to eventually fight Santa Anna. That army was, of course, led by General Sam Houston at the time.

So they were in the Alamo for many reasons, but the primary reason was to fight for liberty for Texas and Texas independence. When Travis realized that he wasn't getting any aid except for a small band of individuals from Gonzales, Texas, that came and volunteered when Travis sent out that first letter, he penned this letter on March 3, 1836. Travis addressed his last letter to the Council at Washington-on-the- Brazos that was not far from the Alamo or San Antonio, Bexar--what it was called at that time--in hopes that they would understand his plight.

His battered walls, according to T. R. Fehrenbach, the noted Texas historian, were still show defenses, still flew the flag. His men were on duty and in combat that day and every day and night. They were exhausted. Travis expected no rescue, and he wrote, according to Fehrenbach, apparently to stir his countrymen into action that the country might be saved. He was speaking of Texas.

Here is what he said in that last letter:

I shall have to fight the enemy on its own terms. I will do

the best I can. The victory will cost the enemy so dear that

it will be worse for him than defeat. I hope your honorable

body will hasten reinforcements. Our supply of ammunition is

limited. God and Texas. Victory or death.

William Barret Travis.

Then on March 6, 1836, a few days later, they were all killed in the Alamo, even though they inflicted tremendous losses against the invasion by Santa Anna. But Travis was right, victory would cost the enemy more than defeat. It did give Sam Houston and other Texas volunteers enough time to assemble another army. Not a large army, it was only 600 individuals.

Santa Anna, still with a larger force, met Sam Houston and his 600 volunteers, which once again included men from several countries, included men from several States, and had numerous Tejanos involved fighting from the side of the Republic of Texas, including Juan Seguin, Captain Seguin and his volunteers, his cavalry that was there.

It is interesting to note that before the battle took place on April 21, 1836, on the plains of San Jacinto--you have never heard of that, Mr. Speaker, but it is near what is now Houston, Texas, down on the gulf coast, in the marsh area--Juan Seguin made sure that he had all of his Tejanos, the cavalry, put playing cards in the hatbands of their hats so that they wouldn't be mistaken for the enemy. In those days, apparently, the playing cards that were used to gamble were much larger than the small ones we have. So they placed these playing cards in their hatbands so they could be recognized as fighting on the side of the Texas volunteers because, once again, they didn't wear uniforms.

The battle that took place that Travis was able to delay the army of Santa Anna in reaching this battle was an interesting military feat. Most battles take place, have taken place throughout history, in the early hours of the day. At sunrise, two armies get together and fight it out. They have done that for thousands of years. Even still today in World War II, Vietnam, battles were fought at dawn.

This battle--the Battle of San Jacinto--did not take place at dawn; it took place in the middle of the afternoon on April 21 because Santa Anna and his army were taking a siesta in the middle of the day. They didn't expect the battle until the next morning.

Sam Houston and his other commanders didn't want to wait until the next day--the troops were getting restless, as they say--so they decided to have that battle in the afternoon. They lined up in a single column across the high ground and marched in broad daylight.

Santa Anna had not put out pickets, so he had no one to warn him that the Texans were charging. They came down the hill, and the battle began.

In 18 minutes, Mr. Speaker, it was all over. Santa Anna had been completely defeated. More of the enemy were killed than were in the Texas Army. The rest were captured. Only a handful--13 Texans--were killed, and the battle lasted 18 minutes. Santa Anna was captured. He was pretending to change clothes, and he put on the uniform of a Mexican private. He was captured and held.

Travis enters the Alamo on February 23, 1836, and writes this famous letter. He and the defenders were killed on March 6. In between that, on March 2, 1836, Texas had declared independence. Then, just a few weeks later, on April 21, about 200 miles or so from the Alamo, the Battle of San Jacinto took place. Sam Houston won that battle, and Texas became a free and independent country.

We have this map here, Mr. Speaker. You may not have seen something like this. This is what Texas claimed when Texas became an independent country--what is now modern-day Texas--and you see that here on this map; but it also had claimed parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, and parts of Wyoming. Texas claimed all of this area when Texas became the Republic of Texas.

Sam Houston was the first President of the Republic of Texas. Texas was an independent country for 9 years, and then it decided to request to join the United States. Even how Texas joined the United States was an interesting phenomena.

Not all of the States wanted Texas to become a part of the United States. Finally, after several tries and failures to become a State in the United States,

on a joint resolution--not a treaty--Texas became a State in the United States by one vote when, apparently, a Louisiana Senator changed his mind and voted to annex Texas and make it the next State in the United States.

That took place in 1845. Ever since then, Texas gave up its sovereignty as a republic and became a State. Some say that we still act like we are a foreign country, a sovereign country.

Under Texas law that allowed it to become a part of the U.S., the Texas flag always is supposed to fly level with the American flag, since we were a republic. Texas can divide into five states. I don't ever see that happening, but Texans can make that decision and split the State up to make it five different states.

We have a unique history, as all of America has a unique history, and it goes back to the fact that Texans did not want to live under a dictatorship no matter who it was.

That is why people of all races were at the Alamo. All races fought for Texas independence, for freedom, and for liberty--very similar to the actions that took place with the Thirteen Colonies in how they were being oppressed by Great Britain.

Nobody ever thought they could whip Great Britain--the most powerful empire that had ever existed at the time--and very few people thought that Texas could defeat Mexico. After all, Santa Anna had defeated all of these other parts of Mexico that were in rebellion. He had not lost any battles when he came and invaded Texas.

People were surprised that Texas could defeat them, but it did because some things are worth fighting for and giving their lives for. That is why those 187 individuals from all walks of life, from different parts of the world--Brown, Black, and White--stood together as volunteers to defend the Alamo and help freedom ring in a part of the world that we call Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I think you are probably old enough to have heard of Marty Robbins. Maybe you haven't. Marty Robbins, years ago, the singer, wrote a ballad in honor of the people who stayed and defied tyranny and gave their lives fighting for freedom, for Texas.

It goes like this:

In the southern part of Texas in the town of San Antone,

There's a fortress all in ruin, and the weeds have overgrown.

You may look in vain for crosses, and you'll never see a one,

but sometime between the setting and the rising of the

Sun,

You can hear a ghostly bugle as men go marching by;

You can hear them as they answer to that roll call in the

sky:

Colonel Travis, Davy Crockett, and 180 more;

Captain Dickinson, Jim Bowie stand present and accounted for.

Back in 1836, Sam Houston said to Travis, ``Get some

volunteers, and go and fortify the Alamo.''

Well, the men came from Texas and from old Tennessee and a

lot of other places.

They joined up with Travis just to fight for the right to be

free.

Indian scouts with squirrel guns and men with muzzle loaders,

Stood together, heel and toe, to defend the Alamo.

``You may never see your loved ones,'' Travis told them that

day.

``Those who want to can leave now. Those who fight to the

death, let 'em stay.''

So, in the sand, he drew a line with his army sabre;

Out of 185, not a soldier crossed the line.

With his banners a-dancin' in the dawn's golden light,

Santa Anna came prancin' on a horse that was black as the

night.

He sent an officer to tell Travis to surrender.

Travis answered with a shell and a rousin' yell.

Santa Anna said, ``I will show them no quarter. Everyone will

be put to our sword.''

185 holding back 5,000.

5 days, 6 days, 8 days, 10 days, Travis kept holding again

and again.

Then Travis sent for replacements for his wounded and lame,

But the troops that were comin' never came, never came.

So twice Santa Anna charged and then blew recall,

But on that fatal third time, Santa Anna breached the wall,

and he killed them one and all.

Now the bugles are silent, and there is rust on each sword,

And the small band of soldiers lies asleep in the arms of the

Lord.

In the southern part of Texas, near the town of San Antone,

Like a statue on his pinto rides a cowboy all alone.

He sees the cattle grazin' where a century before,

Santa Anna's guns were blazin' and the cannons used to roar.

His eyes turn a little misty, and his heart begins to glow,

And he takes his hat off slowly to those men of the Alamo,

To the 13 days of glory at the siege of the Alamo.

And that is just the way it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, flying in his F-4 Phantom over North Vietnamese was Air Force pilot Colonel Sam Johnson. On his second tour of duty in Vietnam, Colonel Johnson was flying with the fighter squadron called Satan's Angels, when his plane was shot down by ground fire. It was April, 16, 1966 and Colonel Johnson became a POW.

Colonel Johnson was a career pilot who had already flown 62 combat missions during the Korean War and was on his 25th in Vietnam in his F- 4. On that fateful day in April, a foreign land claimed him captive. He was in the Vietnam prisoner of war camp for 7 years, but Colonel Johnson never wavered.

He was put through serious torment for those 7 years; one can't even imagine the hell he lived.

Because of the way he would not give in to torture and interrogation, the enemy moved him to the famous Hanoi Hilton, or ``Alcatraz,'' as it was appropriately coined. It was as bad a POW camp that ever existed. Alcatraz was where they put the most obstinate men. The POWs, calling themselves the ``Alcatraz gang,'' were so hard-nosed they had to be segregated. The North Vietnamese even had a name for Colonel Sam Johnson, ``Die Hard.''

For 7 years, Colonel Johnson was beaten and tortured, but they got no information out him. He was a pillar of patriotism and strength. He never broke. All of his patriotic stubbornness landed him in solitary confinement, where he remained for 4 years. He was subjected to a cell that was 3- by 9-feet. During those 4 years, all that was in the cell was a light bulb above his head that the enemy kept on for 24 hours a day. During the nighttime, they put him in leg irons, and during those 4 years, he never saw or talked to another American. It was brutal, it was harsh, it was cruel, it was mean.

While he was in the POW camp, he and other POWs communicated with each other using a code by tapping on the wall. It was then, that Colonel Johnson memorized the names of the other POWs in captivity. He kept this memory close so that when he escaped or was released, he would be able to tell their loved ones who they were and where they were.

The enemy laughed at Colonel Johnson. They made fun him. And his response ``Is that the best you can do?'' He entered the prisoner of war camp a strong and sturdy 200 pounds. On a diet of weeds, pig fat and rice, he lost 80 pounds, but never let it get to him.

After 7 years of confinement, captivity and nightmare, he was released, 42 years ago, on February 12, 1973. Today we proudly celebrate his ``returnniversary.''

After his release, Colonel Johnson continued to serve in the United States Air Force, serving for a total of 29 years. After he left the Air Force, he served in the Texas State House. He had his own business and in 1991, he came to the United States House of Representatives, where he still serves and represents the folks from the great state of Texas.

He is tenacious, unyielding and more than anything he is patriotic. He was willing to risk his own life in a foreign land for people just like you and me. Not only is the Texas Delegation lucky to have such a man serving alongside them, but so is the House of Representatives.

Just simply saying thank you could never suffice. I am honored to know such a man and call him my friend.

To Colonel Sam Johnson and all who served in Vietnam: welcome home, welcome home, welcome home.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Liberals loathed him. Conservatives idolized him. The middle overwhelmingly loved him. He charmed America. His knack to connect was unmistakable. And although many have tried to replicate his charisma and appeal, no one has ever come close to being Ronald Reagan.

He made us laugh when we didn't think we could, or should. He always had a way to comfort us in the midst of tragedy. He could disarm the press with a one-liner; and get a chuckle from even his fiercest opponents.

The first time I saw Ronald Reagan was at the 1968 Republican Convention in Miami Beach. Much to the dismay of my dyed-in-the-wool Democrat grandmother, I was there as a proud Texas College Republican delegate.

He lost the nomination to Nixon, but I was sold on Reagan from that moment on.

Of course, I instantly like him for his automobile of choice a jeep. I drove the same kind and still do. He appealed to me and other renegade conservatives my age, particularly those of us in the yellow- dog South, because we were a herd without a shepherd. Back then, it was taboo to be a Republican in Texas. But then, along came Reagan. We were Reagan Republicans.

Reagan cut the class warfare. He transformed the country-club GOP image, and brought conservatism out of the shadows. It was cool to be a conservative. He represented what Americans wanted Democrats and Republicans alike. He wasn't the Grand Old Party leader; he was the people's president.

Reagan's tenure in the White House saw some of the most historic events in our country and the world. His line, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,'' will probably resonate for time immemorial.

Although criticized by his foes for being a Hollywood actor, Reagan masterfully engineered a feat that so-called political experts

had little confidence could be accomplished the end of the Cold War.

Within minutes of his swearing in, news broke in one of the most widely followed situations of that time. President Reagan announced the Iran hostage crisis was over. The Americans were coming home. Make no mistake the significance of his election was an intimidating and influential factor in their release.

When the entire country was devastated by the Challenger tragedy, Reagan addressed a grieving nation by giving one of his most memorable and touching speeches. His ability to heal the brokenhearted was more than an admired political attribute. He never talked above the people, always to the people. It was what made him one of us. He just got it.

And of course, there is his most beloved legacy. He single handedly made the jelly bean a national treasure.

Reagan never took himself too seriously. Even when his own life was on the line, the leader of the free world was cracking jokes. On his way into emergency surgery after the 1981 assassination attempt, he looked up at the surgeons and said, ``I hope you are all Republicans.''

While he was a one-of-a kind politician the Everyman of our time. He was a pull yourself up by the boot straps kind of guy.

From union halls to country clubs, everyone felt like Reagan was one of them. Being an American meant something to him He was unabashedly unapologetic for our country's success.

He was the great defender of capitalism. Reaganomics was hailed ingenious by the supply-side, pro-growth economists and harshly criticized as voodoo by the big government crowd.

Reagan proved that lower taxes and leaner government stimulates growth, spurs private enterprise, inspires harder work and enables more savings and investment.

In the midst of another presidential election, Americans find themselves wondering where our next Ronald Reagan is. The American people got it then, and they want it back now.

As we celebrate the 104th birthday of President Reagan this Friday (or the 65th anniversary of his 39th birthday; he never missed a chance to poke fun at his own age), we should learn from The Great Communicator.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 60 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank you for yielding. I won't take all of your time.

You and I, our careers have mirrored. We both became lawyers the same year, and we both started at the courthouse in Houston I think the same year--'73, '74, right in there.

Of course, you were on one side, the defendant side, and I was on the prosecution side. We worked before the same judges. You and I both became judges about the same time and then we left the bench at the same time and ran for Congress and joined Mr. Fortenberry in the infamous class of 2004 or '5.

I do want to make this comment that things at the courthouse during all that time changed a great deal as to who was at the courthouse in the courtroom representing either the State of Texas or the citizen accused, as you referred to him.

Were you the first African American to practice in the courtroom? Or was it Ned Wade or Ron Mock? Which one of you was it?

It has changed a great deal. In fact, the judge who took my place is an African American judge at the courthouse in Houston. It is hard looking back on history to realize things were not always that way at the courthouse and the legal profession as they were in many other professions.

I think your accomplishments as an attorney and as a jurist are admirable. They have served the State of Texas quite well, but you fought a lot of battles during that time as well, and I want to thank you for fighting those battles.

Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, this Chamber was filled with Members of the House of Representatives, and all of us stood up and raised our right hands, and we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is the same oath the President takes and that others take--the military. We do that for a lot of reasons, but the main reason is that, in this country, the Constitution is paramount to all other law. I agree with that philosophy. The Constitution, I think, is a marvelously written document, as well as the Declaration of Independence, which justified the reason for us to start our own country.

Attached to the Constitution is what is commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights--rights to the people and prohibitions against government intruding on those rights. They call it the ``Bill of Rights.'' There were originally 12, and 10 of them passed. That is why we have 10 instead of 12 under the Bill of Rights. I would like to start and talk about only one of those rights. Since there are only 30 minutes, I am going to talk only about one of those, and it is the Fourth Amendment. Let's go through it together, Mr. Speaker.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

``The right of the people''--that is us--``to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated''--that sounds pretty absolute to me-- ``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.''

Now, you don't have to be a legal scholar or a lawyer to understand what this is talking about. It is the right of privacy--that government could go into our homes and our effects and our things and our stuff. It generally cannot do that except under circumstances which require that they go get a warrant.

I used to be a judge. Judge Green, who was just in here a while ago, used to be a judge. What that means is the police, generally, go to the judge and say: ``Judge''--in a written document with the affidavit that they swear to--``the affidavit states we believe--I believe--that there are,'' let's say, ``drugs--cocaine specifically--in Bobby Oglethorpe's home.'' Bobby Oglethorpe is a notorious Texas outlaw, so I am going to use him as the one. It describes what they are looking for. They say where it is, and they give the address of where Bobby Oglethorpe lives in Houston. Then I read it to see if it states probable cause.

What does that mean? There are a lot of definitions to it, but, basically, the statement proves, with the affidavit of the peace officer, that there is probable cause to believe that that item is where the police officer says it is, and is drugs, so that would be illegal.

The judge signs the warrant. What that does is it orders the police officer to go to that specific location in a certain timeframe. You can't do it, like, forever. You don't have 6 months to go look for it. It is usually 3 days. You go over there, and you search that address, looking for that specific stuff--cocaine, drugs--that is in the possession of Bobby Oglethorpe. Then the police officer normally would leave a document with the person at the house as to what they seized.

The officer comes back to the judge and says: ``Judge, I executed the warrant you gave me to Bobby Oglethorpe's house, and I brought you back the return on the warrant--what I seized--because I was ordered to go get it.'' Then he files the return in the court with the clerk, and that varies from State to State.

Basically, the concept is, before government goes into your house or other things, an independent person--a judge--has got to separate the law--the police--from the citizen and make an independent decision as to whether or not what they are looking for is where it is, or they have not established probable cause. Now, that is a generalization of the whole concept of a warrant.

Why do we even have these things? It goes back to our history, our American history. Everything seems to be based on history, and it is good that we reflect on it.

Back in 1761, America was not a country, it was a colony, made up of 13 Colonies. At that particular time--this is not a new thing about warrants, this is not a new thing--British subjects who lived in England, specifically, had the right to have what was called a ``specific warrant'' issued against them before they would have to give up the item, as opposed to what I will show you as being a general warrant.

Generally speaking, before a magistrate in England would allow some British subject's home to be searched, the peace officer would have to go to a magistrate and show some specificity as to where the document or the item was, with some type of probable cause, but in coming to the Colonies, that was not true. English magistrates who ruled over the Colonies did not give colonists the same protection as other British subjects back in England. So what would occur is this:

Those colonists, it has been said, were hiding rum, rum that had been brought into the United States--the Colonies--and other things, and they had not paid the tax on the rum. So the British would go to a magistrate and say: ``Give us a general warrant to go search,'' let's say, ``Bobby Oglethorpe's great, great, great-grandfather. We will search his warehouse to find any items that may not have been stamped with the appropriate tax.''

The colonists didn't like that. That is a general warrant. You have got a piece of paper from a magistrate, saying, ``Ah, go over there, and look around. See if you can find something that is illegally in the possession of colonists without the Stamp Act on there.'' These were called ``writs of assistance.'' They were called ``general warrants.'' They are pretty much the same thing. I won't go into the difference of those two individuals.

With the colonists being the type of folks they were in Massachusetts, they took them to court. They took the British Crown to court. Their lawyer was James Otis, and he protested in a courtroom, saying, ``Your warrant is not specific enough. It is too general.'' The British judge, magistrate, ruled against the colonists, and there were several businessmen who were being sued in this case.

Now, that may not seem like a big deal, but John Adams, who later became President of the United States, observed all of this, and he said that act was the spark which originated the American Revolution. What is that? It is the act of government invading the privacy of the colonists. He said that sparked the American Revolution, what we now call the ``Fourth Amendment,'' because the colonists weren't protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. They weren't protected from specific warrants saying specifically what they were looking for in a specific place based on probable cause. The local magistrate would just write out a document, saying, ``Go over there and look at this warehouse, and see if you find any,'' in this case, ``rum that doesn't have the stamp, that doesn't have a tax on there.''

Our history shows that this is an important concept. Now, what does it require?

It requires a specific warrant as opposed to a general warrant. It requires that it be specific as to what you are looking for. It has got to be based upon probable cause. It just doesn't give the police the authority to go into someone's home and look around and see if you find some contraband. You have got to have it based upon probable cause, sworn to, and it is limited in scope, as required under the Fourth Amendment, which we will read again if we have enough time.

The right of privacy was important to our ancestors--it is in the Fourth Amendment--and it is important to

Americans today. We are a little unique on this right of privacy. It is really not one of the things that a lot of other countries have. Remember, it is not supposed to be violated by government, our right to be secure in our homes and in our effects.

So here we are in 2015, and where are we?

This morning, somewhere in the United States, somebody woke up and sent out some emails and made a phone call. A person may have had a meeting, so he got his little iPhone out--5 or 6 or whatever it is--and pulled up Google maps to figure out a route to get from where he was to where the meeting was. He took his vehicle or maybe jumped in a cab and checked Facebook if he were in a cab, on the phone, texted his friend, and maybe even played what is now something fun, I guess, for some people--``Candy Crush''--on the iPhone.

After the meeting is over with, this individual may head off to the office, log onto the computer, do a little G-chatting with a friend about where he planned to go for dinner that evening, and later that evening, he uploads a photograph from supper, as we call it in Texas, on his Instagram. That is, maybe, a typical day for a lot of people.

But, all during that route of the American citizen's, the Federal Government has the ability to stalk that individual every step of the way because of the devices that he is using electronically. Maybe, until last year--until some news came out by the national media--most Americans were unaware that their every move could be tracked by Big Brother. Through the NSA, which I call the ``National Spy Agency'' now, the government has the ability to read citizens' emails, to read their texts, to know their phone logs, to track the location and travel and movements of citizens, to snoop and collect information about individuals through smartphones, apps, to read G-chats, and to look at private photographs--all unknown to the citizen.

The failure to disclose any of this information until recently is why many Americans now fear government intrusion--I call it government stalking--into our lives. The stalking government has kept its Peeping Tom activities a big secret until, primarily, Edward Snowden told us all about it.

His issue is a different issue, but now we know about it.

So how did we get here? Over the years, technology has rapidly changed and given power-hungry--my opinion--bureaucrats the capability to sift through data and find out more information than ever. Just because they have the physical ability doesn't mean that they have the constitutional right or any right to violate the Fourth Amendment because this protects Americans. The Fourth Amendment doesn't protect government; it protects Americans. It protects citizens.

The government seems to justify the snooping, the Peeping Tom for a couple of reasons. The White House, the administration claims that NSA has no interest in monitoring American citizens; they are just looking for bad guys. Well, I have a hard time believing that. Until evidence came out to the contrary, the NSA, it seems, was snooping and spying on lots of Americans in the name of trying to catch the bad guys.

Furthermore, NSA, when they did a little investigation, they found dozens of instances where their own employees misused intelligence capabilities to spy on people--ex-girlfriends and others. Why? Simply because they had the ability.

So we have learned for years that the NSA has quietly, in my opinion, snooped and spied on millions of Americans without a warrant--and that is the key--and without their knowledge and without their consent. This is justified for a second reason, based upon the name of national security. It is said we live in terrible times. We do. We have got these terrorists running all over the world, bad guys trying to hurt us, so we at the NSA need to get this information to protect Americans from these bad guys.

Well, let's analyze that just for a moment if we can.

We have heard reports that, well, we have caught a lot of bad guys because of this information that NSA has seized, this megadata. So during a Committee on the Judiciary hearing last year, I asked Deputy Attorney General James Cole this question: How many criminal cases have been filed based upon this massive seizure of information by NSA, collecting information on Americans without the use of a warrant and storing it? And to my knowledge it still exists. How many criminal cases?

He testified: Maybe one. Maybe one.

So this nonsense about we are doing all of this because we have to catch the bad guys, they have got one criminal case that they can talk about. Even if there were more, it does not justify, in my opinion, the massive seizure of data without constitutional safeguards.

Let's read it one more time. ``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''--in this case no warrants at all are issuing--``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 is not what is occurring. It is just massive amounts of information are being seized.

Let me try to describe it this way. Let's go back to Bobby Oglethorpe. Let's say that Bobby Oglethorpe lives close to where I do in Atascocita, Texas, and the police come to me as a judge and say: Judge, we know that Bobby Oglethorpe lives in this ZIP Code here, but we don't know where he lives, and he is no good. He is a criminal, and he is in possession of firearms and drugs, and all kinds of illegal things he has done, but we don't know which house he is in in this particular ZIP Code, so we want to go search all the houses in the ZIP Code and hopefully we will catch him.

No judge in this country would sign a warrant and say: All right. Have at it. Start searching all the houses looking for this one guy with all this bad illegal stuff that he is in possession of.

No judge would do that. Why? Because it violates the Fourth Amendment. Why? Because it is not specific enough. It is a general warrant, like the British were imposing on the Colonies that, as John Adams said, sparked the American Revolution. Wouldn't do that.

Or another example, it is like finding a needle in a haystack. The government wants to seize the whole haystack. They can't do that. They have got to find the needle. They have got to be specific in their warrant. So, in my opinion, based upon the Fourth Amendment, the activity of the NSA, by seizing lots of data, violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

There are other examples.

So we talked about NSA seizure of data, and to my knowledge, like I said, they still store all this information.

May I inquire of the Speaker how much time I have left?

Thank you. I appreciate it.

NSA. Let's move on to what is called ECPA. We will talk about the IRS a little bit.

This spring, most Americans are going to be filing taxes, their tax returns, and many Americans, including me, are concerned about the IRS' ability to take information from Americans without their consent or without a warrant. Sometimes that includes emails. So let's talk specifically about the concept of government seizure of emails without consent of the person who sent it or received it and without a warrant.

Current Federal law is that, if somebody has an email within 6 months of when that email was sent, that email, to be obtained by government-- not just law enforcement, but any government agency--they have to get a warrant to seize that. But as soon as that 160 days runs, past 160 days, the government doesn't get a warrant because the law doesn't require it. I think in the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment should require that.

Email, what is email? That is an electronic message sent to another person.

Let's go back to regular mail or snail mail, which some people call it. If I write a letter and I seal the envelope and I put the postage on there and I

send it, go put it in the mailbox, one of those blue mailboxes, and I drop that in the mailbox, the government does not have the authority to go in that mailbox and take the letter out, read the letter, seize the letter without a warrant.

So it flows through the United States postal system from wherever to wherever, and it lands in somebody else's mailbox. That mail, generally speaking, is protected under the Fourth Amendment, because it violates the Fourth Amendment if government seizes it and goes into the contents without a warrant.

The same should apply to emails. It is communication. It is just done electronically. But the law does not allow--let me say it another way. If emails are over 6 months old, Americans should be aware of the fact that government may seize those emails from a private company without your knowledge, without your consent, and without a warrant.

That is why I have introduced, along with Representative Zoe Lofgren from California, that the law should be that emails are protected, that it is a right of privacy and it is an expectation of privacy for Americans that emails be protected and that government should be getting a warrant before they seize those documents, because it is a violation at least in the spirit of the Fourth Amendment. I hope that that legislation does finally come to the floor and we get a vote on protecting the Fourth Amendment, the right of privacy for Americans when it comes to emails.

The same applies not only just to emails, but under the circumstances, it would apply to geolocation devices that the government knows where you are. I think the government, to keep up with you, needs a warrant to stalk you throughout the United States.

The third thing I wanted to mention in the remaining time is a completely different issue, but it has to do with drones, the right of privacy. We are in the drone age. It is estimated that by 2030 we will have 30,000 drones over the skies of the United States, 30,000 of them.

Drones are a marvelous invention. They are highly technical. They can be very small. You can get one at a local store that you can put in the palm of your hand. No question about it, there are good uses for drones. Right now the law is that the FAA regulates the use of drones throughout the United States. It may permit some; it may not permit, may refuse to permit them. It is a bureaucratic decision by the FAA.

Congress needs to weigh in on the issue of drones and set down constitutional guidelines. People need to know the rules. Law enforcement needs to know the rules, and private citizens need to know the rules about their use of drones. And basically, the Fourth Amendment ought to apply to the use of a drone except with the exigent circumstances that already apply to the Fourth Amendment--high-speed chases, disasters, fires, et cetera--but we need some guidelines on the issue of drones.

Congress has the responsibility to protect the Fourth Amendment of the surveillance of Americans by either law enforcement or by private citizens and develop a standard for both law enforcement and for private citizens to know what the standard is. Yes, there are reasons why we should use them, and the law should allow those, but Congress needs to make the decision, not the FAA.

I have a local sheriff, or the sheriff in Texas where I am from. He generally says he doesn't want to use drones because he doesn't know what the courts are going to decide down the road as to whether or not that use of a drone was a lawful or unlawful violation of the Fourth Amendment. So rather than wait for the courts to decide if this specific use is or is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, Congress needs to come up with guidelines about the design and the protection of the Fourth Amendment that drones can only be used in certain circumstances; otherwise, they are not allowed to be used because they violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States.

So those are three issues that have the right of privacy that are being, I think, chilled today because there is more and more government intrusion into all of those areas: into the massive data of phone information, information that is put on your iPhone, for example, that is being seized, can be seized without knowledge, without warrant; the massive amount of emails that can be seized--we really don't know how much is being seized because over 6 months your personal email is not protected by law; government agencies, not just law enforcement, can seize that--and then the skies will have 30,000 of those drones.

There needs to be some regulations within protection of the Fourth Amendment, and we need to work with industry and government to outline what those rules ought to be to protect the Fourth Amendment, protect the right of privacy of individuals to be secure in their homes, in their papers, and their effects from government intervention and government intrusion. Congress should set the standard for what a reasonable expectation of privacy is, especially in those areas that I mentioned and the one regarding drones as well.

So I hope that we see some movement in this legislation. Once again, Zoe Lofgren and I have introduced legislation, as well as others, to protect the right of individuals to be free from searches of their emails after 6 months without a search warrant. We have that legislation pending as well. Hopefully, we can rein in what I call the stalking government about stalking American citizens.

America is not about keeping up and following every citizen in the United States by government. That is what other countries do. That is what countries like the Soviet Union used to do. That is not what America should be doing, and Congress needs to weigh in on this to protect individuals' right of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, which was the spark, according to John Adams, to the American Revolution, that concept of the Fourth Amendment being violated.

And that is just the way it is.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, February 3, 2015, we recognize Missing Persons Day in Houston, Texas.

There are few situations harder than when a family member or friend disappears.

We cannot forget each and every person missing from our community.

And help families, law enforcement, and community organizations raise awareness.

Today, we keep the hope alive that young people like Ali Lowitzer will return home.

Today is Ali's 21st birthday.

She went missing almost 5 years ago in April 2010 nearby her home in Spring, Texas.

She got off the bus after school and headed to work.

And she hasn't been heard from since.

Her family will not stop until she is found.

We join them in staying vigilant.

Citizens should report sightings and suspicious activity to law enforcement, Crime Stoppers or the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

All of these groups are partners in solving crimes.

One never knows when a report will end in a missing person returning to their family.

Ali's mother, Jo Ann, and her family are to be commended for raising the profile on this serious issue in Houston and providing support to other families.

We pray that Ali's mother, father, and brother and all those whose loved ones are missing will soon be reunited as a complete family.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, ISIS has beheaded yet another person.

Just this morning we also learned that the Taliban assassins murdered nine people in Afghanistan.

A few months ago, the Taliban did a most vicious act of jihad. They attacked a school and murdered 150 children and their teachers in Pakistan.

Last week, we learned that one of the Taliban Five, who was unfortunately swapped by the President in exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl, has recently called his buddies in the jihadist Taliban.

Now, isn't that lovely?

But the Taliban are not terrorists, so sayeth the White House.

According to the White House Press Secretary:

They do carry out tactics that are akin to terrorism. They

do pursue terror attacks in an effort to try to advance their

agenda.

Well then, why not call them ``terrorists''? Why is the White House so timid and so intimidated by refusing to call the Taliban ``terrorists''?

The National Review reports that the Al Jazeera news service has banned the terms ``Islamist,'' ``jihad,'' and ``terrorists'' from their reporting. Is the White House Press Secretary getting his politically correct language and censored statements from Al Jazeera? Who knows.

Even Secretary Kerry refuses to define the foreign terrorist group ISIS as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Mr. Speaker, at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on September 18, entitled, ``The ISIS Threat: Weighing the Obama Administration's Response,'' I asked Secretary Kerry this question:

Who are we at war with? I call them ``ISIS.'' Who would you call them?

Secretary Kerry: Well, I would call them the ``enemy of

Islam'' because that is what I think they are, and they

certainly don't represent a state even though they try to

claim to do so.

So, officially, Mr. Kerry, we should refer to them as the

``enemy of Islam''?

Secretary Kerry: Well, I do.

Mr. Speaker, this administration also refuses to say that we are at war with radical Islam. There is so much sensitivity in the White House over its statements that one is puzzled to wonder: Why are they sensitive about calling terrorists ``terrorists''?

Radical Islam is a cancer that is spreading throughout the world. Thousands are joining in the jihad, which preaches hate and murder in the name of religion. Even other world leaders have publicly recognized this and have called our enemy ``terrorists''--but not the United States. The leader of the free world dances around the topic instead of telling it like it is.

Why does the administration refuse to define our enemy? We are at war with radical Islam. We are at war with the Taliban. We are at war with ISIS, and we are at war with terrorism and terrorists. And, Mr. Speaker, they are at war with us.

Is the White House worried about hurting the feelings of the radical terrorists, who make it their mission to kill us, and so refuses to call them ``terrorists''? We need to call them what they are-- terrorists who kill in the name of radical Islam.

Political correctness and political jargon will not win this war. Americans and our military must have a clearly defined enemy, not some nebulous, undefined named enemy that the White House advocates.

The threat of Islamic extremism has never been greater. Their mission is clear. They are ruthless in pursuing it and will kill anybody who doesn't agree with them regardless of their religion. These killers are at war with America and humanity. We cannot defeat this enemy without first knowing who they are and then defining them. Mr. Speaker, they are terrorists.

And that is just the way it is.

Report: Al Jazeera's Banned `Islamist,' `Jihad,' `Terrorist' From

Airwaves

Al Jazeera's New York and Washington, D.C. journalists have

reportedly received strict orders from Qatari management:

please do not use the words ``terrorist,'' ``militant,''

``Islamist,'' ``jihad'' and ``extremist'' in your reporting.

After a January 27 Islamist terrorist attack in Libya, an

internal email obtained by National Review showed that Al

Jazeera English executive Carlos van Meek sent out an email

demanding that his employees refrain from using the banned

terms. ``All: We manage our words carefully around here,''

van Meek reportedly wrote. ``So I'd like to bring to your

attention some key words that have a tendency of tripping us

up.''

Van Meek explained, ``One person's terrorist is another

person's freedom fighter,'' in writing why his employees must

stop using the aforementioned words. ``Avoid characterizing

people,'' he reportedly added.

Regarding the term Islamist: ``Do not use,'' van Meek wrote

in bold. ``We will continue to describe groups and

individuals, by talking about their previous actions and

current aims to give viewers the context they require, rather

than use a simplistic label.

``Strictly speaking, jihad means an inner spiritual

struggle, not a holy war,'' van Meek said in explaining why

the Arabic term will no longer be allowed in Al Jazeera's

reporting. He continued, ``It is not by tradition a negative

term. It also means the struggle to defend Islam against

things challenging it.''

He added: ``We do not use words such as militants,

radicals, insurgents. We will stick with fighters.''

National Review reports that van Meek was previously

described as the man tasked with ``establishing Al Jazeera in

America.''

Breitbart News has reported on Al Jazeera's radical past,

including its current support for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood

terror group.

After September 11, 2001, the network's headquarters in

Doha reportedly put on display multiple pictures in its

studio honoring the deceased Al Qaeda terrorist Osama bin

Laden.

In 2013, dozens of staff resigned in protest of Al

Jazeera's ``biased coverage'' in favor of the Muslim

Brotherhood jihadist organization.

Mr. Speaker, in my other life, I was a prosecutor and Judge. I saw the worst of the worst criminals in my courtroom, but it wasn't until I visited the Ukraine, when I first came to Congress, that I learned about the scourge of human trafficking. It is slavery. Soon I became aware that this crime wasn't just happening in far off places but right here in the United States, in our own backyards.

Unfortunately, my hometown of Houston is one of the hubs for human trafficking because of its proximity to the border, major interstates, airports, and ports.

As cofounder and co-chair of the Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus with my friend Jim Costa from California, I have made fighting human trafficking a priority.

Human trafficking is a hidden crime.

These victims are not willing participants in prostitution. These women, men, girls, and boys are being held against their will, caught in a life of drug addiction, physical abuse, and sexual assault. Children cannot be prostitutes. Children cannot consent to sex. They get forced into the crime of human trafficking, they are victims not criminals.

It is estimated that at least 100,000 children are at risk for human trafficking every year in the U.S. The real number of trafficking victims is unknown.

Even if they are identified, they are constantly moved around by their traffickers, whether that's across our borders and/or around the country. Many are runaways, throwaways, or stowaways. Imagine a child being considered a throwaway or a child that no one is looking for. This is reality for many in our country. We must be the ones to give them hope.

Victims may be afraid to come forward. They may be arrest and jailed because they are mistaken for criminal. Forgiven immigrants kidnapped and brought to the US are told their families will be harmed if they seek help.

Many victims may be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and actually believe they are in a loving relationship with their trafficker.

Education and awareness for law enforcement and the public will help prevent trafficking and identify the victim.

Rescuing and Restoring victims must be a top priority. Trafficking victims have unique needs, different than the needs of other crime victims. They must receive specialized, trauma-informed care from those that understand this crime.

Trafficking victims are not easy victims to help. They've been through extremely terrible situations. Many have come from a life of hardship, from abusive families, and moved around from family to family in foster care. Anyone they've trusted in the past has used them and betrayed them. So, many times after they've been rescued, they run because that's what they know.

We cannot give up on these girls. They deserve to know love and trust. As a society, we must embrace them.

I've introduced the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act with Congresswoman Maloney. This bill will ensure funding for the rescue and restoration of trafficking victims. It will ensure specialized training and care, and training for law enforcement. These services will be paid for by fines on the perpetrators. The bad guys literally pay for the crimes they have committed. What a concept!

Our bill also addresses the cause of this dastardly deed: the demand. Gone are the days of boys being boys. Those that buy sex from children are child abusers, not Johns. John is in the Bible. He's a good guy. These criminals must be punished like the child abusers that they are. They are child rapists.

During January, National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, we recognize that we have a long road ahead of us in order to eradicate our country and our world of modern day slavery. If we have the help and work of local, state, and federal governments, wonderful anti-trafficking organizations, and just people with good hearts, I think we can put a stop to this despicable crime.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 181) to provide justice for the victims of trafficking, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members might have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials to H.R. 181, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, as has been stated today, we are dealing with a very important and critical issue in America. It seems, however, that the Super Bowl is coming up this weekend.

The national media and Americans seem to be concerned more about the disappearance of air in footballs than they are about the disappearance of America's greatest resource: our children--children that are being trafficked throughout the United States, bought and sold for sexual assault.

It is not just an international crime; it is a crime here in America. Unfortunately, my hometown of Houston, Texas, is one of the hubs for trafficking because of its location.

We have today several bills, bills that passed yesterday and bills that will come up today--and hopefully all will pass--that deal with this scourge and slavery that is taking place in America.

I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Goodlatte from Virginia; and also the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Sensenbrenner; the ranking member, Sheila Jackson Lee; and also the former ranking member, Bobby Scott, for their work on these types of legislation that came up last year. Because the Senate didn't

act on them, these bill are being brought up again.

The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, I am glad to be the original sponsor, but I am also thankful that my friend, Carolyn Maloney from New York, who has been working on trafficking issues long before I was ever in Congress, is the original cosponsor on the Democrat side.

Madam Speaker, you don't get much more bipartisan than a New York liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican from Texas. We are just separated by a common language. Other than that, we get along quite well, especially on this issue.

When Brooke was 7, Madam Speaker, her mother was ill in the hospital. Her care was then entrusted to a nanny; but protecting her was not what the nanny had in mind. Instead of taking care of Brooke and making sure that she was healthy and safe, the nanny sold her into sex slavery. She was a trafficking victim. She was 7.

As is common with child trafficking victims, Brooke was also a victim of child pornography. She was subjected to the most sadistic forms of abuse. She was 7. All she wanted to do was be safe.

Stories like Brooke's and other survivors' make it clear that human trafficking is quite serious. It is occurring with the most vulnerable group of Americans: young children. I have four kids, three daughters. I have 11 grandkids; seven of them are granddaughters. We all believe, I think, the greatest resource of America is our youth, and their lives and their souls are being stolen every day for money, for filthy lucre.

This crime happens in America, and it happens across the seas, and it is all about money. I understand that the greatest criminal enterprise for money is drug trafficking, but close behind is the sex slave trafficking.

Why is sex slavery such a moneymaker? Well, unlike drugs that are sold one time, children are sold numerous times. As our friend, Kristi Noem, of South Dakota mentioned earlier, children sometimes are sold up to 50 times a day, Madam Speaker.

Plus, the consequences for the criminals is not as great as the consequences for drug smugglers, and the risk of apprehension is not as great. This bill tries to deal with all three entities that are involved in sex trafficking. There is the trafficker, the slave master; there is the consumer, the child abuser; and then there is the child-- they are victims of crime, and the American social conscience needs to change to understand these children are not criminals, and they are not prostitutes. They are children that are victims of slavery. We need to change that conscience, and we need to change it legally as well.

Now, in all fairness to police, many times, they see a child on the street; they arrest the child for child prostitution and file a juvenile crime case against that individual. Many times, they don't have a place to take the child.

We have approximately 3,000 animal shelters in the United States. I got one of my three Dalmatians from an animal shelter. We need those animal shelters, but there are less than 300 beds for child sex trafficking victims. Why is that? There is no answer, except we need to deal with it.

Police don't have a place to take the rescued child, except they put them in the criminal justice system, which is not a good thing. It doesn't help the child at all recover, even though everybody knows that the child is a victim. We need places to take children. We need to treat those children like victims of crime.

That is what this bill does. It helps rescue and restores victims of crime. On the other end, the slave master, well, it punishes them. As Chairman Sensenbrenner said, life sentences are appropriate for some people, and that is quite appropriate, at least a minimum sentence of life, and that is what this bill does as well.

The bill also goes after the demand, the consumer. Those men-- primarily--are the child molesters. They are child abusers, and for too long, society has kind of looked at that situation as, ``Oh, well, boys will be boys.''

Madam Speaker, those days are over. The days of ``boys being boys'' is over in America, and this law will go after the consumer. We need to know who they are. You talk about photographs on the Internet, their photographs ought to be on the Internet after they are convicted, but the law goes and punishes them as well.

It gives law enforcement, child welfare, health care officials, and others who will come in contact with victims training. It also clarifies some State and Federal wiretap laws. It allows law enforcement officials the flexibility to obtain warrants in all Federal human trafficking investigations so that they are better able to follow evidence and target criminal networks, because there are networks throughout the country that are taking children and selling them every night.

Madam Speaker, we will only be able to reduce the demand by putting the demand behind bars, where they belong. Girls are not property; they are little girls. And the same is true of boys who are being trafficked in the United States as well.

The legislation here also strengthens and clarifies the Trafficking Victims Protection Act by making it clear for judges, juries, prosecutors, and law enforcement that criminals who purchase sex acts from trafficked victims should be a priority and be prosecuted. That is why we build prisons, for people like that--the demand and the traffickers.

So I am encouraged by the tremendous support in the House on these 12 bills, bipartisan bills, coming up. And I do want to commend the ladies of the House who have been the ones--on both sides of the aisle-- advocating and making sure that this legislation comes to the House floor.

Passage of Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act will be a major step toward ridding our country of modern-day slavery. Brooke and her mother have worked through Brooke's issues after she was trafficked at 7. They are working together. She has been rescued and restored, and she is an advocate for better legislation and protection of children like she was when she was trafficked. But the message is, Madam Speaker, our children are not for sale, period.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who has made it a priority to stop, to combat the scourge of human trafficking by bringing numerous bills before the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

May I inquire of the Chair as to how much time is left on this side?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of different entities involved in bringing this and other pieces of legislation to the House floor.

There are numerous organizations throughout the United States, small and large, that are determined to stop human trafficking, and I want to thank all of them for their input into this cause and this legislation. I call them the victims' posse. They have rounded up and made sure that we are going to deal with this important issue.

I also want to thank the Members of the House who are cosponsors of this bill, especially Carolyn Maloney, my friend from New York, and her tenacious work on this and other pieces of legislation.

I also thank the Members of the House because many times, when they go back home on this specific issue, as mentioned by my friend Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas, they are holding public forums and hearings about this crime of human trafficking. In fact, there is another one in my district this weekend in Houston.

I want to commend the Members for bringing public awareness to this horrible situation; but not all is gloom, doom, and despair, Mr. Speaker, because of this legislation and other pieces of legislation, but more importantly, the moral will of the House and I think of America is to get a grip on this slavery.

When a crime like this is committed against a person, especially a child, we call it sexual assault, but it is really rape. It is rape, Mr. Speaker, of children. A rapist commits that crime to try to destroy that person, destroy their identity, destroy their self-worth, to steal their soul. That is what rapists do.

That is why we are going to solve this case or solve these cases as best we can, by preventing them from occurring, by going after those rapists, going after the trafficker, and rescuing the most precious thing we have in our country, which is our children. We are not going to allow the situation where America's children are bartered and sold on the marketplace for sexual assault. Those days are going to be over.

I appreciate all those who have brought this bill to the floor, both sides, and I ask that the House of Representatives vote unanimously on this legislation.

And that is just the way it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, ``Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran where, for the first time in a decade, we have halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.''

This absurd claim by the President last week earned him three Pinocchios from The Washington Post. Many disagree, including a former International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, official, who says:

It appears that the production of centrifuge components continues. No new nuclear components have been installed, but it does not mean that the production of those came to a halt.

For over a decade, the United States, along with the rest of the U.N. Security Council, has tried, but failed, to reach a deal with Tehran on its nuclear weapon program. Iran has defiantly marched toward developing nuclear weapons, while refusing to negotiate with the United States in good faith. Instead, its leaders have continued to call for the destruction of Israel and the destruction of the United States. Now, isn't that lovely.

Just this November, in the midst of nuclear negotiations, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps released this statement:

The United States is still the great Satan and number one enemy of the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation.

Iran's actions over the years are not surprising. After all, it is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Using both its own military operatives and its proxy, Hezbollah, Iran has planned attacks, terror, and murder throughout the globe. Hezbollah is the puppet, but Iran pulls the strings.

Finally, after years of Iran stalling and defying calls to halt its nuclear weapon development, the West played hardball with sanctions, primarily targeting Iran's bank and energy industries. The sanctions worked. Iran's GDP dropped for the first time in 20 years, and Iran finally came to the negotiating table.

Then came the white flag and the great retreat of 2013. The administration relaxed sanctions just when Iran was beginning to feel the consequences of its actions. Relaxing sanctions has helped Iran, helped its economy, and resulted in Iran reverting to its defiant ways.

Mr. Speaker, sanctions worked. Now is not the time to retreat, appease and play the Chamberlain. If anything, we should increase sanctions. Congress is trying to do that, but the President has now publicly told Congress--and Iran--that he will veto any legislation that increases sanctions. This seems to be at odds with United States national security. Negotiators in Europe and the U.S. want to relax sanctions. They are acting like timid sheep. They cannot lay down with the jackal of the desert, Iran, for they shall be his mutton meal. Mr. Speaker, loosening up on sanctions is foolish, dangerous, and not dealing in reality.

Further, the Iranian negotiations do not even discuss intercontinental ballistic missiles. Why is Iran building intercontinental ballistic missiles? Prime Minister Netanyahu said it best:

Iran isn't building ICBMs for Israel. They have missiles that can hit us. They are building ICBMs to hit America.

Iran wants ICBMs to carry a nuclear weapon across the pond to us, the U.S. A top adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani recently said:

Obama is the weakest of all U.S. Presidents.

Now is the time for the leader of the free world to prove Iran wrong. The world, including our enemies, are watching. The U.S. must make it clear and unequivocal: there will be no reductions in sanctions without verified steps to show that Tehran is abandoning, not just freezing, its nuclear weapon program. If Iran obtains nukes, the consequences are all bad. Israel will be less secure. The United States will be less secure. Other nations, like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, will all seek and obtain nukes to balance power in the Middle East.

The Iranian Government cannot be dealt with like normal countries. This ``hug diplomacy'' with them is not in the national security interest of the U.S. Their Supreme Leader has never wavered on his religious and political agenda to destroy the United States. Iran must be forced to cease its nuclear weapon program by sanctions. We must impose such sanctions that cripple Iran's economy to force the Iranians to stop their nuclear weapon development. And hopefully at some point the people of Iran will soon have had enough warmongering by its leaders and replace their government.

And, Mr. Speaker, that is just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

This bill, Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act, H.R. 469, is an excellent piece of legislation. As mentioned, it is a bipartisan piece of legislation.

I want to thank Karen Bass from California and Chairman Kline from Minnesota for bringing this to the floor.

This is one of many, many pieces of legislation dealing with trafficking that have come and will come to the House floor the rest of today and tomorrow, bipartisan pieces of legislation.

In my short tenure of 10 years here in Congress, I have never seen a subject that had so many people interested on both sides of the aisle and so many pieces of legislation coming to the House floor, all with the purpose of trying to rein in this scourge of human trafficking in the United States.

The public seems to be a little more concerned about other matters than the issue of trafficking, at least the media does. They spend a lot of time talking about how much air is in footballs when we probably should be dealing with how much criminal activity is taking place in America where America's children are being kidnapped and put into slavery.

One example of this is the bill that Ms. Bass has brought to us, and that is the one regarding child welfare agencies in States.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that 60 percent of American children involved in human trafficking, somewhere in their background they were in foster care. I am not saying foster care caused that. I am just saying that somewhere they make the route through foster care. We are not doing what we should do in dealing with our children to protect them from this scourge of trafficking.

This legislation goes a long way to help people in States, State government, to take care and make sure that children do not get taken up in this human trafficking that is taking place in the United States.

I come from Houston. Unfortunately, Houston is one of the hubs in the United States for human trafficking. Because of our location in the United States--near an international border--we have not only domestic trafficked victims go through our city but international trafficked victims and their children, their young people.

I want to congratulate Ms. Bass and the House and the leadership of the House for bringing this legislation and legislation like it up to the floor to make sure that America understands and criminals understand America's children are not for sale.

And that is just the way it is.