Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly). Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much those observations. It is so important for everybody to understand, the IRS is feared, and we…
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much those observations. It is so important for everybody to understand, the IRS is feared, and we learn through people like Lois Lerner that it is not always honest, and yet nobody has been held to account. I am hoping that at some point that will occur. I am so grateful to my friend from Pennsylvania.
At this time I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Bentz, and I have to give a shout-out to Bruce Westerman as the ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee. This very morning, we had a Republican group, but we couldn't get the whole committee to do it on that very issue of forest fires and maintaining healthy forests.
Hopefully, we will get the majority to understand it is not enough to just let nature take its course. You trim the undergrowth. You have fire lanes so you can stop a fire when it gets started. There are so many things that Republicans understand is just good forest management.
So whether it is lightning or something else that starts a fire, we don't have to see 400,000 acres go up in flames. This administration is determined not to do proper management of the forests, and so many people get hurt.
I am proud to have a colleague like Mr. Bentz that will stand up for what is best for forests, for nature, and has a lot of common sense in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Georgia so much for making the effort to stand up for the constitutional rights of Members of Congress not to be detained from getting onto the House floor. We have metal detectors still at each entrance. We didn't used to have them at the Speaker's lobby. Those have been added.
We are co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit that will, hopefully, result in those being removed so that we won't continue to have Republicans miss votes because they get detained, even for the short time, when the Speaker has full discretion as to when to bring down the gavel. We have had a number of Republicans who have missed votes that they would not have missed were there no metal detectors, and especially since there is no intelligence from any source of any Member being a threat to another Member then this totally unprecedented subjugating of House Members below what their roles are and being sent by the same number of people that sent the Speaker.
It is time to get rid of the metal detectors, get rid of the subjugation and get back to the Nation's business.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am so excited about the freshman class that came in this Congress. We just heard from three freshmen, and these are folks, especially including my friend from Florida, Kat Cammack, that has been added, and I am thrilled. I have been so reassured by the freshman class that has come in and the common sense that came with them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, Member of Congress, Kat Cammack. She has expressed so articulately what I have seen, what I have experienced so many times spending the night on the border, going down those dirt roads along the Rio Grande. It is incredible.
And some would think, Oh, well, isn't it compassionate to encourage people to come to the United States. It is the most unneighborly, uncompassionate thing that we could do. These are people who--other than the gang members, those who are part of the cartels, those coming from groups in the Middle East and other places that don't have U.S. interests at heart, but so many of them, they are looking for a better way of life.
Why do they not have a better way of life where they are, including, especially, Mexico? Well, it is because of the unsecured border we have that allows the Mexican drug cartels to make tens of billions of dollars every year coming from America for the drugs, for the fentanyl that kills, for the sex trafficking, for the human trafficking. We are funding the corruption in Mexico.
Mr. Speaker, when my wife and I had our honeymoon, we didn't have much money at all; $300 got us 5 nights, 6 days in a fabulous place in Mexico. But we don't go back because the drug cartels no longer say hands off of the tourism.
Mexico is being devastated by the drug cartels. And it is America and administrations like this that are allowing them--actually making it possible--not just allowing, making it possible. Some might say they are truly accessories to the corruption, to the criminality that is going on.
And in fact, evidence of that comes from the fact that as border patrol had told me before, before this administration when they used to talk to me and never ever tried to prevent me from getting to the border and seeing exactly what is going on--that has all changed now. This administration did not allow me, two nights in a row, trying to get to the border, as I have done countless times before--wouldn't let me get there. In fact, used the place where normally you get down from the embankment, go through the wall that is being constructed by the Trump administration, go down through the flat area, and then you come up to the levee road, and then that allows you to get miles and miles down the dirt roads along the Rio Grande where thousands of people are coming across.
And they didn't allow it this time. They used the wall, not to keep out illegal aliens, but to keep me from seeing the outrageous travesties and tragedies that are going along our border, because people are being lured to their detriment. In tort law, it would be called an attractive nuisance; like having a swimming pool and having no fence so that a child is drawn in and then drowns.
Well, this administration is luring people to their detriment. And I have been there many nights, it is not on the list of questions that is required to be asked, but so often the border patrol asks, How much did you pay, basically, to drug cartels to bring you into the United States? And it was usually between $5,000 and $8,000.
And then often they would say, You don't have that kind of money. Where did you get that money? And they would indicate, Here and there; get this much here, this much there. Friends in the U.S. sent this much.
So what about the rest of the money? The drug cartels, they are going to let them work it off when they get where they are going.
How do they get where they are going? Well, at that point, it is either Health and Human Services or ICE. Border Patrol, their job is along the border. They don't, once they transport to a facility, that is usually the end of their transporting. But ICE, Health and Human Services, and now we have the military that is also providing transportation. But as the Border Patrol officer said, cartels call us here in the U.S.--Federal Government. There are logistics. They get them across the border, and then--they don't use UPS or FedEx or even the U.S. Post Office--
they use the Federal Government and taxpayer money to ship these indentured servants of the drug cartels all over the country to cities all over the country wherever the drug cartel want them to be selling drugs, sex trafficking, human trafficking. The U.S. Government actually makes that happen. They facilitate that.
We have had so many Border Patrol--again, before this last visit to the border when this administration wants to hide what they are doing at the border--they say, Oh, well, if you give us enough notice, then we will put somebody--and this is effectively what--they want to put somebody--I am suppose to supervise--over me to watch what I am doing, prevent me from doing proper oversight down where they are supposed to be doing their job, prevent that from happening so that America does not see how absolutely tragic this invasion is.
Yes, they are gang members, but so many people are coming in, and the cartels know taxpayers in the U.S., who are funding the drug cartels, are also going to pay for the education, all the needs of those coming in.
This administration doesn't care. What they are looking at are future Democratic voters. But they have to act quickly because the longer the people are here, the more they realize, ``You know what? I am for hard work, and I am for making my own way. I don't want to see babies killed in the womb. I believe in working a full day. I do believe in marriage and strong family, devotion to family. I believe in God,'' and they start thinking, wait a minute, that sounds more like a Republican than a Democrat. They don't believe in abortion, most of the folks, and they do have faith in God and devotion to families.
If you read what BLM said they believed in, destruction of what they call Western-style marriage is one of their biggest tenets. Why? Because they are Marxist.
To get to Marxism, you have to create chaos. As Paul Harvey used to talk about, one of the best ways, and a critically important way, to create enough chaos so that you can move toward Marxism is to destroy the family, the nuclear family.
Of course, BLM has it wrong. It is not Western-style marriage. It is not something that North America or South America or Central America came up with, what is typically called the West. It didn't come from this side of the planet or this hemisphere, except in the Middle East.
A man named Moses had a revelation from God and let people know here is what God says: A man shall leave his father and mother, a woman shall leave her home, and the two will become one. That would be marriage, not Western-style. I guess Middle Eastern-style.
It didn't originate here. It has been found throughout history to be the best building block of a very strong society.
That is why surveys continue to find that although, of course, there are people that excel coming from broken homes and other avenues, the best chance a child has of succeeding in life is coming from a two- parent home and a strong nuclear family.
I have seen firsthand what Marxism does. I have heard the director of what we would now call daycare in the old Soviet Union bragging that these children don't belong to their parents: They are just temporary caretakers. We monitor what parents tell their children. If they ever say anything negative about the government, we immediately take the child away and give them to a more deserving caretaker.
I thought, at the time, thank God I didn't grow up in the Soviet Union. Thank God I grew up in east Texas, and I had a mother and father, and they cared deeply about me. I was so grateful for the blessings that I had had.
Wow, the Soviet Union. It failed because it was destined to fail. Marxism is always going to fail. People think: Oh, but it sounds so wonderful, share and share alike.
Now, you have a very small ruling class, and then you have everybody else.
I have been in those stores. Toilet paper so often, no, it was not available. But I learned, and I saw. Real luxuries, like real toilet paper, the store would get those in and put those in the back. If you were a government official, then when you came in, they would get you some toilet paper.
If it is a shoe store, when they got good shoes in, they kept those in the back for government officials. Why? Because they were sucking up to the government officials.
In Russia, it was called blat, political pull. You wanted to have some, so you kept the best of whatever you got in to sell for people that had power. You would do favors for them so that you might have a little power.
As one Soviet told me, a college student: In your country, you can get ahead. No matter who you are, you can get ahead by hard work, making more money, and then money will help you make your way up in society. Here, there are only two ways to move up in society. One is to suck up to people who have political power, and I guess maybe it is a subheading of that, but it is also by ratting out other people.
As he told me: You can get ahead by working hard and making more money here. The best way to move up is to step on other people. If you see them do something inappropriate, then you rat them out and that will allow you to move up.
Except for the very top people that have everything they want, the other people mostly get the same amount of income. That was also tried in Venezuela; it failed. It will always fail.
Anybody that was so stupid that they could not foresee what was emerging, and that is a very strong, powerful middle class in the United States and part of Europe, Marx couldn't see that coming. He was too blind. He couldn't foresee the formation of labor unions that could stand up to greedy Democrats, billionaires, such as we have here, the billionaires that, by the way, paid hundreds of millions of dollars to affect the election, who was able to vote, and how ballots were gathered.
Well, over in the Soviet Union, you don't have to worry about that. As Stalin pointed out, he didn't care who voted. He just cared about who counted the votes.
We will be seeing evidence continue to emerge from Arizona and Georgia, and, I think, eventually Pennsylvania. But to hear anybody say that there was absolutely no evidence of fraud, it is like John Fund said when he wrote the book about fraud in elections some years back: The biggest fraud about elections is the statement there is no fraud in elections. There has always been.
Lyndon Johnson certainly knew about that, as did people who tried to research allegations of voting impropriety, and the courthouse burned down, destroying evidence. These things have gone on.
Cook County, Chicago, you think there has not been fraud in Chicago? You would have to be either crazy or dishonest to say there has never been fraud in elections in Chicago.
It goes on. The trick is to try to minimize the fraud so you don't disenfranchise so many people.
But there is evidence of fraud. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of affidavits, sworn testimony, about fraud in the last election.
I know there is plenty in the media to say it didn't happen. Because they are saying that, out of either ignorance or dishonesty, others feel comfortable, including people right here on the floor, saying that it is totally debunked, that there was no fraud in the last election. That is a statement out of ignorance or out of being deceptive.
But we have to clean up the elections. We have to quit being a joke in the eyes of foreigners who have paper ballots.
Even as bad as things have gotten in Iraq, there for a while, they had free and fair elections. In 2005, having been over there right after the first election, talking to one of the chiefs of police there, he was telling about how--of course, the voters, when they voted, to avoid fraud, you dipped your finger into purple ink that would last for a couple of weeks so you couldn't vote a second time. If you didn't dip your finger in there and have proof of who you were, you didn't vote the first time.
He was telling me that a policeman who was monitoring the election saw someone suspicious. Upon checking, he saw that he had a bomb, a suicide vest. He threw the man down, jumped on top of him. Both of them were killed. I said, wow, I guess that sent all the voters scurrying, fleeing. He looked surprised and said, no, that they knew if
they got out of line, the policeman would have died for nothing.
The policeman died trying to secure the fair opportunity to vote. Yet, nowadays, that is being belittled: We shouldn't even utilize voter IDs. You shouldn't have to have an ID.
Well, that is the best way to ensure that there is not fraud in the election, just like it is the best way to ensure that someone is not illegally getting a gun or getting a cigarette or getting alcohol. People produce those all the time. Let's quit disenfranchising so many people that are voting lawfully by creating the ability to have people vote illegally.
We keep hearing about: Oh, gee, that is not true. We need to censor people and not allow them to speak or submit things online if they are not in conformance with what the liberal Democrat high-tech industry or the liberal Democrat media say is true or not true.
We listened to 4 years of lies about the Russian dossier when it was produced by a former MI6 agent in England, who even admitted: Yes, my sources, they could have been working for Putin.
It was a manipulation paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The FBI was in cahoots and, in fact, even lied to the FISA court.
It really got my attention, having been a judge, to see that FISA court judges had so little regard for their own status, their own courts, that they would not take action to hold in contempt people who held the court in contempt by lying, by defrauding the court, in order to spy on a Presidential political campaign. My goodness, there has never been a Presidential campaign treated as the Trump campaign was.
It even had a Democrat official on tape admitting: We are the ones who paid for violence to get started at Trump campaign events so that we could claim that Trump was stirring up violence.
That was in 2016.
For heaven's sake, we needed a Justice Department that would be just, and we don't have it right now. For heaven's sake, I heard from a constituent 2 days ago who that day was shocked to have two FBI agents show up at her place of work in east Texas. She had not come to Washington on January 6. She was at work in east Texas.
The only reason those FBI agents could have showed up at her place of work was because her nephew texted her a picture of someone who was here on January 6 in Washington and asked: Do you see anybody you recognize? Because it looked like his aunt.
She said: Wow, I thought that was me.
Then jokingly she said: Don't turn me in.
Unless the FBI were monitoring these text messages which was either by the grant of a warrant from a FISA court that, in my opinion, was breaking the PATRIOT Act and was breaking the law to grant such a warrant, or they were committing a crime and spying on people's text messages without authority.
This is getting out of control here. Of course, we don't hear any stories about the people who were looting and creating insurrections in cities around America last summer. We don't hear about them being arrested or having their homes wrongfully broken into by police or Federal officials. No. But we are hearing about it, and the illegality and the brownshirt tactics of the Federal Government needs to stop.
Mr. Hoyer says he was shocked 8 months was all somebody got for disrupting an official proceeding. Well, that also happened on June 22, 2016 for 26 hours on this floor, and I am surprised that Mr. Hoyer wants to see his fellow Democrats going to prison for more than 8 months for obstructing an official proceeding.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.