Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the drums of war are being beaten by the President who, ironically, won the Nobel Peace Prize. The ``Peace President'' wants to fire missiles into Syria because tyrant Assad is violating the rules of war by allegedly using chemical weapons. The President's goal is not to remove Assad, not to destroy the chemical weapons, but to send Assad a message.

To be clear, there is no imminent national security threat or interest for the United States by us starting this war. And make no mistake, shooting rockets into another country is an act of war.

War has consequences. What if the outlaw Assad chooses then to use chemical weapons again or chooses to shoot back? He could retaliate against the United States, one of our embassies, the Navy that fired the rockets, or other U.S. military installations, or even specific troops, or retaliate against his neighbor, Turkey, or Israel, using our aggression as an excuse. In any of these situations, this limited war escalates with more U.S. response, intervention, and involvement.

Now, who are the players in this war that is taking place already? On one side you have Syria, tyrant Assad, with the aid of Russia, with the aid of Iran that news reports say has 10,000 Iranian troops in Syria, and Hezbollah. Hezbollah, as you remember, Madam Speaker, is a terrorist group.

Then, on the other side, you have the Free Syrian Army. You have patriots. You have mercenaries, paid soldiers from other countries. You have criminals that have come in to just pillage the land and use this as an opportunity. You also have al Nusra, an al Qaeda affiliate. You also have al Qaeda from Iraq. Now, last time I recall, the United States is already at war with al Qaeda. They are the enemy of the United States.

And it looks like now you've got the terrorist group Hezbollah on one side and the terrorist group al Qaeda on the other side. And we want to get involved in this civil religious war to send a message not to use chemical weapons?

Of course, you not only just have these players, but you've got Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar lined up on the side of the Free Syrian Army. Turkey is a next-door neighbor to Syria. A year ago, a Turkish F-4 built by the United States was flying along the Syrian border, and it was shot down. We don't know who shot it down.

Meanwhile, the United States already has, along with its NATO parties, patriot batteries on the Syrian border facing Syria that are in Turkey. The Dutch, the Germans, and the Americans have manned those batteries. Why? To make sure that our NATO ally is protected from incoming rockets. If we escalate this regional conflict in one country, it may escalate to other regions, like Turkey. Then we've got real issues because Turkey is a NATO ally. We are obligated to help them if they get into a war with Syria.

And then about the terrorists. As I mentioned, they are really on both sides. And we hear from the administration, with all due respect, that the minority of fighters on the rebel side are al Qaeda. I respectfully disagree with the Secretary of State. What seems to be happening is the Free Syrian Army is going through Syria liberating Syrians, and al Qaeda is in the background, coming in and occupying the territory and imposing strict Islamic sharia law. We can see this play out. If the rebels eventually are successful, then we may have a second civil war between the Free Syrian Army and al Qaeda.

All of that may be down the road. And why would the United States want to get involved in this situation?

So today, Madam Speaker, I have filed a resolution stating that no U.S. funds will be used for this war with Syria. This religious civil war is not our war. So no money for the ``Peace President's'' war. And if he starts a war with Syria, I suggest the President return the Nobel Peace Prize. If he really wants to send a message, he should follow Samuel Goldwyn's advice: ``try Western Union.''

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the remarkable career and outstanding community involvement of a great Texan, devoted public servant and my good friend, Robert Pelton. It is an honor for me to recognize Robert, not only for his numerous professional accomplishments and many contributions to our Houston community and the great state of Texas, but also for his service to our country.

Robert and I met many years ago while I was working in the Harris County District Attorney's Office as a prosecutor. Our friendship may have seemed unlikely as Robert, a criminal defense attorney, was more often than not defending the people I was prosecuting. Even though we were on opposing sides, there was a mutual admiration among us that to this day, has not wavered. I am grateful to call Robert a friend.

Robert's humble nature comes from his small town roots and strong patriotic upbringing in Abilene, Texas. As a child growing up in West Texas, Robert had a passion for reading. The books Robert read made Texas history come alive and his fascination with Texas legends and lawyers took root. He began to notice how folks less fortunate were mistreated and taken advantage of in his small town. So, at the young age of 14, he made up his mind to become a great lawyer, like the heroes he read about in his books. Robert still likes classic old west movies about good guys and outlaws.

His West Texas roots taught him that his word was his bond. He lives by that character trait.

Like many honorable men, Robert wanted to serve our nation and enlisted with the Texas Army National Guard. He trained as a combat infantryman, a job that is not for the weak of heart, with the 36th Infantry Division. After honorably serving from 1966 to 1972, Robert was discharged with the rank of Sergeant (E-5). Still determined to become a lawyer, Robert enrolled with South Texas College of Law after graduating from McMurry College in Abilene. During law school, he served as Chief Prosecutor of the Honor Court and as a Justice on the Honor Court. And the rest is history.

During his internship with the famous attorney Jim Skelton, Robert worked on a case where Mr. Skelton represented David Owen Brooks--a defendant in the largest mass murder case in the United States at the time. After helping with this case, Robert realized that his calling was to defend those accused of crimes.

Since May 1975, Robert has represented numerous people during his legal career. Of all of his clients, a highlight in Robert's legal career was representing the late Marvin Zindler, as his personal lawyer for over 30 years. Marvin Zindler was known for his consumer reporting--on ABC News on channel 13--one of the first in the business to do so--letting the unsuspecting public in on the down and dirty dealings of local businesses throughout Southeast Texas. Marvin was a fighter for the little man and defended those who were swindled or scammed--seeking retribution the best way he knew how, with a bright light, an all-seeing camera lens, and a television audience. It makes sense that Robert represented this local legend.

Robert's extensive knowledge of the justice system and his incredible work ethic earned the respect of his colleagues in the law profession. Over 50 of Robert's felony criminal cases have resulted in no-bills due to the Grand Jury Defense presentations that his team worked on. In 2012, he helped prove a wrong man had been arrested, which resulted in another capital murder case being dismissed. The impact of Robert's work is far reaching.

Over his career, Robert has maintained a strong focus on ethics and has received numerous accolades. He is the Founder and Chairman of the Ethics Committee for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association. In 2011, he recognized a need for criminal defense attorneys to have access to an ethics hotline and urged the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association to create one. In addition, Robert has been named by H-Texas Magazine as one of Houston's Best Criminal Defense Lawyers each year from 2004 to 2010 and as well as one of Houston's ``Top Lawyers for the People'' each year from 2004 to 2010. In 2012 and 2013, Robert received the President's Award from the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in recognition of his excellent work during those years. In addition to these honors, Robert has recently been named by the College of the State Bar of Texas as the recipient of the Jim D. Bowmer Professionalism Award for 2012. This high honor is awarded annually to an outstanding College member based on achievement or contribution to professionalism. Robert continues to contribute to the legal profession by authoring monthly columns in The Defender and The Voice for Defense Magazines. He also serves on the faculty of the Center for American and International Law.

In addition, there are books written about several of his high profile cases, including Ashes to Ashes and another book about Pam Perillo, who was eight hours away from execution, but because of a writ hearing in Federal Court that Robert filed, her life was spared. Several of his well-known cases, were documented on national TV specials: ``Women on Death Row'' and ``Caught on Camera''.

As a former prosecutor and then judge, I know how consuming this career can be. But, I also know how meaningful and rewarding it can be. Robert's innovation, determination and compassion for helping others makes him one of the best attorneys in the nation. I am truly blessed to consider him one of my dearest friends and am honored to give him the recognition that he deserves.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, every year, millions of Americans across the fruited plains send their tax returns to the IRS. Some claim exemptions so they can keep more of their money; now the IRS wants an exemption of its own.

IRS employees want an exemption from participating in--guess what-- ObamaCare. That's right. The IRS workers have asked for an exemption from ObamaCare. They like their current health plan, and they just want to keep it.

These are the same people in charge of enforcing ObamaCare and penalizing Americans that are forced to be under ObamaCare. This is the same abusive, scandalous IRS that uses power to punish political opponents.

The IRS taxocrats don't want the law to apply to them; they want it to apply to us. More arrogance of power. Their policy is: laws for thee, but not for me. Ironic, don't you think?

The real truth, to be clear, Mr. Speaker, is the IRS wants to be exempted from ObamaCare and so do Americans.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to honor Windi Akins Pastorini, for being named the 2012 Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer of the Year and the 2012 Harris County Criminal Lawyer of the Year. This is the latest in a long line of awards given to this extraordinary lawyer. I have known Windi for over 20 years in my work as a judge and prosecutor in Texas, I witnessed first hand Windi's passionate dedication to the law and to her clients. Those who know her best describe her as dedicated, powerful, and relentless.

After graduating from the University of Texas at Arlington, Windi earned her law degree from the University of Texas in Austin. Windi began her legal career as a prosecutor for the Harris County District Attorney's office, and then she became a trial lawyer where she has served for over 25 years. She is an advocate in every sense of the word who works passionately to defend those who are accused of crimes.

Windi's extensive knowledge of the justice system and her incredible work ethic quickly gained her respect from her colleagues in the law profession and citizens of Harris County. Over her career, Windi has a history of victories defending those charged with drug related crimes, white collar crimes, fraud and violent offenses. Her success in defending her clients has led to her inclusion into a selective group of lawyers certified to represent indigent defendants in death penalty cases in Texas. Windi has changed many lives. The fact that she was the defense lawyer has made the difference in the outcome of numerous cases.

Windi has a long history of advocating for victims. Recently, Windi defended the rights of a young 12 year old girl who had been repeatedly sexually abused by her father since she was just 6 years old. One evening, the young girl finally stood up for herself and told her father to leave her alone. After receiving threats by her father that she would ``regret her actions'', the young girl shot and killed her father later that night in fear for her life. Ms. Pastorini stood by her client and successfully fought for her right of self defense. The young girl was acquitted of murder, providing an invaluable win for abused victims everywhere.

Besides being an excellent trial lawyer, Windi drives Jeep Renegades/ Wranglers. Being a Jeep owner myself, I appreciate others who drive such rugged, superior vehicles!

On behalf of the Second Congressional District of Texas, I commend this remarkable Texan for her exemplary service and dedication to Harris County and to the State of Texas. Thank you, Windi, for a lifetime of remarkable achievements within the legal community and for your steadfast commitment to representing the accused citizens of Texas in the court room.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, for some of us, growing up was the best of times; simple times; safe times. But life isn't that way anymore for some kids.

Today, young girls, the average age between 12 and 14, are lured into a crooked, despicable business. It's sex trafficking--modern day slavery. Girls have been threatened, raped, forced into selling their bodies on the streets by the worst deviants in our society. Some of these girls are smuggled into the United States by slave traffickers from other countries, and some are from our own neighborhoods.

Sex traffickers should be put into the jailhouse forever. But society must get to the root of the problem: the demand. That's why I have introduced the End

Sex Trafficking Act, along with Representatives Maloney, Granger, and Nolan. Our bill targets the interstate criminals who purchase sexual acts from child victims and ensures that they, too, are prosecuted as human traffickers. No longer can these deviants hide. Let the long arm of the law punish the child-molesting pedophiles who steal the innocence of children.

And that's just the way it is.

This new so-called President of Iran is no different than Ahmadinejad. Rouhani is no moderate; he's just slick. He has lied to the United States in the past. Don't be deceived; he is not even in charge of Iran.

The Ayatollah is in charge, and the Ayatollah picked all of the candidates running for president. The Ayatollah is still running the shots and is determined to get nuclear weapons and eliminate Israel and then the United States. And then what? Are we going to say, Oops, we made a mistake.

We need these sanctions. We need a regime change in Iran, a peaceful one with the Iranian people. This Ayatollah has Hezbollah running all over the world causing terror, including killing his own people in Camp Liberty. We need to pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the President says the country is being distracted by phoney scandals. A more accurate statement would be the President is using phoney distractions to cover up the administration's scandals. Here are two of them:

Fast and Furious. The ATF, with Justice Department knowledge, smuggles 2,000 automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Americans are killed. Two hundred Mexican nationals killed, including two police chiefs and even a beauty queen. No one is held accountable. Nobody goes to jail. Lower-level operatives blamed. Eric ``Withholder'' held in contempt for withholding evidence from Congress. The administration wants us to forget their fiasco.

Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans killed by terrorists. The United States refuses to send help during the firefight. Four Americans left behind. No killer is ever captured. The administration misleads the American public and blames the attack on a video, not the terrorists. No one goes to jail. No accountability. Lower-level operatives blamed. The administration wants us to forget their fiasco.

Are these distractions and phoney scandals the President is talking about? Well, tell that to the families of the murdered Americans and Mexican nationals. A Navy SEAL put it best: ``Phoney scandals don't come home in body bags.''

So, Mr. Speaker, the next time you visit with the President, tell him these ``distractions''--these ``phoney scandals''--are not going away. The American people are going to get the truth, whether the President likes it or not.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Houston is the fourth most populous city in the country; but unlike other large cities, we have struggled to have an effective mass transit system. Ten

years ago, Houston had only buses. Wider highways were always the solution for transportation.

Over the past decade, Houston has but one light rail that averages 36,000 weekly boardings. I have never been a strong champion of light rail; but my congressional district includes a significant portion of the proposed rail line in section 166, the University rail line, which would go from downtown Houston toward the Hillcroft Transit Center.

A majority of my constituents in the affected area that would be served support the light rail. I am concerned about section 166 of the bill that would prohibit Federal funds from going toward a part of the University line that falls in the neighboring 7th Congressional District, Mr. Culberson's district. This language, although affecting his district primarily, indirectly affects my constituents because it has the effect of killing the whole project. Federal funds are needed to build the University line in Houston.

To be clear, section 166 really doesn't save any Federal money. It just sends those funds somewhere else--maybe to New York City. If we're going to spend the money, let's keep the money in Texas and put Texans to work.

I've recently surveyed the constituents who live in the affected area in my congressional district. My office went door-to-door meeting with local businesses over the last few days, speaking with organizations and talking to constituents. Those in the affected area want light rail. On Facebook alone in the last 2 days, 604 people supported light rail and 340 opposed it.

One Houstonian commented:

Houston needs a viable east-west transit corridor to

connect to the Main Street line. As a 23-year-old young

Houstonian, I strongly support the Richmond rail and project

for Houston's future.

At least 26 community and civic organizations support the University line.

At this time I will yield to the gentleman sponsoring section 166 in the bill, Mr. Culberson, for a colloquy.

I understand the gentleman's position and the concerns from my colleague and his constituents who really don't want the rail in your congressional district. I respect that representation. The gentleman understands that we have a disagreement as to what constituents want in the affected area. Your constituents don't want the rail. That small section in mine do want the rail. I hope we can work together with Metro productively to get something built that is in the interest of all concerned.

I yield back to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his offer to work together. I certainly respect his position. It's my hope we can move forward and work productively and not block Federal funds that are coming to the Houston area that would go somewhere else. Let's work together with Metro, the City of Houston, the mayor's office, and the residents along the entire proposed line and see if we can find a solution that we all agree on, and hopefully we can keep this money in Texas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

support for university rail line

Greater Houston Partnership; Houston Citizen's

Transportation Coalition; Houston Tomorrow; Richmond

Rail.org; Montrose Management District; Claude Wynn

Interests; Museum District Business Alliance; Neartown/

Montrose Super Neighborhood; East Montrose Civic Association;

Cherryhurst Civic Association; Board of Directors of the

University Place Association; University Place Super

Neighborhood Council; and Boulevard Oaks Civic Association.

Morningside Place Civic Association; Old Braeswood Property

Owners Associations; Southgate Civic Club; Southampton Civic

Club; Museum Area Municipal Association; Rice Village

Alliance; Brays Bayou Association; Greater Houston

Preservation Alliance; Uptown Management District; Menil

Foundation; Museum of Fine Arts Houston; Friends of Mandell

Park; and Former City Councilman Peter Brown, Director of

BetterHouston.

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to see my fellow Texans succeed. Today, I want to take a moment to recognize yet another accomplishment by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Hospital. MD Anderson has been ranked as the top cancer treatment center by the latest US News & World Report's ``Best Hospitals'' study. Of course this should not come as a surprise considering that the hospital has been ranked number one by the study for the last six years in a row.

The accomplishments of MD Anderson do not stop there. In several subspecialties, the hospital has been ranked highly. In particularly, the Ears, Nose, and Throat subspecialty is ranked third. MD Anderson Hospital succeeds because of the dedicated people that labor tirelessly every day with one shared purpose: fighting cancer. Under the direction and leadership of President Ronald DePinho, 20,000 employees and 1,100 volunteers help countless individuals through their expertise, research and simple compassion.

MD Anderson has had a huge impact on many children and gave them the hope of life despite adversity. For Joey Nichols, he received a diagnosis of lymphocytic leukemia at the young age of three. He couldn't understand what that meant or why he felt ill. Today, Joey acknowledges that he has no clear memories during his time at MD Anderson, but he sees it as a defining moment in his life. MD Anderson saved his life, and because of its work, Joey has aspirations to become a pediatric oncologist and to work at MD Anderson one day.

MD Anderson's dedication to fighting children's cancer should be acknowledged and celebrated. In a separate survey, the MD Anderson Children's Cancer Hospital was ranked 21st in the nation. MD Anderson's services go beyond the well-being of the patient. The children's hospital provides support groups, activities, and camps for families of children with cancer. In a difficult time for a family, there is some comfort in knowing that we have such knowledgeable and compassionate people to fight cancer alongside them.

Mr. Speaker, these remarks only scratch the surface of the accomplishments achieved by the MD Anderson Cancer Hospital. I am confident that the hospital will continue to exceed expectations and to remain as one of the top cancer centers in the United States. I am proud to see such a prestigious hospital in the great State of Texas-- and the great City of Houston.

And that's just the way it is.

Warrants need to be particular and specific about the place to be searched and the items to be seized.

No judge would ever sign a general search warrant like the British did, allowing the police to search every house on the block, much less seize everybody's phone records, but this is what has happened under section 215 under the government.

The government has gone too far in the name of security and the Fourth Amendment has been bruised.

Rein in government invasion. No more dragnet operations. Get a specific warrant based on probable cause, or stay out of our lives.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the United States House of Representatives

is honored today to have Dr. Shane Alexander of Mexia, Texas, as the Guest Chaplain. Dr. Alexander is the minister of the North Crest Church of Christ in Mexia, Texas, and has previously preached in other Texas cities. He has been a resident chaplain in Louisville, Kentucky, as well.

He and his wife, Kara, met at Abilene Christian University where both received numerous degrees. Shane has a B.A., a master's, and a Doctor of Ministry from Abilene Christian University.

They have three children: Elizabeth, Peyton, and Levi. They're all here today, along with Shane's parents, Karen and Barry, and my wife, Carol.

Dr. Alexander is active in Mexia and its community, from coaching the girls softball team and boys T-ball, to furthering the spiritual growth of central Texas.

Dr. Alexander enhanced his life by marrying Kara, also Dr. Alexander, who is a professor at Baylor University. I say ``enhanced his life'' because his wife, Kara, is one of my four children, and Shane is my son-in-law.

We welcome them all to the United States House of Representatives today.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the need for more homegrown American energy has never been greater. At home, our economy is still in a state of stagnation. Nearly 12 million of our fellow Americans are out of work. It's even higher among returning veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq. Abroad, volatile situations continue to erupt around the world.

We need an all-of-the-above, all-American energy strategy, not more red tape out of Washington, D.C. More American energy means lower energy costs for Americans and for all people in the United States, and that means more money left in your pocket. More American energy means a stronger economy as our energy sector is allowed to grow and expand. Simply put, more American energy means more American jobs, period.

Mr. Speaker, if we take care of ourselves, we can make Middle Eastern politics turmoil, and energy irrelevant.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

My amendment cuts aid to Pakistan in this bill in half. This is the same amendment that passed this House last year by voice vote.

Pakistan seems to be the Benedict Arnold nation in the list of countries that we call allies. They have proven to be deceptive, deceitful, and a danger to the United States.

The day Osama bin Laden met his maker will go down in history as an important moment. Our manhunt did not end in a remote cave in the mountains, but in a palace in a bustling military town 35 miles from Islamabad. To think that the most senior levels of the Pakistani Government did not know he was there requires, as Secretary Clinton has said, the ``willing suspension of disbelief.''

Soon after, our suspicions were confirmed. Instead of celebrating with us the capture of the number one terrorist in the world, Pakistan arrested the one person that helped the United States capture Osama bin Laden. And last year, Pakistan sentenced Dr. Afridi to 33 years in prison.

In February of 2012, a NATO report said ISI--which is Pakistan's CIA--is aiding the Taliban and other extremist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan by providing resources, sanctuary, and training. In June of 2011, Pakistan tipped off terrorists making IEDs not once, but twice, after we told them where the bomb-making factories were and asked Pakistan to go after them. But they did not. They told the terrorists that we were coming.

Throughout 2011, Pakistan tried to cheat the United States by filing bogus reimbursement claims for allegedly going after militants when they weren't even doing that. On September 22, 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that:

With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted

that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our

Embassy.

The truck bombing he mentions here wounded more than 70 Americans and NATO troops, who were injured because of that bombing. Admiral Mullen went on to say that this terrorist network acts as the arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.

It doesn't seem to me that Pakistan deserves any more of our money. We've been doing the same thing for the last 10 years. Since 2002, Pakistan has collected a total of $26 billion of American money. And what have we gotten in return? Treachery. It's time for a new strategy with Pakistan.

There are some who say we need to pay Pakistan to help with our withdrawal. All their shutting down of the southern route showed was that we don't need Pakistan. We were able to pursue our mission even though they shut down that route. What really endangers our troops is not whether or not we have a southern supply route but whether or not we have access to Pakistan's tribal areas. Of course that has been off limits, according to the Pakistan Government.

This bill gives Pakistan over $1 billion. Cutting funding in half hopefully will send a message--long overdue--to the Pakistanis that they can't play us anymore, that we mean business.

To add a few more comments, Mr. Chairman, a poll conducted in Pakistan showed that 64 percent of the Pakistanis consider the United States the enemy, and yet we are paying them $1 billion a year? Doesn't make any sense to me. Plus, Americans who have an unfavorable view of Pakistan is 81 percent.

So why do we pay Pakistan to be our enemy? Why do we pay them to hate us? Mr. Chairman, I submit they will do both of those things for free.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time I have remaining?

I appreciate the ranking member's comments regarding Pakistan.

One thing, the bill cuts half of the funding to Pakistan. It does not cut the nuclear protection that the United States further emphasizes for Pakistan. So that is not cut in my amendment.

The gentleman mentioned actions. I think the Government of Pakistan over the last decade has shown that they cannot be trusted, that they use the money for improper purposes in Pakistan. And I am of the opinion that some of that money goes to hurt American troops that have been in the field for a good number of years.

So I think that we should cut 50 percent of the money that we send Pakistan. It's in the best interest, in my opinion, of the United States. Their actions prove they cannot be trusted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, government agencies have been keeping track of Americans' whereabouts by amassing databases of millions of our license plates by using license plate scanners. The information captures data on movements of innocent American citizens going about their daily lives.

Unbeknown to Americans, government technology records our movement from the time we get in our car in the morning to every place we stop during the day, to the time we drive home. Plus, this data can be stored indefinitely.

This reminds me of the days when I was in the Soviet Union and saw how government spied on its citizens constantly. Do we really want a government to have the authority to record us anywhere we go during the day or during the night?

When you go to work, to lunch, to the barber shop, to the airport, to the movies, to the post office, to the banker, to the shopping center, to the car repair shop, to business meetings, to vacations, the parks, to the pool, to grandma's house, to church, to the grocery, to a friend's house, to the hospital, et cetera?

We know by recent experience, abusive government cannot be trusted with dragnet information data files it collects on Americans.

To me, freedom includes government not keeping personal daily logs on individuals and their activities. None of these activities are the government's business.

The Right of Privacy and the Right to be Left Alone include the right to keep snooping government surveillance out of our lives.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I sent out an email. I tweeted about an hour ago and posted on Facebook this morning. We have a world of instant, unlimited email storage, high-speed broadband, social media, and cloud computing. However, after 180 days, government agencies can snoop through everything I just mentioned. How in the cloud is this possible?

Because current law allows spying government to seize without warrant or probable cause emails over 180 days old. Big Government can demand a private company turn over a citizen's information without their consent, without their knowledge, or telling citizens later their emails have even been seized. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

That's why Representative Zoe Lofgren and I have introduced bipartisan legislation to protect a citizen's right of privacy against government. Our legislation will update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Government can't seize and snoop through your mail. It shouldn't be able to seize and snoop through your emails without warrant or probable cause.

And that's just the way it is.