Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support for H.R. 4744, the Iran Human Rights and Hostage--Taking Accountability Act, introduced by my fellow Texas delegate Congressman Michael McCall and fellow House Judiciary colleague Congressman Ted Deutch. H.R. 4744 states that Congress stands with the people of Iran, and it provides the Trump administration with the tools necessary to hold Iranian government officials responsible for human rights violations, corruption, and censorship. Moreover, this legislation holds the Iranian regime accountable for taking hostage American citizens and permanent residents by ensuring that those responsible pay an extreme but just price for the violations committed. I applaud the House Foreign Affairs Committee for their support in passing this critical piece of legislation. And I sincerely hope that this bill passes the Senate and arrives at the President's desk to be promptly signed into law so we can begin to hold the Iranian regime accountable for their gross human rights violations. The Iranian regime continues to perpetuate gross human rights abuses against its own people. The regime continues to suppress the country's voices for reform through censorship of the media. The regime continues to recklessly use the nation's resources to expand its regional influence through its support for terrorist groups. The regime continues to engage in corrupt practices. And the regime continues to illegally detain and imprison our citizens without just cause or reason. These practices are unacceptable. H.R. 4744 serves as a clear signal to the people of Iran that we support them in their quest for freedom, it shines a light on the regime's human rights violations and sanctions those who are complicit in such crimes. The same goes for Iranian officials guilty of corruption, censorship, and the diversion of goods intended for the Iranian people. Lastly, this bill sanctions individuals complicit in taking Americans and other nation's citizens hostage and requires the President to work with our international partners to develop a strategy to put an end to this practice. We have five Americans currently detained in Iran--an intolerable circumstance that calls for action. We must do all we can, and apply as much pressure on Iran as necessary to ensure the American detainees' safe release, and prevent future Americans from being held hostage by this brutal regime. I thank Congressman McCaul and Deutch for their leadership on this legislation to hold Iran's corrupt officials accountable. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill's passage, and the passage of all the important measure before us today.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and a former member of the Science Committee I am in strong support of H.R. 2809, the ``American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act of 2017.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson for their work to bring H.R. 2809 before the House for consideration. There is historic congressional support for NASA in Congress, and I am proud to have played a leading role in this effort. Now that space exploration has attracted strong private sector investments, space exploration has entered a new era. I served on the House Science Committee for 12 years; and one of the goals was to see private sector investments in space exploration. This legislation grants the Office of Space Commerce (OSC) of the Department of Commerce the authority to issue certifications to U.S. nationals and nongovernmental entities for the operation of: 1. specified human-made objects manufactured or assembled in outer space, including on the Moon and other celestial bodies, with or without human occupants, that were launched from Earth; and 2. all items carried on such objects that are intended for use in outer space. To be eligible for certification, each entity's application must include a space debris mitigation plan for the space objects. H.R. 2809 also directs that the Office of Space Commerce (OSC) establish a Private Space Activity Advisory Committee to: 1. analyze the status and recent developments of nongovernmental space activities, and 2. advise on matters relating to U.S. private sector activities in outer space. The bill authorizes the OSC to issue permits to persons for the operation of space-based remote sensing systems. The OSC will also establish an Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing to provide advice on matters relating to the U.S. commercial space-based remote sensing industry. The bill also abolishes the Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is our job as members of Congress to make sure that NASA continues to push the boundaries of what is possible, keeping our Nation on the forefront of innovation and exploration. However, when the impossible becomes routine, and private sector interest in the area of space exploration attracts investment and further innovation in the area of commercialization it is fitting to support private sector efforts. We should not forget the role that private and public sector efforts have made in developing and promoting advancements in aviation from its earliest beginnings. The Wright Brothers were private citizens who devoted themselves to solving the problems associated with human flight. Their success led others inside and outside of government to pursue innovations that led to the development of technology that ultimately led us into space. NASA continues to be the world's premier space organization but as innovation and private interest in space continues we must make room for private sector interests. We must provide for safe and responsible space innovations, while assuring that the United States remains a leader in this area. H.R. 2809 maintains sustainability of purpose for the government's support of commercial space activities. The bill lays the ground work for an expansion in commercial space activity and emphasizes the importance of maintaining a steady cadence of science missions that lead the way into deeper exploration of our planet, solar system and beyond. This authorization addresses an issue of great importance to a sustained and healthy space program. The bill provides a place in the Department of Commerce for remote sensing commercial space activity. It is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future of NASA is one of continued progress and that space exploration remains a part of our national destiny. NASA inspires our children to look to the stars and dream of what they too may achieve one day. Space exploration allows us to push the bounds of our scientific knowledge, as we carry out research projects not possible within the constraints of planet Earth. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of H.R. 2809.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of Barbara Pierce Bush, the matriarch of one of America's great families, and former First Lady of the United States. Barbara Bush was a descendant of the 14th president, the wife of the 41st and the mother of the 43rd. Barbara Bush, the widely admired wife of one president and the fiercely loyal mother of another, was born June 8, 1925 in Rye, New York. Barbara Bush attended a prestigious boarding school in South Carolina, where she met George Herbert Walker Bush at a school dance when she was 16 and he was a year older. Three years later, Barbara Pierce married her sweetheart and their love lasted for 73 years, until she was departed from her beloved by death. George and Barbara raised their family mainly in West Texas, where they settled after the end of World War II and where the future President went into the oil business. Barbara Bush was a plainspoken woman who was instantly recognizable with her signature white hair, pearl necklaces, and earrings. Mrs. Bush was an early supporter of the Civil Rights Movement, Planned Parenthood, and was a tireless champion of many charitable causes, especially literacy. Barbara Bush raised more than $1 billion for literacy and cancer charities. Barbara Bush recognized that education was the key that unlocked the door of human potential. Literacy was Barbara Bush's special cause, which led her to establish the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy. Shortly after the end of her husband's presidential administration, the Bush Family returned to Texas, and all Houstonians were lucky to call her and her husband, George H. W. Bush, the 41st president, our neighbors and dear friends. Barbara Bush's books include an autobiography and one about post- White House life. Her children's book about their dog, Millie, and her puppies written during her White House years was a best seller, as were her other books. In 2001, when George W. Bush took office, Barbara Bush became the only woman in American history to live to see her husband and son elected president. Barbara Bush lived a full life and will be remembered in American history, alongside only Abigail Adams, for the impact her life had on this country. Barbara Bush is survived by her husband and their children George, Jeb, Neil, Marvin, and Dorothy. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Barbara Pierce Bush, the Former First Lady of the United States.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to Executive Order 13828, entitled ``Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility,'' issued by the President last Tuesday, April 10, 2018. The President would have the American people believe he is bringing the country together and growing the economy for all Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Executive Order 13828 is a thinly-veiled attempt to restrict access to health care, housing, food, and many other basic living programs by adding onerous ``work requirements.'' These social safety net programs provide necessary government assistance to help Americans families maintain a basic standard of living, and are a safety net for the poorest of the poor. Millions of Americans, despite working two jobs, depend on these programs just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads for their families. In addition, the vast majority of full-time workers live paycheck to paycheck. In fact, 70 percent of Americans rely on at least one means tested federal program throughout their lives. America, one of the richest countries in the world, should be able to help families caught in, to use the celebrated LBJ biographer Robert Caro's famous phrase, the ``tentacles of circumstance.'' However, we have a president who is insensitive to the plights of every day Americans. Trump and the conservative acolytes who seek to implement his agenda paint an inaccurate portrayal of poor people as lazy ``Welfare Queens'' who would rather depend on the government than pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but nothing could be further from the true reality that millions of Americans face. Mr. Speaker, the President should know that it is unreasonable to expect the poorest people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they do not have boots. Our nation's social safety net programs already fail to help all of the families in need: Only 1 in 4 poor families with children receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); SNAP only provide $1.40/per meal; and Housing assistance reaches just 1 in 5 eligible families. That is because the federal government has failed to raise the minimum wage in almost a decade, so even if you work a full-time minimum wage job, you are still living in poverty. Members of the CBC are here to tell the American people, do not be fooled. Donald Trump says this is about a ``poverty trap,'' but the real trap is not raising the minimum wage. The President opposes increasing the minimum wage and eliminating labor protections for middle and lower income workers in the African American community. Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage to just $12 per hour would save $53 billion in SNAP benefits alone. Wage gaps between are larger today than they were in 1979. For example, African American men's average hourly wages were 22.2 percent lower than those of white men in 1979 and declined to 31.0 percent lower by 2015. Young African American women have been hardest hit since 2000. The racial wealth gap is much larger than the wage or income gap by race. Average wealth for white families is seven times higher than average wealth for African American families. Worse still, median white wealth (wealth for the family in the exact middle of the overall distribution--wealthier than half of all families and less-wealthy than half) is twelve times higher than median African American wealth. Wage gaps are growing primarily because of discrimination and racial differences in skills and worker characteristics. Declining unionization has also had a role in the growing black-white wage gap, particularly for men newly joining the workforce. African Americans have been disproportionately affected by the growing gap between pay and productivity. Not only are the President's policies divisive along racial and cultural lines, they also serve to further increase economic inequality due to their clear design in favor of the wealthiest among us at the expense of everyone else. Trump's billionaire tax heist robs the U.S. Treasury of $1.5 trillion in resources that could be invested in economic growth in underserved communities. The President has proposed doubling down on mass incarceration and the war on drugs, which drains the African American labor pool. The President has taken every opportunity to harm health care for African-Americans from sabotaging the ACA to ending Medicaid as we know it. This president is no friend to African Americans, or their pocket books. Trump also wants you to believe that he wants a bipartisan infrastructure plan. Do not be fooled. Trump's review of ``welfare programs'' is an immoral attempt to gut the programs that provide a basic standard of living for Americans struggling to make ends meet, all to pay for massive tax cuts to himself and the richest 1 percent. Instead, he should raise wages and invest in job training programs to prepare Americans for the work of the future. Mr. Speaker, our nation still has a long way to go before we achieve economic equality for all its citizens. The President and Congressional Republicans should work with Democrats to put more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans. At the end of the day, our constituents should be able to support their children with one full-time job. Ultimately, we need to give families the tools they need to rise out of poverty, not undercut programs that keep them afloat.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my task this morning to encourage my colleagues to adhere to the rule of law. In keeping with that, my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee--Mr. Nadler, the ranking member, myself, and Mr. Cohen--introduced H.R. 5476, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, to protect the work of Special Counsel Mueller and to allow his work to proceed. In the recent days, Mr. Mueller's prosecutors found information that generated questions about criminal activity. No prosecutor can ignore that kind of evidence. He referred it first to the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein, to approve his potential referral of that information, and he did approve it. It was referred to the Southern District of New York. We now come to find out that the President's attorney has been investigated for a long period of time. We found out a surprise: one of his clients was Sean Hannity, who was already being investigated. This is an insurance that the President will not fire the special counsel and allow his work to continue. That is an Article I responsibility, a constitutional responsibility, and I encourage my colleagues to join us to provide that insurance.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the manager of this bill, Mr. Poe, again, for his continued leadership on issues of protecting the victim. I know that everyone has either gone to their bank, been at a store, or gotten that call that says that: ``Are you Mrs. Jones? You live in Texas. There is someone now in a department store in New York using your identity, your card, your credit card,'' and nothing but fear comes your way. It may not be even on the basis of you having lost your credit cards, but it may be on the basis of the dastardly act of stealing your identity. Probably there is nothing more, besides family and faith and country and God, that disturbs you most than to lose who you are. And so the legislation of H.R. 2905, the Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018, is a valuable legislative initiative because, every year, billions of dollars are stolen from hardworking Americans as a result of identity theft. Tax season, as it begins today, or ends today, is a particularly dangerous time as scammers pretending to be IRS representatives trick victims into giving them money. Some of the most vulnerable victims are senior citizens or individuals who are not familiar with the likes of government responsibilities or actions. The bipartisan bill, H.R. 2905, the Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018, helps ensure that Congress has the information it needs to make sure that law enforcement agencies are employing tactics to hold these criminals accountable and deter future crimes. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young) and the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) for their astute leadership on this bill and for recognizing that victims are left helpless and hopeless sometimes. As tax season comes to a close, millions of Americans are at risk of being exploited by emerging schemes where scam artists pretend to be IRS agents and harass victims into providing personal information and money. The IRS estimates that more than $65 million has been lost to phone tax scammers in the past 5 years. These attacks are most common during the tax season, in March and April. Those are dollars that many valuable and important programs or responsibilities of our Federal Government could utilize, dollars that certainly don't belong to criminals. Often, scammers present themselves as the IRS and trick people into sending their money and personal information. As technology advances, so do the scammers. The IRS warned of a sophisticated phone scam targeting taxpayers, including recent immigrants, which has been making the rounds throughout the country. Scammers claim to be IRS employees using fake names and bogus IRS identification badges. They may know a lot about their targets, and they usually alter the caller I.D. to make it look like the IRS. By debating this bill on the floor of the House today, Mr. Speaker, we hope that we are sending a far-reaching warning for those who may be watching or those who are watching to tell others: Please understand that the IRS has made it clear they do not do business that way. Victims are told they owe money to the IRS and they must be paid promptly through a gift card or a wire transfer. That is not the way IRS does business. Victims may be threatened with arrest or deportation or suspension of a business or driver's license. Seek immediate help through counsel, through calling, directly, the IRS or your public servant that is nearby. In many cases, the caller becomes hostile and insulting. If the phone isn't answered, the scammers often leave an urgent callback request. That is not the way the Federal Government does its business, or the IRS. Scared and confused, many victims comply with the scammer's request out of fear of the repercussions. Please do not adhere to these heinous and vile actions against you. The Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018 requires the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury to report to Congress the efforts to combat the serious identity theft problem. The bill requires the DOJ to report on the status of prosecutions of identity theft crimes. It asks for recommendations regarding how this crime is committed, how to improve collaboration with other Federal agencies, and how to improve law enforcement deterrence and prevention of such offenses. It also requires the Department of the Treasury to provide a report detailing its current efforts to assist in the prosecution of identity theft when a criminal impersonates IRS personnel and the resources they need to facilitate the prosecution of these offenses. Please remember--I will say it again--the IRS does not do business this way. Be wary and reach out for help. This information will provide a helpful insight into how law enforcement agencies are addressing the heinous problem that Congress wants to resolve, and we want to stamp out identity theft and the IRS scammers. We need to ensure that Americans are being protected from these con artists who target and terrify Americans and that these thieves are held accountable for their criminal activity, and that is why I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 2905, the Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, again, let me thank Mr. Young from Iowa for his presence here. And let me thank Ms. Sinema, who has always been astutely concerned about the fairness to those who may be victimized by these dastardly acts. I reiterate again that they are conmen and - women, and Ms. Sinema knows well the importance of protecting her constituents, so I want to congratulate her and Mr. Young for this legislation. Again, I want to emphasize how important it is that we take important measures to protect all forms of identity theft. But I want to use the terminology ``victims'' because, as I have said, senior citizens, people who are there alone; and, of course, families, individuals who are not experienced; first-time filers, for example, of their IRS filing; and people who don't have, or know, anyone to call, they are particularly in the eye of the storm. I, again, reiterate--if you are listening to us--do not respond to those kinds of intimidating calls. Please call the IRS. Yes, you can call the IRS or your public servant that is nearby, or seek some relief in some other manner. Identity theft can occur in many settings. It can occur in public places where criminals watch you from a nearby location as you punch in your credit card number, or listen in on your conversation if you have to give your credit card number over the telephone. It can also occur if you receive applications for pre-approved credit cards in the mail, but discard them without tearing up the enclosed materials. A first notice to everyone: those items should be shredded. Many people's information is stolen when they are inquiring to spam emails that promise them some benefit, but request identifying data. In some cases, criminals reportedly abuse computer technology to steal large amounts of personal data. With enough identifying information about an individual, a criminal can take over that individual's identity to conduct a wide range of crimes. You don't want to get that phone call. Maybe it is not a store in New York, but it might be a store in Istanbul, or somewhere beyond, that your credit card is being used. False applications for loans and credit cards, fraudulent withdrawals from bank accounts, fraudulent use of telephone calling cards, or online accounts, it is important to be reminded the world is getting smaller and these credit card accounts can be used all over the world. The consequences of identity theft can be severe and can leave a person with no funds to pay for everyday living costs. Identity fraud can have a significant effect on your credit history. If an identity theft uses your existing credit or applies for new credit, this could leave a footprint of debt or missed payments in your credit report, even to the extent that this individual generates a bankruptcy. Even if the criminal applies for credit and is rejected, this can still have a negative impact on your credit history, as each application for credit is recorded. It is with these concerns that I applaud this legislation and ask my colleagues to support the present legislation that is H.R. 2905, the Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018. The victims are our most important cause. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, every year, billions of dollars are stolen from hardworking Americans as a result of identity theft. Tax season is a particularly dangerous time as scammers pretending to be IRS representatives, trick victims into giving them money. The bipartisan bill, H.R. 2905 ``Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018,'' helps ensure that Congress has the information it needs to make sure that law enforcement agencies are employing tactics to hold these criminals accountable and deter future crimes. As tax season comes to a close, millions of Americans are at risk of being exploited by an emerging scheme where scam artists pretend to be IRS agents and harass victims into providing personal information and money. The IRS estimates that more than $65 million has been lost to phone tax scammers in the past five years. These attacks are most common during the high high tax season in March and April. Often scammers present themselves as the IRS and trick people into sending them money and personal information. As technology advances so do the scammers. The IRS warned of a sophisticated phone scam targeting taxpayers, including recent immigrants, which has been making the rounds throughout the country. Scammers claim to be IRS employees, using fake names and bogus IRS identification badge numbers. They may know a lot about their targets, and they usually alter the caller ID to make it look like the IRS is calling. Victims are told they owe money to the IRS and it must be paid promptly through a gift card or wire transfer. Victims may be threatened with arrest, deportation or suspension of a business or driver's license. In many cases, the caller becomes hostile and insulting. If the phone isn't answered, the scammers often leave an ``urgent'' callback request. Scared and confused, many victims comply with the scammers request out of fear of the repercussions. The ``Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018,'' requires the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury to report to Congress the efforts to combat the serious identity theft problem. The bill requires the DOJ to report on the status of prosecutions of identity theft crimes. It asked for recommendations regarding how this crime is committed, how to improve collaboration with other federal agencies, and how to improve law enforcement deterrence and prevention of such offenses. It also requires the Department of Treasury to provide a report detailing its current efforts to assist in the prosecution of identity theft where the criminal impersonates IRS personnel and the resources they need to facilitate the prosecution of these offenses. This information will provide a helpful insight into how our law enforcement agencies are addressing the problem and what Congress can do to help improve the results. We need to ensure that Americans are being protected from these con artists who target and terrify Americans and that these thieves are held accountable for their criminal activity. That is why I support H.R. 2905, ``Justice for Victims of IRS Scams and Identity Theft Act of 2018.'' Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to emphasize how important it is that we take important measures to protect against all forms of identity theft. Identity theft can occur in many settings. It can occur in public places where criminals watch you from a nearby location as you punch in your credit card number or listen in on your conversation if you give your credit-card number over the telephone. It can also occur if you receive applications for ``pre-approved'' credit cards in the mail but discard them without tearing up the enclosed materials. Many people's information is stolen when they respond to spam emails that promise them some benefit but requests identifying data. In some cases, criminals reportedly have used computer technology to steal large amounts of personal data. With enough identifying information about an individual, a criminal can take over that individual's identity to conduct a wide range of crimes. False applications for loans and credit cards, fraudulent withdrawals from bank accounts, fraudulent use of telephone calling cards, or online accounts. The consequences of identity theft can be severe and can leave a person with no funds to pay for everyday living costs. Identity fraud can have a significant effect on your credit history. If an identity thief uses your existing credit or applies for new credit, this could leave a footprint of debt or missed payments on your credit report. Even if the criminal applies for credit and is rejected this can still have a negative effect on your credit history as each application for credit is recorded. It is with these concerns in mind that we act on this legislation today. I support this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Tonko so very much for yielding. He was a dear, dear friend of Louise. I rise today to really highlight the sunshine that Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter really was to all of us. I am reminded of that day when those two planes landed in Rochester, New York, her beloved community. It was a bright, sunny day, but it was almost amazing as the buses drew up to the place of her funeral and the lines and lines of Rochester citizens, her constituents, who were lining up two by two, waiting to come to honor her. That was a true testimony to what Louise Slaughter and Bob, her husband, were to that community. They loved that community, and that community loved her. Eighty-eight years of youth, because she was young, vibrant, and ready. I am delighted to acknowledge so much that she did in the areas of women's rights and empowerment, the arts, healthcare, the battlefield preparedness, economic revitalization, the environment, and social justice, and, of course, her work dealing with the issue of genetics that, really, a lot of people in Congress didn't even understand, but Louise with her expertise in microbiology, there she was educating all of us. As far as her leadership on the Affordable Care Act, she was one of the soldiers and generals who made sure that it passed, and as well her great work in dealing with the Violence Against Women Act and the STOCK Act to make sure that we, as Members of Congress, did the right thing financially. But I want to emphasize the tutoring that Louise Slaughter gave to me. I want to thank her staff who is sitting back in this Chamber, and her staff in her home district. But if they came to the Rules Committee, either when Louise was a member or senior member or the ranking member or chair, her astuteness and genius, her sharp wit, her reminding members that she was the chair, that we could learn from her if we decided to do so. I know personally, as a frequent visitor to the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter was in charge and the first woman chair of this powerful committee. I learned fast from her. I cannot thank her enough for teaching a new Member at that time of the works and the goings-on and the protocols of the Rules Committee and how to do it right. She never lost her humor and her wonderful Southern twang. Of course, who would be better leading Seneca Falls than Louise McIntosh Slaughter? I thank her for her fight for women's rights and as well for taking me to Niagara Falls as a member of the Homeland Security Committee. So, finally, as I close, I am reminded that Congresswoman Slaughter had an iron fist in a velvet glove, and I loved it. I loved her wit, and I loved the fact that she was a true American. So my prayer is that the Lord bring comfort to the many people, those who Louise knew and those who felt they knew Louise Slaughter, who know that a mighty oak has fallen and are heartbroken at her loss. I ask that God bless her, may God rest her, and as well may God bless her constituents as God blesses the United States of America. Farewell, Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter, you will never be forgotten, and you will always be remembered. I want to thank my colleague Paul Tonko, for organizing this session honoring our shared friend. I rise today in remembrance of my dear friend and our beloved colleague, Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter of New York, a trailblazer for women, whose powerful voice was quieted this past March 16, 2018. Louise Slaughter lived a long, full, and consequential life and got the most out of the 88 years she graced this world. She will be remembered in this House for her service to her constituents and her colleagues, her formidable intellect, her mastery of the legislative process, and her graciousness and kindness to all who came in contact with her. After serving four years in the New York State Assembly, Louise Slaughter was elected to the 100th Congress in 1986 to represent the 30th Congressional District of New York, which at the time included downtown and eastern Rochester, most of eastern Monroe County, all of Genesee County and northern Livingston and Ontario counties. Reelected to the 15 succeeding Congresses Louise Slaughter carved out a legacy of leadership and accomplishments in the areas of women's rights and empowerment, the arts, health care, battlefield preparedness, economic revitalization, the environment, and social justice. Born in the coal mining town of Lynch, Kentucky and educated at the University of Kentucky where she earned degrees in microbiology and public health, Louise Slaughter understood the connection between public health and a vibrant democracy, and fought to ensure passage of the landmark Affordable Care Act. In the 112th Congress, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter introduced and shepherded to passage Pub. L. 112-105, the ``Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act'' or ``STOCK Act,'' which prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees, and requires many financial transactions by members of Congress to be reported within 45 days. Mr. Speaker, since her first years on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter was an advocate for women all over the world. Among her many accomplishments, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter co- authored the landmark Violence Against Women Act, ensured the first federal funding to the National Institutes of Health to research breast cancer, and was a co-founder of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus. It is particularly fitting and altogether appropriate that this tireless champion of women, children, and families represented an area near Seneca Falls, the location of the first women's rights convention in 1848. The dean of New York's Congressional Delegation, Louise Slaughter was the first woman to chair the powerful House Rules Committee, and the first woman to serve as Ranking Member of that Committee, and in both roles she carried the banner and led the fight for progressive values and to make our good country better. I will always remember and be grateful to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter for her help in my duties representing the people of the 18th Congressional District of Texas. I worked closely with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and drew upon her counsel and assistance to shepherd scores of bills and amendments to passage that have been beneficial to my constituents. Louise Slaughter was incredibly generous with her knowledge and experience and served as a mentor to new members of Congress, including me. I will never forget that Louise Slaughter's advocacy continued until her last days with us, including National Women's March in Washington, D.C. on January 21, 2017. Mr. Speaker, Louise Slaughter was an iron fist in a velvet glove. A native of Kentucky, Louise Slaughter never lost her Southern twang and charm. Louise Slaughter effortlessly mixed humor with logic to win over skeptics. And then after disarming you, Louise Slaughter made her move. Through her words and deeds, Louise Slaughter worked to make the lives of all Americans better. Louise Slaughter was a dear friend and her loss leaves a void in my heart. It is my prayer that the Lord brings comfort to the many people-- those whom Louise knew and those who felt they knew Louise Slaughter-- who know that a mighty oak has fallen and are heartbroken at the loss. I thank her family for sharing her with us and the country.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has already mentioned, this is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, a very important statement for preventing violence against women, men, boys, and girls. I rise today to say that it is still of great concern to all of us, and particularly young women. One in five women in this country have been raped, and four out of five rape victims are under the age of 25. Girls and young women between the ages of 16 and 24 experience the highest rate of intimate partner violence, almost triple the national average. This is the time for us to join together. In a few weeks, I will be introducing the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It is legislation that has drawn bipartisan support. I look forward to the support of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, because it will emphasize critical services such as transitional housing, legal assistance, and supervised visitation services, but, more importantly, working with the police and law enforcement community's preventative measures and working with outreach for boys and men. Prevention is part of this legislation as well as protecting our survivors, as well as educating people against this dastardly act. I look forward to the introduction of this legislation and those who will join me--men and women--to support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act for 2018.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, and an original co-sponsor, I rise today to urge all Members to support and cosponsor H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act.'' When we were here in March, before the Easter Recess, I indicated that firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller would not be crossing a Red Line. It would not be crossing a Blue Line. It would be crossing a Red, White, and Blue line. I have been concerned about this issue for a very long time--to me it was clear in August, and every day that passes is another where my first instincts about the President's desire to fire Special Counsel Mueller, are confirmed. The importance of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into the 2016 election, and the nature and extent of Russia's interference, cannot be overstated. The allegation that a foreign government--hostile or otherwise-- played any part in the internal democratic processes of our country should shock every single American citizen. It strikes at the heart of our democratic system of government. We must come to terms with the fact that our very last national election is a crime scene. The 2018 election could be one, too. It was critical then, it is critical now, and it will be critical tomorrow that the Special Counsel be permitted to do his work unimpeded. That is why last August I introduced H.R. 3654, ``Special Counsel Independence Protection Act,'' which precludes the firing of the Special Counsel absent of substantial evidence, that there exists good cause to do so, and that determination accepted by a three-judge federal court. H.R. 3654 has the support of 152 cosponsors and is also the subject of a discharge petition, and 144 members of the House of Representatives have signed the discharge petition. I thank my colleagues who have supported H.R. 3654, to protect the Special Counsel's investigation recognizing that nothing less than our sovereignty, our democratic ideals, and our national dignity are at stake. Today, I announce my support for new legislation protecting the Special Counsel, H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act,'' introduced by Ranking Member Nadler, myself, and Mr. Cohen. I am pleased that this legislation incorporates the core of my legislation to protect the Special Counsel. The Nadler-Jackson Lee-Cohen bill constrains the Attorney General from damaging the Special Counsel's investigation, absent judicial ratification of any action to terminate the Special Counsel. Under H.R. 5476, the judicial branch--yet another check on an unwieldy executive--would determine if the termination was appropriate. The necessity of enacting this legislation is clear. Seven times this year, the President has decried the investigation as a ``witch hunt,'' including yesterday. The New York Times has reported that the President has tried at least twice in 2017 to fire Special Counsel Mueller--once in June 2017, and once again in December 2017. Now, this morning he is claiming, again over Twitter, that reports that he wanted to fire Special Counsel Mueller were more ``fake news.'' On Monday, after news that his lawyer's residence and offices were raided, the President openly mused, at a gathering of his war cabinet, about firing Special Counsel Mueller. On Tuesday, the President asserted that he had the power to fire Special Counsel Mueller. Yesterday on Twitter, the President called Special Counsel Mueller ``the most conflicted of all.'' He is wrong. Last night, he advertised a program on his favorite cable network, and when that show aired, it consisted of a derogatory piece against the president's chief investigators: former FBI Director Comey and Special Counsel Mueller. Last month, the President twice said he opposed the investigation, told an untruth about the political composition of the prosecutors in the Special Counsel's office, and has reiterated that it should never have been started. Given the actions of the current President, it is appropriate to ask whether stronger legislation is needed. But H.R. 5476 is an important compromise with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We must step back and take off our partisan hats and approach this as Americans. We, as Members of Congress, are Constitutional Officers. This is an `Article I' moment. The People's House must exercise its constitutional prerogative and conduct oversight. The framers of the Constitution prioritized the legislature branch over the executive branch. Recent public opinion polls reflect that 70 percent of the American people want the Special Counsel to continue his investigation. The Framers of our Constitution wisely divided power through a system of checks and balances. They anticipated a moment like this and vested power in the Congress to address, deter, and remedy a crisis caused by a Chief Executive who held himself to be above the law. When future generations look back on this moment, and they consider that our democratic ideals and institutions were under enormous pressure from unsuspecting places, they will ask what we did when it mattered. We must act. Now, while we as Americans have our differing views, they are ours to solve, amongst ourselves. Unfortunately, for all of us, the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation also includes the question of the extent to which the Trump campaign was helped in any way by the Russians. Congress must not abdicate its Article I responsibility. We must get to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 election. We must permit Special Counsel Robert Mueller to continue his investigation. We must seize the moment and pass H.R. 5476, ``Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it is important for those of us who have served here that we are down this frivolous route again: this unconstitutional effort to remedy the disaster that has been perpetrated by the Republican tax scam. Let me tell you what the CBO Director said, who is known to be the bipartisan, nonpartisan arbiter of the work that the Congress does. First of all, they say the tax cut will create deficits of historic proportions. Not Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security. An $800 billion deficit in 2018, $1 trillion in 2019, and $1 trillion in 2020. That is what the Republicans have created. Now, in this false and ridiculous, possibly unconstitutional effort, here we go again with a balanced budget amendment that will, in fact, deny and implode the needs of those who need Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. This balanced budget amendment is antidemocratic in that it requires a supermajority in Congress to increase the debt limit, deficit spending, or raise revenue. All would have been unnecessary if we had not passed the tax scam. Remember, we gave the corporate tax relief a 21 percent number, instead of 25 percent, coming from 33 percent, when they didn't ask for it. It is antidemocratic because it enshrines one particular economic theory into the Constitution: depriving future voters and future Congresses of the ability to adopt other economic approaches. That is our responsibility as leaders giving oversight to the needs of the American people, to the needs of the Pentagon, and to the needs of domestic spending. By the way, this deficit will be more than domestic spending and defense spending. It raises separation of powers concerns because it would open the door to allowing Federal courts to make budget policy decisions. It is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability of Congress to respond to economic downturns and other emergencies. Were anyone here in 2007 and 2008, particularly when the Secretary of the Treasury under the Bush administration came and told this Democratic Congress, of which I was a Member of, that America, as we knew it, was getting ready to end, that we saw the demise of Lehman Brothers and the collapse of the market, it wasn't Democrats who did that, it was Republicans. It is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability again for us to deal with those kinds of downturns. It jeopardizes funding of Social Security and the military and civil service retirement system, and it undermines the Nation's financial system, including deposit insurance. It is unnecessary because Congress was able to achieve a balanced budget in the 1990s, of which I was here through the existing political process, and created the Children's Health Insurance Program. Therefore, this balanced budget amendment is an amendment that creates havoc. What we should do is to undo the tax scam, repeal it, start again, and not implode Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. To the seniors who are living there: don't buy into a balanced budget amendment which is unconstitutional, buy into repealing the tax scam and standing for the American people. I conclude by saying many national groups oppose this. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, the so- called Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which properly should be called the ``Cut, Cap, and End Medicare and Destroy Social Security Act'' because this is exactly what will happen if this amendment is passed by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the several states. A balanced budget amendment is a perennial gimmick periodically dusted off by House Republicans to divert attention from their manifest inability to govern competently or to manage the nation's finances. H.J. Res. 2 is no exception coming as it does on the heels of the report by the Congressional Budget Office documenting that the Trump/ GOP budget deficit continues to climb and is projected to exceed $800 billion this year and to top $1 trillion next year and to remain at that level for foreseeable future. Moreover, the CBO report confirms that the GOP TaxScam passed last year by this Republican Congress on a party-line vote will not pay for itself and is in fact the major cause of the rising the deficit. Mr. Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than by tampering with the U.S. Constitution. The easier and better way is for the American people to put a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected surpluses exceeded $5 trillion. Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, and 15 million jobs were created. In contrast, under every Republican administration since President Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was substantially larger than the one he inherited, a major economic recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than the. Turning to the joint resolution before us, I strongly oppose this latest gimmick for the following reasons: 1. it is anti-democratic in that it requires a supermajority in Congress to increase the debt limit, deficit spending, or raise revenue; 2. it is anti-democratic because it enshrines one particular economic theory into the Constitution, depriving future voters and future Congresses of the ability to adopt other economic approaches; 3. it raises separation of powers concerns because it would open the door to allowing federal courts to make budget policy decisions; 4. it is economically harmful because it would hamper the ability of Congress to respond to economic downturns and other emergencies; 5. it jeopardizes funding for Social Security and military and civil service retirement systems; 6. it undermines the nation's financial system, including deposit insurance; and 7. it is unnecessary because Congress was able to achieve balanced budgets in the 1990's through the existing political process. It is for these reasons that numerous outside groups committed to the economic well-being of the United States as well as organizations concerned with the needs of the elderly, the middle class, children, and other basic needs of national importance strongly opposed a measure in the 112th Congress virtually identical to Chairman Goodlatte's current H.J. Res. 2, and that measure failed to garner a supermajority as required by the Constitution. These groups included a coalition of 123 religious, labor, education, civil rights, child advocacy, and other organizations; a coalition of six national environmental organizations representing over one million members and activists; OMB Watch (now the Center for Effective Government); the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); the National Education Association (NEA); the National Women's Law Center, Committee for Education Funding, and the Coalition on Human Needs. Although there is a clear need to lower the long-term federal budget deficit, requiring a balanced budget through a constitutional amendment would be disastrous for the U.S. economy. This Amendment is portrayed as the alternative to our country's deficit issue, but in reality, a Balanced Budget Amendment truly undermines the goal of a balanced budget by threatening the survival of such critical programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that serve as fundamental safety nets for millions of Americans. These important social programs face greater demand when federal receipts are in rapid declines. Requiring a balanced budget would force cuts to these and other important programs or force tax increases. Either prescription would risk tipping a faltering economy into recession or making recession worse. Any constitutional balanced budget amendment would limit the ability of the federal government to make important investments in worthy causes, including crucial public safety and homeland security programs. Even at times of fiscal austerity, we must continue to provide for the country's public safety and homeland security needs. Any constitutional balanced budget amendment would grossly undermine the ability to protect the lives and well-being of Americans nationwide. Further, this Amendment will gridlock Congress during an economic downturn. There has never been such a blatant effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort from the American public. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families, while constraining the ability of the Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation challenges. We need to change the tone here in the Congress. There has been a theme in previous Congresses and in this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit those who need it most, while ignoring the need to focus on real and contemporary job creation and economic recovery. And by real and contemporary job creation, I do not mean Trump's unsubstantiated and impossible promise of coal jobs. The creation of coal jobs is one of the many myths and false hopes peddled by the current White House. The promise that jobs in coal are just around the corner is fake news. Our time could be better spent focusing on ways to increase American jobs, growing our economy, and investing in our people, paying our bills, and resolving our differences. That is the way you make and keep America great. A balanced budget is not something that should be mandated in our Constitution, nor is it something that should be required every year, proposing an idea that offers little guarantee of success. In particular, during economic downturns, the government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and increasing spending. And in fact, the cost of many government benefit programs is designed to automatically increase when the economy is down--for example, costs for food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid increase when more people need to rely upon them. These countercyclical measures lessen the impact of job losses and economic hardship associated with economic downturns. The resulting temporary increases in spending could cause deficits that would trigger the balanced budget requirements at the worst possible moment. A constitutional amendment requiring the Congress to cut spending to match revenue every year would both limit the Congress's ability to respond to changing fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal responses to high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food and medical assistance. As with the outlay cap that a Balanced Budget Amendment would bring, tying outlays to a percentage of GDP would impose arbitrary limits on government actions to respond to an economic slowdown or recession, when GDP declines. Cutting spending during a recession could make a recession worse by increasing the number of unemployed, decreasing business investment, and withholding services needed to jump-start the economy. The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment would render Social Security unconstitutional in its current form due to the Amendment's prohibitive stance on that system of spending. Capping future spending below Reagan-era levels would force devastating cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, child care, Pell grants, and many other critical programs. Because this proposal would make it impossible for the Congress to increase revenues rather than to cut spending, it is virtually a political ploy that reflects the Republican priorities of ending the Medicare guarantee while cutting taxes for millionaires. The need to raise the debt ceiling has no correlation to whether future budgets are balanced; increases in the debt ceiling reflect past decisions on fiscal policy. And as demonstrated by current disagreement about whether and when to raise the debt ceiling, Congress does not need to impose further barriers to its consideration. Treasury has warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling and the resulting government default, which would be unprecedented, would have catastrophic impacts on the economy. Interest rates would rise, increasing costs for the government and for American businesses and families. Any cuts made to accommodate a mandated balanced budget would fall most heavily on domestic discretionary programs; the immediate result of a balanced budget amendment would be devastating cuts in education, homeland security, public safety, health care and research, transportation and other vital services. Under H.J. Res. 2 total funding would be cut for non-defense discretionary programs, including veterans' medical care, most homeland security activities, border protection, and the FBI. Therefore, these cuts will impact funds to protect our nation's food and water supply, environmental protections, medical research, education, and services for disadvantaged or abused children, frail elderly people, and people with severe disabilities. The Founders purposely made the Constitutional amendment process a long and arduous one. It is foolish, reckless, and decidedly not conservative to rush to pass an amendment altering our nation's founding document on such short notice and without reasonable time for debate. Republicans who support this proposed amendment to the Constitution have demonstrated, at this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it. Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances. Most people with Medicare live on modest incomes. While many many beneficiaries enjoy good health, 25 percent or more have serious health problems and live with multiple chronic conditions, including cognitive and functional impairments. Today, 43 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 years old and 12 percent are 85 or older. Those who are 85 or older are the fastest-growing age group among elderly Medicare beneficiaries. With the aging and growth of the population, the number of Medicare beneficiaries more than doubled between 1966 and 2000 and is projected to grow from 45 million today to 79 million in 2030. For these reasons, I am strongly opposed to despoiling the Constitution by even considering the Republicans' latest Balanced Budget Amendment gimmick.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, outrage is certainly not a tough enough word to watch the children of Syria, and innocent civilians, be attacked by poisonous gas. Assad is a vicious dictator, and Russia has propped him up. It is important for the American people and for Syrian Americans to know that we will not tolerate the kind of vile violence, particularly against children. But Congress must stand for its constitutional responsibility of debating an authorization to use military force. We must not, at any time, recklessly ignore actions by the administration that really should be a collaborative thought-provoking discussion and debate on the strategy for dealing with the crisis in Syria, but, more importantly, the propping up of Assad by Russia and its supporters. The children need us in Syria to be able to stop both the bloodshed and the terrible tragedy of gas attacks that immediately cause life and injury. It is time for us--the Members of Congress-- to come to this floor and debate our strategy in Syria.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the President to be more responsive and aware of the heavy consequences that weigh behind his comments regarding Syria. Last week, the President's reckless comments of suggesting that it was time to withdraw from Syria emboldened Bashar al-Assad and his regime to launch yet another round of chemical attacks on innocent men, women, and children in the city of Douma. This attack claimed the lives of at least 85 people, majority of them women and children and affected hundreds. I extend my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims killed or injured by the horrific and unjustifiable use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against an unarmed civilian population. The world learned through the painful experience of World War I the horror and inhumanity of chemical weapons, which caused unspeakable suffering and killed indiscriminately as we saw in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein's regime used them in Iraq's war with Iran and later against its own people. The international community cannot again let such an attack go unanswered for to do so will embolden other rogue regimes and terrorists. The President, as Commander in Chief, is charged with the responsibility of deciding when to use military force to protect the nation and its interests. But he does not bear this weighty burden alone. The Constitution wisely provides that it is shared with the Congress, the representatives of the American people. The decisions we make as a country must be measured and wise as countless lives hang in the balance of our actions.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 128 Supporting Respect for Human Rights and Encouraging Inclusive Governance in Ethiopia. This resolution condemns the killing of peaceful protestors by the Ethiopian security forces and calls upon the government of Ethiopia to hold accountable those responsible for killing, torturing, and detaining innocent civilians who are exercising their constitutional rights. Passing H. Res. 128 brings attention to the stifling of political and civil dissent and journalistic freedoms committed by the Ethiopian government. Mr. Speaker, as co-sponsor of this resolution, we recognize that the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has been an ally of the United States and the preservation of basic constitutional rights in this country is the bed-rock of any democracy. Protestors in Ethiopia are urged to refrain from violent demonstrations and encouraged to engage in peaceful negotiations. However, the responsibility lies upon the government to implement democratic principles and respect the right to peaceful assembly and guarantee freedom of the press. Since protests started in Oromia in 2015, the Ethiopian government has charged more than 150 students, opposition leaders, and activists at the Federal High Court under the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation (ATP). They have repeatedly abused such laws to limit the freedom of the press, silence independent journalists, and persecute members of the political opposition. Ethiopian Human Rights Commission reported 669 deaths by April 2017 and Human Rights Watch subsequently reported that the Ethiopian security forces had killed between 500 and 800 peaceful protestors in the Oromia and Amhara regions by November 2016, and the number is likely higher. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 128 to show their support and compassion for the people suffering as victims of human rights violations at the hands of their government.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill, and it is a continuation of the recognition of the United States Congress, Republicans and Democrats, on the importance of dealing with online privacy. In the backdrop of Mr. Zuckerberg testifying in the United States Senate, this bill deals with those who would do dastardly things online. So I rise in support of H.R. 4203, the Combat Online Predators Act of 2017. This legislation would increase the maximum penalty under current law for stalking offenses when the victim is a minor. Obviously, this is something that is equal to online bullying, in some sense. Stalking is a crime that impacts both adults and young people alike. Unfortunately, it does not receive the urgent attention it warrants, although it severely threatens the safety and the lives of our children as much as other prevalent crimes. Stalking is one of four enumerated offenses included in the Violence Against Women Act. As we look to reauthorize that bill, I ask that we all take a closer look at stalking provisions. Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy) for their collaboration and excellent work in trying to stop the surge of online predators utilizing the cyber system to stalk young people. Given the overwhelming use of the internet and social media across the globe, and technological innovations that otherwise enhance our daily lives, online stalking poses a great danger to young people in that it becomes much easier to carry out this crime and intensify its intrusiveness. The terrible, abusive nature of this crime is especially magnified when the victim is a child or an adolescent. This widespread problem requires our immediate attention, particularly in this new era where information is easily ascertained, disseminated, and compromised by bad actors and, at times, by providers--even when done so inadvertently. Current Federal law prohibits narrowly defined instances of stalking, whether accomplished via interstate travel or electronic means. The Combat Online Predators Act of 2017 seeks to address the greater harm that can be inflicted on young victims of stalking. It does this by increasing the maximum prison sentence by 5 years for stalking offenses committed against victims under the age of 18. Online predators are sexual predators who use information and communication technology to locate, target, and victimize minors. A common forum used to target children include chat rooms, instant messaging, or social networking sites for the purpose of flirting and the ultimate goal of meeting and engaging in sexual activities, either online or in person. For many young victims, the suffering inflicted as a result of stalking can last a lifetime. In fact, research shows children and adolescents who are victims of stalking are more likely to become victims of stalking as adults. Given the alarming number of children targeted, this result is terrifying for the children, for their family members, and for a lifetime. Action Against Stalking released a 2012 report that states: ``273 children were targeted by predators they did not know who tried to--or did--snatch them.'' There was an attempted kidnapping in my community just a few days ago--not online, but physically--when children were traveling together for an outing. Fifty-two children were snatched. In 22 cases, the offender attempted to take a child in front of their parent. Four cases involved an attempt to take a child from a shopping center. So this legislation is crucial, and I am delighted to support this legislation because it provides a reasonable means of protecting our young people from stalking, whether online or in person. It helps to ensure that these vulnerable individuals are shielded from the potentially devastating and long-term physical and mental scars that stalking can inflict. It punishes those who seek to do harm. When a course of harassment and intimidation occurs and rises to the level of stalking by placing the victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, it is appropriate that law enforcement intervene. This can be critical to our young people, and it is important when people are victimized that we understand that this may occur in person; online; via cellphones, computers, email, text messages; and on social media by what we call cyber stalking. The increased maximum penalty for offenses against minors is a sensible modification. I look forward to the continuing debate and ask my colleagues to listen carefully as this debate proceeds. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), the original cosponsor, along with Mr. Fitzpatrick of this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank the two original cosponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), for their leadership. As technology advances, we are faced with more and more challenges. It is important to note that, among female victims of stalking, an estimated 16.3 percent were first stalked before the age of 18, and an estimated 3.5 percent between the ages of 11 and 17. Of the male stalking victims, an estimated 20.5 percent first experienced stalking before the age of 18--this is clearly legislation that is needed--while 16.2 percent were first stalked before the age of 11 and 17. This underlying bill is to help protect our children. This legislation does not require mandatory minimums. This sentencing that has been included is at the discretion of the judge, but as we reckon with the question of privacy, cybersecurity, protecting our children from bullying, this legislation is very important to move us one step forward to provide a safe place of learning and also a place of quality as our children grow in this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, April 4, 2018 marks the 50th anniversary of one of the darkest and most sorrowful days in American history, the assassination in Memphis, Tennessee of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The mortal life of one of the towering figures of the 20th century may have been cut short on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel a half century ago, but the spirit that animated that life and inspired a nation lives on and reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature. In remembering the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we commemorate a man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day. We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats beatings, and even bombings. We celebrate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway. Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. ``Life's most persistent and nagging question,'' he said, is ``what are you doing for others?'' And when Dr. King talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life: ``I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said. ``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity.'' We should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was, above all, a person who was always willing to speak truth to power. There is perhaps no better example of Dr. King's moral integrity and consistency than his criticism of the Vietnam War being waged by the Johnson Administration, an administration that was otherwise a friend and champion of civil and human rights. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929. Martin's youth was spent in our country's Deep South, then run by Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan. For young African-Americans, it was an environment even more dangerous than the one they face today. A young Martin managed to find a dream, one that he pieced together from his readings--in the Bible, and literature, and just about any other book he could get his hands on. Not only did those books help him educate himself, but they also allowed him to work through the destructive and traumatic experiences of blatant discrimination, and the discriminatory abuse inflicted on himself, his family, and his people. As a youngster, Dr. King learned to use his imagination and his dreams to see right through those ``White Only'' signs--to see the reality that all men, and women, regardless of their place of origin, their gender, or their creed, are created equal. Dr. King was a dreamer and through dreams he was able to lift his mind beyond the reality of his segregated society to a beloved place where it was possible that white and black, red and brown, and all others live, work, and prosper together in harmony. But the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not an idle daydreamer. He shared his visions through speeches that motivated others to join in his nonviolent effort to lift themselves from poverty and isolation by creating a new America where equal justice and institutions were facts of life. In the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are Created Equal.'' At that time and for centuries to come, African-Americans were historically, culturally, and legally excluded from inclusion in that declaration. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered 54 years ago, on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great nation that we still hear today. His request was simply and eloquently conveyed--he asked America to allow of its citizens to live out the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this nation's Bill of Rights. The 1960s were a time of great crisis and conflict. It was the decade of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy, and the man we honor here today. The dream expressed and shared by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. helped win major victories in the battle for civil rights. It started when Dr. King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, with Rosa Parks and others, which lasted for 381 days, and ended when the United States Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation on all public transportation. But the dream did not die there. It continued with a peaceful march for suffrage that started in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965, a day that was immediately known and will always be remembered as ``Bloody Sunday,'' when a peaceful march for voting rights ended in bloodshed and violence at the hands of law enforcement officers as the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. When the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was stolen from us, he was a very young 39 years old. People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few can remember why he was there. On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers. The garbage men there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions. But the city refused to recognize their union, and when the 1,300 employees walked off their jobs the police broke up the rally with mace and Billy clubs. It was then that union leaders invited Dr. King to Memphis. Despite the danger he might face entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse. Not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was intertwined with the civil rights movement for which he had given up so many years of his life. The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life. That is his legacy as a dreamer and a man of action. It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace. It is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled. I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us, because without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood that a life well lived, and all of the noblest virtues--courage, wisdom, grace, love-- were rooted in service to others. And he memorably expressed this idea in his last sermon, the one given at Mason Temple in Memphis on April 3, 1968, the evening before he was felled by an assassin: ``But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?' ``That's the question before you tonight. Not, ``If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to my job. Not, 'If I stop to help the sanitation workers what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?' The question is not, 'If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?' The question is, 'If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?' That's the question. ``Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you.'' So in these difficult days of challenge, let us remember and take inspiration from the remarkable, extraordinary, and consequential life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and move forward together, with greater readiness and determination, to make America a place where all of her people enjoy the blessings of justice, equality, and human dignity. Let us, the living, continue that struggle today and forever, in the incandescent spirit of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of a civil rights icon, Linda Brown, a schoolchild who transformed the country. Linda Brown was born on February 20, 1942, in Topeka, Kansas, to Leola and Oliver Brown. As a schoolgirl Linda Brown, was at the center of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that rejected racial segregation in American schools. Linda Brown was 9 years old in 1951 when her father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her at Sumner Elementary School, then an all-white school near her Topeka home. When the school blocked her enrollment, Oliver Brown partnered with the NAACP and a dozen other plaintiffs to file a lawsuit against the Topeka Board of Education becoming the landmark Supreme Court case, of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). By the time of the ruling, Linda Brown was in junior high, a grade level that had been integrated before the 1954 court ruling. Linda Brown went on to attend Washburn and Kansas State universities. Linda Brown was always conscious of the importance of standing up for one's Constitutional rights. Linda Brown realized that with rights, come responsibilities that is why Linda Brown toured the country telling her story and advocating for increased educational opportunity for all Americans. Faith was also important to Linda Brown because as she knew as the gospel hymn goes, ``we've come this far by faith.'' While Linda Brown's faith and devotion could be found on display at St. Mark's African Methodist Episcopal Church, where she played piano and taught children how to play. While Linda Brown's name will forever be a part of American civil rights history, her contributions to the community after the case should be remembered as part of her legacy. Linda Brown continued to speak out against racial segregation and reopened the Topeka case with the American Civil Liberties Union in 1979, arguing that the district's schools still were not desegregated. Linda Brown will be missed greatly, but her contributions to America will live on forever. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Linda Brown.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary, and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I rise in remembrance of Stephon Alonzo Clark, who died on March 18, 2018 after being shot 20 times by a Sacramento Police Department officer. I also rise to call upon the Department of Justice to investigate the use of force that took the life of Stephon Clark. Once again I am disheartened by the shooting of yet another unarmed young man of color at the hands of law enforcement. Stephon Clark was a proud graduate of Sacramento High School. Stephon Clark was affectionately known as ``Big Papa'' and ``Zoe'' to his friends and family. Stephon Clark loved to watch football and Netflix shows with his fiancee Salena Manni and their two young sons. Stephon Clark enjoyed waking up in the morning to make oatmeal for his children before they would go to school. Stephon Clark was only 22 years old when he was tragically shot and killed in his grandmother's backyard. Stephon Clark laid for six minutes, bleeding to death. As Stephon Clark drew his last breath, officers handcuffed his dying body. Officers claim that Stephon Clark had a gun, but no weapon was found at the scene. Stephon Clark only had a cell phone. I have long been a strong supporter of law enforcement, and know first-hand the great work performed by officers all across the country. But this incident raises troubling questions about the practices and policies of the Sacramento Police Department. I am concerned that the audio on the police officers' body cameras was intentionally turned off. This act defeats the purpose of police body cameras, erodes trust within the community and adds greater concern to an already regrettable and preventable tragedy. Stephon Clark and the family that survives him deserve justice. Unfortunately, this incident fits a troubling pattern. While the names of the young men killed and the cities in which they die change, regrettably the critical facts seldom do. Mr. Speaker, I demand that this Administration conduct a comprehensive review of this matter by all appropriate law enforcement agencies, and I call upon the United States Department of Justice to determine whether local police violated the federal civil rights of Stephon Clark. Far too often, the demand for justice for those like Stephon Clark go unheard. This cannot go on. It is time to LISTEN and ACT. That is why we in the Judiciary Committee formed the House Bipartisan Policing Strategies Working Group, of which, I am a Member. I have introduced and supported legislation to help reform how youth and juveniles are treated to reduce contact and recidivism within the juvenile and criminal justice system; to help protect them from a system that turns them into life-long offenders. These efforts include: H.R. 3158, ``The RAISE Act,'' which provides judges new and different options when a young offender comes before them, ensures that young offenders receive specialized programs and separate housing tailored to their needs, and advances efforts to rehabilitate them. H.R. 3155, ``Kalief's Law,'' establishes more humane rules for young offenders and juveniles when detained or confined, particularly in the areas of pretrial detention, bail, use of force and segregation or solitary confinement. H.R. 3156, ``Fair Chance for Youth Act,'' which creates effective opportunities for juveniles and young offenders to seal and expunge their records. Just as we need to minimize the overcharging, wrongful conviction, and excessive incarceration of innocent people, we must address the unnecessary loss of life like that of Stephon Clark this past week in Sacramento. We must curtail the escalation of violence that can result from police and civilian interactions. Effective law enforcement requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced impartially and equally. There is no higher priority than improving the peacefulness of these interactions and rebuilding the trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve and protect. To address many of the current flaws, I plan to reintroduce the ``BUILD Trust Act'' which is designed to increase public confidence in local law enforcement by decreasing excessive reliance on traffic fines and court costs to fund local government. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of these measures so that in addition to our thoughts and prayers, we take decisive action to prevent tragedies like the death of Stephon Clark from happening in the first place.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of a pioneer and trailblazer, George Wilson, the Dean of the Black press on Capitol Hill. George Wilson, a veteran journalist and broadcaster whose reports were heard on radio outlets across the country for decades will be remembered as a powerful voice with a witty intellect. George Wilson was born in New Orleans on October 10, 1947, to George II and Rose Wilson and raised in Washington, D.C. After graduating from Calvin Coolidge High School, George Wilson attended Howard University before graduating from North Carolina A&T. As a Capitol Hill correspondent for over three decades and host of Sirus XM's ``GW on the Hill,'' George Wilson's velvet voice was unmistakable over the airwaves. During his time on air, George Wilson served as ``Black America's voice on the Hill.'' George Wilson's character and reputation paved the way for other African American journalists in Congress. George Wilson's passion for journalism led him to stories around the world and particularly cultivated sources in the international and diplomatic community. Wilson covered the fall of apartheid in South Africa, the reinstatement of former Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide, and chronicled the many revolutions in African countries. George Wilson's work made him more than a local reporter, he was an international journalist. George Wilson will be missed greatly, not just in the hallowed halls of Congress but throughout the world. George Wilson is survived by his wife Iris, his mother Rose, six children, seven grandchildren, one great-grandchild, aunts, cousins and a host of other relatives and friends. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of George Wilson.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from New York. I can't thank her enough as I watched her, every day, work without ending, thank her so very much. And to Chairman Frelinghuysen, let me thank him as well for his service. But I am very grateful to Democrats who crafted the very funding structure that we are dealing with. And even though it was hidden with Republicans, this gigantic box that is almost broken, I think it is important to note that a lot of good work has taken place, and I want to just cite the good work. I am delighted that we are helping our veterans, and Democrats added an additional amount of money, some $2 billion, to address the VA hospitals. Democrats were concerned about student loans, and the bill increases it by $350 million. Childcare has been increased. Houston metro will be delighted with the New Starts money that is in it; and, yes, my mayor will be excited, and other mayors, about an accurate Census count. For those of us with Hurricane Harvey, the National Flood Insurance Program extension is important. Yet I am disappointed. The work we did on STOP School Violence did not include the civil rights protections for those who need it, and it did not include DACA, with all of these young people who are in need. And, finally, we could not get the special counsel language, my bill, H.R. 3648, that would stop the President from firing the special counsel and stop him from firing the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. For those reasons, I have great concerns for this bill and will not be able to vote for the bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the idea of diplomacy. I believe that even your enemies deserve the opportunity to explain themselves. So, as Secretary Tillerson had mentioned some months ago, he was interested in some encounter with North Korea. He described that it would take some time and that some initial meetings make sense. We have not been able to change the minds of the North Koreans and their attitudes toward nuclear proliferation for decades, though we came close during the time of President William Jefferson Clinton, but counsel advised him not to go further. I am sure he reflects on that. All of us wonder. That was with the father, Kim Jong-un. Diplomacy is a reputable and reasonable approach to safeguard and secure the American people. I have taken on the responsibility as someone who has served on the Homeland Security Committee since the heinous, tragic terrorist act of 9/11--and I now serve on the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, having served on the Transportation and Protective Security Subcommittee as chair, and on the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee--and I share the importance of our national security. Now, as the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, where it is important as well to assess the threats against United States, I have come to believe the importance of developing an expertise in these national security issues so that we can share with our constituents and also advocate here in the Congress what more we should be doing. I truly believe that we should be doing more. So, before I frame the complete aspects of my discussion that will involve Trump and the need to protect the independence of the special counsel, but, more importantly, Trump and Russia and the intertwining of the highest office in the land and the actions of Putin's Russia and the actions of Vladimir Putin, most of us have known the idea of the Soviet Union and Russia for most of our lives. Russia is somewhat of a new phenomena, as the Soviet Union was broken up. The memories of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain and the idea of an insulated, frightening, frozen land that did not allow any of its subjects, including the many countries that came under the Soviet Union, to speak a word, silent or not, against the government, was a fearsome and fearful place. If history recounts, that was the Cold War. That was a moment in time for schoolchildren taking cover under. That was the time of President Kennedy's actions and almost the brink of war with Khruschchev. Those were moments the American people could understand. They demanded that the United States not be frail or a failure against Russia. I do not ignore World War II, when Russia was a collaborator in the efforts of the allies. I don't ignore that. But after that time, it was their choice to stand up against the world and to stand up in a frightening way until the doors seemingly began to crack open. I, for one, as a student, welcomed and cherished that possibility that Russia would turn to democratic ways--at least, ways of giving opportunity to its people, giving them free speech, giving them the ability to make decisions for themselves, and to vote in fair elections. For a period of time, that was seemingly the direction that they were going after President Reagan said: ``Tear down that wall.'' What a bright light. I think it is important to note these Republican and Democratic Presidents who understood what our role was and is. What is America's role? If you travel in the most limited way, no matter what continent you go to, you will find that the people of the continent look to America for hope, for the standard bearer of democracy and human rights. And if no one else turns on the light and shines it on the dastardly behavior of the despotic leaders, they can always count on America to make a difference. That is what I have grown to know as a Member of the United States Congress. That is the side of the line on which I have stood. Not out of anger, not out of disregarding the differences of world leaders, but of recognizing what America's responsibility is and how disappointed and hurt I am that we find ourselves perplexed. The world is perplexed. Ask any diplomatic traveler coming back from any conference, country, meeting, outside of the United States. Do a poll at the international airports from New York to Washington to Houston. They will tell you that the world asks: What in the world is going on? Because, for one, they don't have that voice of reason in the United States foreign policy coming out of the White House. They do not see that standard bearer of standing up for human rights and women's rights, of understanding their plight. And in particular, they don't understand why our voice is silence. Now, let me compliment many of the former members of Cabinets, going as far back, I guess, as Reagan and beyond, who are still speaking about our true values, of the whole issue of dealing with those who are evil and confronting them outright. Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that we turn toward every moment. We all have our differences of opinion on the Iraq war and Afghanistan, although we never disagree on the blood that was shed by our soldiers and those who are on the battle line. We ask the question: What was the ultimate result? But still, people, even in those times of consternation, they said, well, America was trying to do right, trying to bring democracy or stability or speaking out against the despotic leaders and not shying away from doing that. They were speaking out against Saddam, Gaddafi, without any embarrassment. They weren't congratulating them on their elections. They were acknowledging, from the continent of Africa, to Asia-Pacific, to South and Central America, to the halls of Eastern Europe and beyond, and any other place I have not mentioned, that America would comment, either in the United Nations or elsewhere, on its disappointment on how countries treated their people. Before this recess wherein we will be working with our constituents, we were working very hard to do one thing. Not to undermine the executive branch. There are three branches of government. I pride myself in the acceptance of the Constitution, I guess because my predecessor was the Honorable Barbara Jordan. She trained us well, as she held up that book during the Watergate proceedings, that this was not personal; it was that she was not going to see the Constitution and the rights of the people diminished. That is where I stand today. This is not a personal commentary on the executive, meaning the branch that is called the executive, or a commentary on the branch that is the legislature or the judiciary, but it is a critique, and it is to recognize that they have failed. And so I was disappointed when there was no bill dealing with the protection of the special counsel, Special Counsel Mueller in this instance, but this bill is not directed toward a name. It is to ensure that, if we select a special counsel, there be the guidelines and protections that do not subject that office to the whims and personalities of those who feel, ``I am being investigated.'' Wouldn't all of us like to be able to stand and block anyone who makes us uncomfortable? My bill, H.R. 3654, will now be at the desk for a discharge petition. It is a simple bill that is not an angry bill. It is to limit the removal of a special counsel and for other purposes. It complements the bill of Mr. Cohen of Tennessee. His bill deals with the after-review of a firing. H.R. 3654 deals with the initial attempt to fire, so as not to disrupt the investigation. What would be required is that this individual would have the opportunity, if they were sought to be removed, to file an action in the district court, only if the Attorney General would do so, the district court of the District of Columbia, and file a contemporaneous notice of action with the Committee of the Judiciary in the House and Senate. Therefore, the court would have to determine whether there was cause for this individual to be removed, and that cause would include misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause in violation of the policies of the Department of Justice--simple, not punitive, but factual. There was no reason why the omnibus could not have included a simple summary or a simple statement of that fact. One would argue, or one would raise the question: Why? Well, the question is well explained. The most immediate are the rumblings coming from the White House and the White House counsel about Director Mueller's investigation should end; Director Mueller is conducting a witch hunt; Director Mueller has 13, or whatever number, Democrats and no Republicans; Director Mueller is, in essence, not doing what he is supposed to do. I would take issue with that, and I would take issue because the investigation started with the collusion question with the Trump campaign. Unfortunately, the heightened question has grown exponentially since the beginning of the current Presidential administration. It has grown in such a way that it causes you to have a number of questions. The intelligence community, in January of 2017, stated that Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. I applaud the omnibus bill, for it enhanced, by millions of dollars, the amount, which I supported, that will be used for election security in 2018. It is confirmed that the Russians are continuing their interference and, as well, that they plan to continue it in 2018 and 2020. As we well know, the company based in Europe that snatched and used the technology of Facebook and the data of millions and millions of Americans in an abusive manner and to skew the election toward one candidate versus another--in this instance, the Trump campaign--we know that that is still an open book. The company still exists. We know as well, even though the CEO was suspended, to the applause of the CEO and leader of Facebook, who has expressed his concern, that this is still a real possibility. We look forward to Mr. Zuckerberg engaging with the United States Congress and also the creativity to deal with that crisis. But the ICA, intelligence community, assesses that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016--let me be very clear, ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election--not stood by as a leader of a particular nation and ignored, if you will, the individuals who were doing it but, in fact, ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate the former Secretary of State, and harm her electability and potential Presidency. The intelligence community further assesses that Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for our President- elect, who is now the President of the United States. The ICA has high confidence in these judgments. The intelligence community also assesses Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help elect the present President and to increase that President-elect's chances, Mr. Trump, when possible, by discrediting the former Secretary of State and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. Now we know Putin has been attempting to do this for a long time. In 2014, the Russian Government pursued a campaign called The Translator Project, which endeavored to use social media to manipulate and engage in information warfare, plain and simple. And as I will mention later, Putin has been engaged in truly despicable acts for many years. But since before the election and over his time in office, the President has never criticized him. Now, the basis of not criticizing another head of state is not the basis of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, and I am glad of that. Because you disagree with a personality or someone's behavior, that is not what should be the basis of any investigation. But let me give you what the special counsel has accomplished in the time that he has been engaged in the work that he was assigned to do. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the time I have remaining.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I think I was in the middle of saying that, because of different personalities or the different way that an individual leads, that is not the basis of anyone having to be investigated. I was talking earlier about The Translator Project. We know that Mr. Putin has been attempting to intrude in our elections for a very long time, and in 2014, the Russian Government pursued a campaign called The Translator Project. This is the Russian Government's campaign, not the campaign of the United States, which endeavored to use social media to manipulate and engage in information warfare, plain and simple. They, obviously, were more than successful in the 2016 election. And as I will mention later, Putin has been engaged in--I said this before, but it is worth repeating--truly despicable acts for many years. I just paused for a moment to say that many people don't realize the kind of direct involvement that Vladimir Putin has over the most minute things happening in Russia as it pushes out to what is perceived as Russia's enemies. The Russian people are wonderful people. I look forward always to engaging with them. There is a large Russian population in Texas and all over the Nation. We welcome them who have come, some fleeing persecution, others in other matters. But I think it is important to note that there are Russian spies here in the United States every day trying to co-opt and turn an American citizen to work for them. Tragically, there were any number of individuals, seemingly, that wound up in the campaign of Mr. Trump that warrants investigation by Mr. Mueller. These despicable behaviors are not just with elections, because elections are won and lost. We don't like losing elections. But if we do lose them, we like to lose them fair and square. When you run for President of the United States, you run on your own merits, your own strategy, your own outreach, your own missteps and mishaps. But how impossible is it to run when a foreign nation is conspicuously, with money, collaborating and working to skew the election to one candidate versus another? Now, let me be very clear. This is not looking backwards. Nothing I say today will alter who the President is of the United States, and as Americans, we adhere to the order of government, regular order. That gives me such great pride that we are not a nation that marches up to the home of the executive and asks--or not asks--but demands that person leave in a coup d'etat. That is not the American way. But it does bear well that we know who we are dealing with, and that we are honest about the fact that the election was turned and won on a simple fact, not three States, or not--I didn't go there--not who is a blue collar and who is not--because I love all of the people. It was squarely skewed because of the direct intrusion of Vladimir Putin and his data. And the question is: What kind of collusion, collaboration, or criminal elements happened? But in the course of those kinds of actions, I would make the point on my comment about truly despicable acts. How do you welcome, guarantee, give applause to an individual whom I am glad to say that the former President Obama stared down in the midst of our election and said, ``Cut it out,'' cut it out from interfering in our elections? And from the words and the reaction of Mr. Putin, I didn't see a denial. I didn't see a: Hey, let's sit down and talk about it; if you think I am doing this, let me find out who is doing this in my country and I am putting a stop to it immediately. None of that happened. It continued to intrude, and skew, and manipulate the data of millions of Americans of what they were receiving on Facebook, and many others who were getting poison pills in their inboxes about the election, skewed against the former Secretary of State. It never stopped. But at the same time, the ions and ions of persons who disappear in Russia, who are imprisoned in Russia, and the individuals, the long list of individuals who have been poisoned, I have met with some of them; miraculously, even one who was poisoned and survived, was still fighting for human rights, went back again, and, as my memory serves me, was poisoned again. But his passion for civil rights and human rights and saving Russia, the beautiful Russia that he loved, and bringing her into the 21st century, made him drive toward the danger. But what about right now in the last 2 months? Not on Russian soil, but on our friend's, Great Britain, in London, two Russians: one a father, one a daughter. The daughter left Russia to celebrate or to visit her father. Poisonous gas took them down. Took them down. No mea culpa. No comment. I thank Prime Minister May for standing up and saying, eye-to-eye: You will not do this in my country. I believe it is important for our foreign policy to be both diplomatic but forceful. For if you are in meetings with Russians who are able to speak openly, they will tell you that Vladimir Putin listens to nothing but power. Not any glad-handing, and I am a genius, and he is a genius, and he called me a genius. He doesn't respond to that. He only responds to looking you in the eye and showing that you have power. And as I just heard over the last couple of days, most of the Russian people don't have internet. They can only hear what is given to them. They don't see what is going on. And they are living in their world without the exposure to the beauty of democracy, the beauty of human rights, and women's rights, and the freedom to go anywhere I want to go. And they get their thrills through what is told to them, to maybe the wins and losses in an Olympic game, or the exploits and expeditions of their leader who they just voted for. Maybe that is the level of their excitement. I don't believe, however, that we as Americans can fall into that trap. In the instance of the Commander in Chief, he refuses to criticize the geopolitical belligerence of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. And to add insult to injury, just this week, as I indicated, here comes a congratulations on an election that many observers of elections admit was rigged. I think we all saw a video where it looked like someone was stuffing the ballot box. I have no reason to know why it was stuffed, but the opponent was popular that was running, but, of course, that opponent did not win. But I just step back for a moment on despicable acts. I have been to Ukraine. It broke my heart to see the war that was going on, Russian- backed rebels, and to have the representation that the small part did not want to be in Ukraine, so Vladimir Putin was not going to encourage the unity of Ukraine. They were going to implode Ukraine. Let them fight. But how sad that he was never held accountable for the shooting down of a civilian airplane full of hopeful travelers, baby shoes, and suitcases of hopes and dreams. That is what we are contending with. And that is why the overall investigation of Director Mueller is not personal. It is not purposely chosen to pick on an executive that someone does not like. It is done for the integrity of this Nation. Let me tell you how we can look back over more recent actions. Russia occupied cities in the Republic of Georgia in 2008. They have imprisoned and suppressed journalists and dissidents. They have been so brazen so as to use, as I just said, a nerve agent, a chemical weapon on the soil of our great ally, a true partner for peace and progress. Look at the actions that we took, including Russia, in Syria when the charges were using a nerve gas. What deadly silence from this executive, this administration, except for some other line officers-- not lying, line, l-i-n-e--who probably said some things. They were obstructive in President Obama's efforts to bring peace in the devastating civil war in Syria by propping up Assad, which had killed untold numbers of people, including so many innocent children. That gas was used many years ago. In an even greater escalation, they launched a missile at a civilian passenger plane, killing 298 on board, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, as I said. While they were doing all this, the Russians were impervious to criticism, beyond reproach, as far as they were concerned. Power is what they understand, firmness and sternness, and a solid policy. Oh, we will negotiate. We will deal with diplomacy, but you have to stop your bad behavior. While they were doing all this, people were suffering. In 2011, Russians went to the polls for seats in the Duma. After the election, there were allegations and questions surrounding the integrity of the vote. This soon turned to protest. Mr. Putin, for some bizarre reason, blamed the former Secretary of State for this. This has been a grudge he has held against her, and he was committed to doing anything to destroy her. The former Secretary has said before on the floor of the Chamber--or I have said--she is a stateswoman. If the words that she provided gave any comfort to those protesting, that is fair game. There were no weapons. There was no nerve gas. It was people clamoring and holding on to positive words by a person of status during the time of her leadership that what was happening in Russia was wrong. And the reaction of President Putin should have been, let me move my nation into the 21st century, let me not attack a woman of stature and excellence, a true public servant. Because she was not shy to point out injustices and improper behavior, which we should do for despots around the world. While she was Secretary of State, this body passed and Obama signed the Magnitsky Act which imposed sanctions on many Russian oligarchs, long overdue. 2013 was a big year for the United States' relationship with Russia. It was in 2013 that Secretary Clinton left her post. Also in 2013, a company named the Internet Research Agency registered in Russia, and they are a social media troll farm. The IRA would form the basis of the translator project announced in April 2014. The IRA's job is to spread disinformation and misinformation through fake social media profiles. They were at their peak in the 2016 election. This was done in order to manipulate public opinion and engage in information warfare. Later that year, the present President decides to have a beauty pageant. While in Moscow in November 2013, Donald Trump meets with Agalarov and Rob Goldstein in order to try to build a tower in Moscow. The sanctions President Barack Obama imposed following Russia's annexation of Crimea stopped the Trump Tower deal. How dare anyone say that the past administration was weak on Russia. Yes, power is what they understand. But it has to be a persistent, determined power, not power that is stopped by a new election. I assume this was not a happy time for those who wanted that Trump Tower. While this was going on, the present President is developing a track record, trafficking conspiracy theories for his birtherism, the ugly smear that Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, was not born in the United States, and, therefore, was ineligible to be President. I watched this smear through videos and interviews, and just to the point that many of you recall, that in the midst of his Presidency-- only because he desired to do so--President Barack Obama showed his birth certificate. What an ugly attack. I was also there at the television, radio, and journalists event when both President Obama and the present President were there. When the President--with a sense of humor--had a video played of ``Lion King'' and said to the laughing audience: There is my birth place. I am glad he had a sense of humor, but it was an ugly attack on a legitimate President of the United States who will have a wonderful history to look back on. The present President rode this lie of his birth--President Obama's birth and concluded he could use it to win the Republican nomination for President, so he announced it. And in that announcement, he dismisses Mexicans as drug dealers and rapists. Everyone has all kinds of people as their neighbors, and who would ever say that? But shortly after his announcement, questions about his connections to Russia continued. It is right around then, in September 2015, the Democratic National Committee is told that its computers have been hacked. Despite all the information that we knew and, more importantly, all the information that only Donald Trump knew, he continued to deny any involvement with Russia. Meantime, corporations were gathering the information of Americans through Facebook and poisoning the well, and sending biting, wrongheaded misinformation to many voters all over the Midwest and elsewhere. While he was denying his connections to Russia, we now know that agents working with this President, Michael Cohen and Felix Sater, were trying yet again to build a tower in Moscow. Let me repeat this fact. While he was actively running for President of the United States, there were business agents actively pursuing a real estate project in Russia and denying it. As I have said in my commentary, it is well known that the only thing that Vladimir Putin understands is power; and any time you are going to beg, you can be assured he will use that against you or use that to manipulate you and anyone else that is associated with it. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the safety and security of the American people. This Congress should be concerned. Republicans should be concerned. Today, I said that the investigation by Special Counsel Mueller is not a red line being drawn or a blue line. It is red, white, and blue lines, which represent the American people. None of us should, for political reasons, attempt to quash the truth. And the truth about Mr. Putin is all he wants is power, and all he wants is to dominate the democracy and the greatest democracy in the world, and to quash the leadership position that America holds, and the admiration that the world has for America, and the desire for most of the world not to be Russia, but to be America. And all we do is fuel his ability by subordinating ourselves to him, his so-called greatness, his phony election, and his tampering with our election. This is a difficult time. Many of you remember the name of General Flynn. He was a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, and one of his most unfortunate episodes was his time at the Republican National Convention, shouting ``Lock Her Up, Lock Her Up.'' That might be the core reason why some of my colleagues, even today, are sneaking through a subpoena to try and sneak through and bring back documents to attack the former Secretary again, a unilateral subpoena, not one that was joined in or even asked to be joined in by Democrats and Republicans. That is unfortunate because we have never, in the Judiciary Committee, issued subpoenas without a vote. But now, to make havoc because of the very fine work of Special Counsel Mueller, it is going to be a tit for tat. So here we are with the tit for tat. But if we recall, in December 2015, Mr. Flynn went to Moscow, sat at a dinner with Mr. Putin and Jill Stein, the 2016 Green Party candidate, to mark the 10-year anniversary of RT, the Russian TV. Just months later, in February 2016, the Translator Project, the endeavor to weaponize social media information revealed their theme, to support a number of candidates and to ruin the former Secretary. March 2016 was a critical month, too. March 2016 was the month when the campaign manager of the former Secretary had his emails hacked. March 2016 was also when the present President had a meeting of his national security team. Present was this famous man, George Papadopoulos, unfortunately, one of those indicted, sitting in a famous meeting of great leaders for national security and foreign affairs. He was a foreign affairs aide and even mentioned publicly as a great mind of foreign affairs by the present President. But in May of 2016, he got drunk, a little inebriated at a London wine bar and told a diplomat of a friendly country of ours that the Russians had dirt on the former Secretary. Then, in June 2016, we have the infamous Trump Tower meeting, where operatives of the Trump campaign were told about derogatory information about Russia, and one of them said, famous words: ``I love it.'' At the GOP convention, the GOP actually changed its platform to be more friendly to Russia, a foreign despotic power that is aggressive around the world, that has shot down airplanes, support rebels to undermine governments, and even prop up the leader in Syria as people die in the streets. It is a question of how a Republican platform at their convention, quite contrary to all of what most know of Republicans, to be friendly, and have a friendly pro-Russian platform, and friendly to a Ukraine that would oppress her people. Then, after another operative name appears on foreign logs, that person resigned from the campaign. Another Trump associate encourages WikiLeaks to hack the Clinton emails. We know this because we have heard of direct messages between WikiLeaks and operatives of the Trump campaign. Their names are famous. Even predicted that leaders of the former Secretary's campaign would have their time in the barrel. This tweet was sent on the same day as the infamous Access Hollywood tape, where Trump boasted about actions that all of us find appalling. The election happens in the backdrop of the poisonous emails, the tampering by Russia, the spewing out of millions of Facebook connections, skewing the election, and the person they wanted to win wins. Yet, even after the election, the connections to Russia do not stop. Rather than using the power that Putin needs to see from the United States to protect the American people, we just fall into the molasses and continue to throw sugar on this leader. We hire the National Security Advisor, who was sitting at the table with Mr. Putin. In some way related to advocating for Mr. Putin's high level of respect in the country, he was accused of lying to the FBI about meetings with Russians. When that news was made public, he was fired. In between, of course, a person known as a public servant with no other agenda but to serve in the Department of Justice briefed the President of that information and other information 2 or 3 weeks before. They ultimately were fired, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and it took a long time for there to be an acknowledgment to fire the National Security Advisor. Don't you think Mr. Putin watches this and says, Boy are we successful? Boy, are we doing well? We are not only inside the White House; we are entrenched. After the former FBI Director testified that the FBI was investigating connections between the present President and the Kremlin, that same person who had offered a letter regarding the former Secretary a couple of days out of the election, an unheard action, and no pronouncement was made about other investigations regarding the present President, but, unfortunately, he was fired. I want to pause for a moment. I have said that this cannot be about personalities or who has wronged one person or the other. I disagree with General Sessions. I disagree with his blocking of real, fair, criminal justice reform, his opposing civil rights, his supporting bad voter ID laws, his eliminating community consent decrees, and his attack on cities because they don't want to harm innocent families labeled the city as sanctuary cities. But I would not hold to the position of supporting his firing, undermining the rule of law and the Constitution. The law and the Constitution will be undermined if, for some reason, during this recess, while the special counsel is doing their in-depth work, that the Attorney General is fired, an interim appointment is made, that person fires the Deputy Attorney General, may fire the FBI Director, and may fire the special counsel. That is the midnight massacre of the 21st century, 2018. I hope it does not happen. I hope that we, as members of the Judiciary Committee, today, in our press conference, have put the White House on notice; even though I understand now that one of the White House lawyers, Mr. Dowd, who was known as the reasonable lawyer, just resigned. That frightens me even more. What more is going to happen? What else is going to be our lot? That is why we have the discharge position on Mr. Cohen's bill and my bill, and my members will be getting letters to join those two bills together and sign them upon their return; though they can also ask their office to sign them, or they can be signed during the pro forma session. This is the journey that we have taken. After former FBI Director testified that the FBI was investigating connections, I have said that, we note that that FBI Director was fired. Thereafter, the special counsel was appointed because that is what you call obstruction of justice possibly. The special counsel was appointed to begin his investigation around that firing. But if anyone understands prosecutors and special counsel, they can go where the facts lead them because they do not work for any elected officials. They work for the American people. The special counsel was threatened by termination, as reported by the President, only to have this move blocked by the White House Counsel. Early in his tenure he was threatened with termination. Last summer, the President indicated the special counsel should keep his family's private business dealings out of the investigation. Red line. This month, Mr. Mueller subpoenaed business records from the Trump organization implicating the President's red line on the issue. This news coincides with an increase in erratic behavior, tweets. But most importantly, one of the lawyers saying, yes, it should end. He should be closed down. The House Intelligence Committee singly, not in a bipartisan manner, decided to shut down the Russia investigation without any consultation with our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democratic members. Just as I indicated, a subpoena may be being issued by Republicans of my committee, the Judiciary, with no consultation of Democrats. We don't know what Mr. Mueller may discover, but we do know that there has been much discussion on a number of operatives. We also know that the minority had to release their own report for the House Intelligence Committee. In the opening paragraph, it says: ``The HPSCI majority's move to release to the House of Representatives allegations against the FBI and the Department of Justice is a transparent effort to undermine those agencies, the Special Counsel and Congress' investigations. It also risks public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.'' It goes on to say: ``DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA's probable cause requirement, by demonstrating: Contemporaneous evidence of Russia's election interference''--I am reading from an unclassified document concerning Russian links and outreach to Trump campaign officials--``Page's history with Russian intelligence''--and that, we would assume, would be Carter Page--and Carter ``Page's suspicious activities in 2016, including in Moscow.'' These are all individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign. It further says: Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016.'' By the way, it reinforces my statement that they were investigating the Trump campaign. No one bothered to offer that in a public setting. That was seemingly unimportant to the American voters. But this document is unclassified, and most Members have had a chance to peruse it, as I have done, and, frankly, it is tied up into our weak response to the despotism of Vladimir Putin. So as I said, this is not about a personality challenge. It is important to take note of the fact that we have an obligation, just as the Cold War Presidents had an obligation, to protect the American people at what they perceived to be an attack from the Soviet Union, although they collaborated in World War II, the attitude changed. The people were frozen in time. Those Presidents, Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, although they did not clamor to go to war--and I, by no means, in this commentary today, in any way, am suggesting any form of war dealing with Russia. It is, though, saying that power must be met with power. Sanctions must be kept, and sanctions must be strong, and strong words must be clear. Mr. Putin, your interfering with the elections and the desires and the decisions of the American people will stop. Your intelligence agencies and your operatives will be booted out, en masse, of the United States, and your attack, if you will, on individuals attempting to secure them as agents will cease. I have every confidence in the intelligence community of this Nation. I do not look at them as political or partisan. From Mr. Clapper to Mr. Brennan, formerly, and to those who serve us now, their job is to tell the truth. In fact, even those in the Trump administration, in the intelligence community, have enthusiastically and loudly declared that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, and they may and are preparing to do so in the 2018 election and 2020. So the President's private behavior and efforts to cover it up have now generated three separate lawsuits. I don't particularly call upon that as a crucial element, except for those of us who know security and intelligence issues. Anything that can weaken you makes you vulnerable to individuals who need your information or need you to work for them. That is a well-known fact. If it is not well known, go to any spy movie and know that the vulnerability is what your operatives attack. Now we have no fewer than three separate lawsuits dealing with his inappropriate behavior. In each case, his exposure grows. A particularly unseemly aspect of this silencing campaign is the enforcement of onerous nondisclosure agreements. So we will see a long journey of these particular items, these particular individuals coming before the cameras. But I do want to say that there are women across the Nation who may not have this high-profile perpetrator, and I want to say to them and to the athletes who told their story in a Michigan courtroom that the Me Too movement is not temporary and fleeting, and the Me Too movement will continue to embrace you and secure you and safeguard you, and we hope that you will continue to do and tell the truth so that you can be healed and that you can be heard. Over the last couple of days, the constant berating--constant berating of this special counsel has been frivolous, and let me tell you why. Although the special counsel has since indicted--or let me rephrase that. The special counsel is not doing frivolous work. The special counsel has since indicted three companies and 19 individuals, including the President's former National Security Advisor, his former campaign chairman, his deputy campaign chairman, and secured guilty pleas from five individuals, including three senior members of the Trump campaign. Trump continues to decry the special counsel's investigation as a hoax. Republican colleagues would not even allow simple language in the omnibus bill to protect the special counsel to allow him to do his work; although, Trey Gowdy has indicated that his work should go on. And then, to attempt to suggest that the special counsel is going after him personally as a Republican, a Democrat, or that it is a witch hunt, I argue vigorously against it. We need to find out the truth about Russia. We need to find out the truth about those who are surrounding this administration. We need to have an administration, whether it is his or anyone else, to be pure in their commitment to the American people. And the truth should come out, and no one, regardless of their party affiliation, should try to undermine Special Counsel Mueller. So I would make the argument: We leave on a recess; we are on our phones; we are on our emails ready to launch back to Washington to respond to any constitutional crisis; but over and above that issue, though that is juxtaposed right alongside, is the plea to this administration that we cannot and you cannot adhere to two leaders or two bosses. Either you adhere to the boss of the American people, whose safety and security are in your hands, or you play footsies with a dictator who is not unwilling to kill his own citizens with nerve gas on foreign soil. Which will you choose, to be associated with this person who has wounded his own nation with human rights violations, women's rights violations, with an economy, with people locked up in jail, with family members who can never be found, with poisoning his own citizens, or are you going to stand with the American people and the men and women in the United States military who are on the front lines every day fighting against those despots and standing for the American people? That is what we need to hear. And until we hear something different-- and a mea culpa about the 2016 election, no one should put their hands on Director Mueller. All I can say is that his work should continue. I should not be involved with it; committees should not be involved with it; other leaders should not be involved with it. Mr. Mueller should proceed with his work. It is painful. All of us would say so. But, frankly, it is the red, white, and blue. It is on behalf of the American people, Mr. Speaker. And with that and my plea for power towards Mr. Putin on behalf of the American people and for dignity for this President on behalf of the American people, I yield back the balance of my time.