Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question. The gentleman from Maryland, my friend, raised some issues about saying that we are wasting time when we have stunts, he called them, I think, or I am paraphrasing.

So here I am, and I am going to be talking about an important issue which, I assume, might be labeled as a

stunt, to say that I oppose the previous question because there is something for me that is so critical and so existential to the people I represent in the State of Texas and to the people across this country, which is the decision by the CDC, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, and the President of the United States, to end title 42 enforcement on the border of the United States.

Now, our mutual colleague and friend who was in the chair, and the Speaker from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, who is on the Judiciary Committee, raised the issue about the imminent harm that may befall us because of the continued and new strains of COVID in April.

Well, if that is true, why would the CDC say that we should stop enforcement of title 42 at our border?

We have 8,000 people a day coming across the border of the United States and being apprehended; 8,000. Half of those are being turned away under title 42. The estimates by Border Patrol experts are that those numbers will swell to over 10,000, maybe as high as 15 to 18,000, when you get to the summer months.

And when that happens, and you stop enforcing title 42, then all of those individuals will be released into the United States.

That is a major problem because it is not just the numbers themselves; it is the consequences. When Border Patrol is processing individuals because of the failed policies of the administration, it means that you have, as we saw last year, half a million people who were known got-aways because Border Patrol is now at the locations to process individuals.

Then you have known got-aways, which means you have massive numbers of people coming here with criminal records from places all over the world, 150 to 160 countries, including dangerous individuals from known terrorist states.

The point here is that we have legislation for this body, the people's House, to require title 42 to be enforced. Yvette Herrell, my colleague from New Mexico, introduced that last February. I filed a discharge petition for that bill last April because, for the people watching at home, the Speaker of the House controls the floor, and my Democratic colleagues control the floor. The only way we have power to change that is through a discharge petition. We have 211 signatures. We have all Republicans, I think save maybe one, who have signed the discharge petition.

We are asking our Democratic colleagues to join us in defense of the United States to call up this discharge petition so we can have a debate on title 42 and securing the border of the United States, which is what that conga line was all about: trying to protect our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I completely agree that we should be trying to help small businesses who have gotten absolutely railroaded and run over by the power of government, which amounts to, essentially, a taking. They have had their livelihoods taken away through the sheer power of government, Federal, State and local. It is absolutely extraordinary.

It is one of the reasons that I worked with my friend, Dean Phillips, on the other side of the aisle, on the PPP Flexibility Act 2 years ago. I would have preferred we not go down this road; that the government not go down and shut down our economy. But the government did. And I think that amounts to something akin to a taking.

But now, here we sit and, yet again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not met an issue that they can't make worse; and that is what we are faced with right now.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are bringing forward a $55 billion bill which they say is paid for, which is paid for and relies on recaptured, fraudulent relief funds. We have fraudulent relief funds because you just dumped $2 trillion out in the economy when you came in here and did it by voice vote 2 years ago.

So you have got these fraudulent funds that we may or may not recapture that is, allegedly, what is paying for this. This bill should be fully paid for out of existing COVID money that has not yet been spent. And that is what we are offering as an alternative.

But the real problem that the American people need to understand that my colleagues have got themselves in a pretty vicious box, is because the administration, with the full support of my colleagues here, made the allocation of dollars race-based. They made it criteria-based. And they got slapped down by the court. They got slapped down by the Sixth Circuit.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found race and sex prioritization was unconstitutional and ordered the Small Business Administration to halt the practice. But most of the funding had been spent. It was underfunded. But most of that funding had been spent.

The court said: ``The case is about whether the government can allocate limited coronavirus relief funds based on the race and sex of the applicants. We hold that it cannot.

``The stark realities of the Small Business Administration's racial gerrymandering are inescapable.'' ``It is indeed `a sordid business'. . . . ``quoting our Chief Justice John Roberts, `` . . . `a sordid business' to divide `us up by race.' '' ``And the government's attempt to do so here violates the Constitution.''

That is the real story. I have introduced the Restaurant Revitalization Fund Fairness Act. We have got other bills on this side of the aisle that would pay for it; that would ensure that it won't be race-based; that would make sure that the 177,000 applicants who were left on the outside looking in because of race-based governing by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that that would not occur; and that, again--I want to reiterate--should be paid for without relying on the possibility of collecting the fraudulent expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), and I thank all colleagues from the House Freedom Caucus for joining me here on the floor.

I thank my friend from Virginia, who joined me down in Del Rio, Texas, just a month ago, where we saw firsthand what is actually happening in real-time on the border, something that we know and, unfortunately, my colleagues on this side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge and refuse to do anything about.

Now, as you all know, one of our Freedom Caucus colleagues from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell) filed, 14 months ago, a piece of legislation to require that title 42 be enforced at our border.

For those listening at home, title 42 is our power as a country to stop communicable diseases and people with communicable diseases from coming across our border. It is an important tool that President Trump and his administration put in place in the last year of his administration to ensure that we stop the flow of people across the border from inundating and overwhelming Border Patrol.

We knew this was coming. Fourteen months ago, we knew this was coming. A year ago, we came together. I filed a discharge petition as part of this team to say that we can force a vote on the floor of the House.

Well, the Speaker of the House refuses to bring to a vote a measure to enforce title 42. Everybody listening at home, the Speaker of the House, who has control of the floor, refuses to bring forward a vote on title 42 to require enforcement of the border. We are trying to change that.

We have almost every single Republican, I think save one, who has filed that, 210 signatures. We need 218. Where are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle? Where are those from border States?

Mr. Speaker, we have zero Democrats on that title 42 discharge position.

Now, as the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) noted, there are at least four noteworthy United States Senators who are Democrats who said we should not end title 42: Mr. Tester, Mr. Manchin, Ms. Sinema, and Mr. Kelly. Those four Senators have said we should not end title 42.

Now, I will wrap up and pass it to someone else just to say this: How many dead migrants is enough? How many dead Americans from fentanyl poisoning is enough? How much money in the pockets of dangerous cartels is enough? How many bullets need to fly at the border? How many homes need to be destroyed? How many cars need to be wrecked?

How many DPS agents need to be killed or endangered? How many people need to be harmed before this administration will do its job? How many criminals need to be let off in the United States and not prosecuted under ICE? When are we going to change this and actually secure our country?

Those are my questions for Secretary Mayorkas.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my fellow border Stater being down here. You hold those Mounties back up there, okay? Keep them at bay.

Mr. Speaker, I would only add that I have seen some reports that there are a number of Democrats in the Senate joining with Republicans in the Senate to try to do something about this. I hope that is true.

But my little warning to that is, I keep hearing words about, well, let's keep title 42 in place until we see a plan. Look, I don't want one of these plans full of words, okay? I want the border secure. I want title 42 enforced. That ought to be the metric that we are gauging everything by.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for coming down here and talking about the importance of farming in the United States. One of the things we are dealing with, obviously, and talked about, is some fertilizer shortages. I know that firsthand, seeing some of the farms in the district I represent, West Texas and so forth. And we have got a lot of issues we have got to address.

And I just want to note, as a Texan--we had my fellow Texan down here just a little bit ago--that here we sit again. Here it is, March 31, in an empty Chamber again. It is the close of a quarter, a fiscal quarter. Members got their places to go, their dinners to go to.

We just ran through a handful of votes today. No amendments. No debates.

Here is the people's House in all its glory. No debate. No discussion.

Did we have a single debate here in the people's House about what is happening at our southern border today? Any discussion at all?

Does the Speaker of the House of Representatives give a rat's rear- end about South Texas or the rest of this country; about the ranchers that are dealing with a flood of people coming across our border, endangering them and their families? No, they don't care. They don't care at all. But I can tell you, we in Texas care. And the leadership of this body better start caring soon.

And let me just say something to all my fellow Republicans who just funded this government two weeks ago. Those of you who cut a deal, a deal with the devil, you are responsible for this, too. You funded this government. You funded the government that is allowing people to come across our border, that is empowering cartels, that is allowing migrants to get abused, that is causing ranchers to lose their livestock, ranchers to be endangered, fentanyl to pour across our border.

And now this administration has the gall to shut down Title 42 while Americans are still wearing masks on airplanes, while we still have men and

women in uniform being forced to get a needle stuck in their arm from the power of government. And the leadership, so-called leadership, of our government has the gall to shut down Title 42. The one thing allowing us to stop the flood at our border, even partially.

March of this year. This year. Right now. March, 200,000 apprehensions; 100,000 turned away under Title 42. But now the head of the CDC, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, is saying we are going to stop using Title 42.

Well, then what in the hell are you going to do? Nothing. Other than process more immigrants coming across our border who are not truly seeking asylum. But that is what is happening. And what is actually happening at our border right now is there are shootouts going on as we speak on a daily basis, between the Gulf Cartel--technically, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, but Gulf Cartel CDG warring with Cartel del Noreste of Los Zetas.

And we are talking about dead people, dead bodies. People getting shot in their car. Bullets firing, flying all over our southern border. Dead individuals.

This young girl here, head blown off. All of this is happening every single day. All while American kids are dying from Xanax laced with fentanyl.

And again, I want to be clear here. When you take Title 42 away--you, Secretary Mayorkas; you, CDC Director Walensky; you, my Democratic colleagues who are countering and funding it; you, President Biden-- when you take away Title 42, the blood is on your hands.

And we're talking about dead Americans, dead migrants, destroyed communities in Texas, empowered cartels. Literally last night in talking to people coming across the border, saying they are spending $3,000 to $5,000 to come up from Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba. There were 13,000 apprehensions from Russia in the last 5 months.

We are about to see an unprecedented explosion on our southern border. Again, this administration not only doesn't care, it is purposeful. It is 100 percent purposeful. Endangering the people of the United States, endangering migrants while--in the false name of compassion saying it is good for them, empowering cartels, knowing they are doing it. Knowing for the most part you do not have a legitimate claim for asylum.

They are purposely not enforcing the laws of the United States. They are purposely not using the tools at their disposal, like now ending Title 42. For what reason? For crass political purposes. That is your modern Democratic Party. Using migrants for political purposes and endangering them and Americans in the process.

It is a gross violation of the oath taken to defend the Constitution of the United States. It is fully and entirely impeachable and every Republican should be agreeing to impeach Secretary Mayorkas on day one when we come into this body and we are in charge of the House of Representatives next January after the absolute feckless destruction of this country by an incompetent, destructive Democratic majority in this body, an incompetent destructive and flat out reckless administration refusing to enforce the laws of the United States. That is what is happening.

Oh, you going down there ranting on the floor again about the border? Well, excuse me, but it is Texas. And Texas needs to be starting to take a little action to tell the rest of this country to shove it up its rear end because Texas is taking it on the chin because the leadership of this country is forsaking Texas, hurting Texas, hurting my neighbors, hurting my community.

It is about time that it stops. It is about time that Republicans on this side of the aisle stop giving lip service to border security, choose to actually do their job and not fund the government that is refusing to enforce the laws.

I listened to Republican leadership down here on the floor a few weeks ago trying to tell me, oh--thank me for giving us more money for ICE and Border Patrol. Well, how the heck is that working out now? More money for more processing of more migrants getting abused by cartels. More money for more processing of more migrants to come into Uvalde, Texas, where the mayor just texted me 5 minutes ago. Tell them--in case you are wondering, that is you Democrats across the other side of the aisle, and by the way, Republican leadership--Tell them to come and see the--I will edit his remarks--crap show they have created 500 to 1,000 a day in Eagle Pass in Del Rio. No vetting.

These are human beings, Texans, people we represent, our communities. I promise my colleagues on the other side of the aisle they don't give a whit. They sit in their smug chairs in their committee hearings saying: Oh, this is all made up. There is nothing to it. It is all lies.

Just like the lie that President Biden said and his press secretary said when he accused Border Patrol agents of whipping people. They are flat out lies. Where are those Border Patrol agents now? Have they been returned to their job? Has a report come out? No.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), my friend who accompanied me on a trip to the border about a month ago or so. He is a good friend and he understands what is actually happening at our border.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I just want to pick up on something that the gentleman from Virginia said and see if he would agree. If Title 42 goes away, our country is completely open to anyone who wants to come. Would the gentleman agree?

Everyone who has been turn away, it has almost entirely been done under Title 42.

Now, for the listeners at home, Title 42 is a health code provision allowing our officials in government to turn people away if we have a communicable disease environment, like we do during the COVID pandemic. Now, we can do it for any number of communicable diseases, but we got that in place now.

Roughly half of the folks have been turned away under Title 42. Would the gentleman agree?

So to that point, would it surprise the gentleman that under the administration we have turned away 1.7 million people under Title 42?

Yeah, including the time under the Trump administration. So 1.7 million times during the pandemic all the people that were turned back would likely have been let in and released into the United States under this administration. Some of those are repeats.

Something along the lines of a million people that would have been released into the United States last year. Does the gentleman agree?

Another point. Of the people that have come into the United States and are being encountered, these are all not just nice people looking for a job, are they?

One hundred sixty different countries. Roughly, 10,763 criminal noncitizens and at least 3,662 have been arrested thus far in fiscal year 2022. The combined timeframes include roughly 85 convictions of manslaughter or homicide, 604 sexual offenses, and 2,892 convictions of illegal drug possession and trafficking. Based on reports at least 14 illegal migrants who are on the terrorist watch list were stopped at the southern border in fiscal year 2021.

The biggest problem is what?

The got-aways. The more than half a million known got- aways--known--known got-aways--last year. So if we have got people we are catching on the terrorist watch list, if we have got criminals convicted of sex crimes, convicted of murder and manslaughter that we are catching--but that is all people the Border Patrol is running across and they are often turning themselves in. All of those known got-aways, do you think those are just the angels seeking a nice job?

It would be.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), one of the great patriots and I am proud to call him my friend.

I would ask my friend from Pennsylvania if he is aware that our colleague and colleague in the House Freedom Caucus, our friend Yvette Herrell from New Mexico, introduced legislation a year ago-- actually over a year ago to require the use of Title 42. Is that right?

They do not. And I want to make sure for every American out there to understand the truth. If you are disgusted about what is happening at our border, if you are concerned about what is actually happening to our communities, there is a way we can solve the problem without Speaker Pelosi making the decisions. Because that is how things work. We don't ever debate, we don't ever amend, and we don't actually have discussion in the people's House. The Speaker in a backroom decides what happens on the floor, vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' walk out, and give a press conference

But we can do something about that. There is a tool. It is called a discharge petition. We have a discharge petition at the desk to try to empower the actual Representatives of this country. We have 200 and I think now eight Republicans on that discharge petition.

We have zero Democrats--not one Democrat--on that discharge petition. Now, I want everybody to think about that. The Democrats in this body apparently are so beholden to the radical idea of wide-open borders and not implementing Title 42 while Americans are being forced to wear masks on airplanes, and while Americans are getting a jab needle stuck in their arm by force of government if they are in the military or Border Patrol or any other Federal employee while there is still a Federal health emergency in place under order of the President.

So while that is in place, we have a discharge petition where we can bring to the floor and vote to force enforcement of Title 42 in this country, and not one of our Democratic colleagues will join us in that.

We have 13.

It sure would. I think there are somewhere around 50 Democratic Members from border States if you count New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Texas.

So where are my Democratic colleagues in border States?

I think they ought to be asked. I want to know why won't my Democratic colleagues from border States or anywhere else in the country say they believe that we ought to enforce Title 42?

Because guess what? There are a few Senators who have said so.

Isn't that right?

It is a way to wrestle control of the people's House away from a handful of self-anointed individuals who are wrecking this country in the name of so-called democracy.

Does my friend from Virginia agree?

Both my friends, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Virginia, you guys are both fathers, correct?

Do you think that there is anything compassionate--when my colleagues on the other side of aisle like to talk about their compassion for migrants who are seeking to come to this country, do my friends think there is anything at all compassionate about a little girl getting raped in a stash house in Houston, Texas, as we speak?

Or being driven up and put into the sex trafficking trade up I-35 or across I-10 in the southern part of the United States?

Or trafficked to anywhere throughout the rest of this country?

Do you think that is compassion?

Do you think it is compassionate for a young woman to be getting shot up in a cartel warfare happening at south Texas, happening along the Rio Grande in northern Mexico?

Is that compassion?

Is it compassion?

Is it compassionate for the young man or young woman of the 100,000 or so last year who died from drug overdoses to take Xanex and it be laced with fentanyl and die?

Is that something that is compassionate?

My friend from Virginia, do you think these are compassionate things to be doing?

One of my good friends who was a former Texas Department of Public Safety expert on these issues dealing with cartels just sent me a text showing me video from last night at the border, and individuals they were recording were saying they were paying $3,000 or $5,000 to get across the river.

How is that compassionate?

They are going to have to make a monthly payment to cartels. A lot of those payments are going to come in the form of sex trafficking and labor trafficking.

I have about 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. I would just say--and I thank my friends for joining me down here on the House floor--that this is a solvable problem right now. This could be stopped right now. It could be stopped right now.

This hour. This moment.

But where is President Biden?

Where is Secretary Mayorkas?

Other than purposely ignoring the laws of the United States to endanger the American people and the migrants who seek to come here, where are they?

And why shouldn't we be impeaching Secretary Mayorkas for failing to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and causing death and destruction to Americans' property and to American people in the form of drug overdoses, in the form of the endangerment of our citizens and, again, the migrants who seek to come here?

I would ask that question of all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: You can take this back and wrestle it away from the administration. Sign that discharge petition. Let's have a vote. Let's have a debate.

What are my colleagues afraid of?

The truth?

What are they afraid of?

The rule of law?

What are they afraid of?

A secure America?

Migrants who get to come here safely?

Put aside the politics and stand up for our country. That is our job as Members of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from Virginia and Pennsylvania for their leadership.

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

Madam Speaker, as we sit here in the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives today, the Secretary of Homeland Security has announced that he is ready to end the use of Title 42 at our southern border. This is as we speak, while in March, we have had 100,000 apprehensions in the first half of the month, barreling towards 200,000, of which half have been able to be turned away under Title 42.

When the Secretary ends Title 42, there will be a deluge at our southern border. This is known, which is evidenced by the fact that the Secretary is already working with FEMA behind the scenes and quietly to deal with the emergency that is no doubt about to occur at our southern border. This is going to cause massive injury to migrants, cartels empowered, Americans endangered, fentanyl pouring across our border, all because the Secretary refuses to do his job.

This is an inexcusable dereliction of duty by the Secretary of Homeland Security. It is an impeachable act to not carry out his constitutional duty to defend the border of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join together to condemn the Secretary, condemn the administration, and demand that the Secretary actually do his job to secure the border and not end Title 42, even as Americans continue to wear masks on airplanes during a public health emergency.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Commander Robert Wilson Pratt, who passed away at his

home in Fair Oaks Ranch, Texas on Saturday, March 12, 2022, at the age of 99.

Robert was born on June 14, 1922, in Superior, Nebraska to Dr. Irving and Rose Pratt. He and his younger sister Peggy were raised in San Antonio, Texas where they both graduated from Jefferson High School. Robert attended the San Antonio College after he graduated from Jefferson in 1941 until he enlisted in the Navy in October of 1942. Due to his college credits already earned, he was entered into an officer training program. He was commissioned an Ensign in May of 1944. He proceeded to be part of the commissioning crew of LST 781. LST 781 then sailed from New Orleans, LA through the Panama Canal and into the South Pacific Theater. His ship participated in many of the island invasions in the Pacific culminating in the invasion of Okinawa where he survived kamikaze attacks while supporting Marine Corp Air Unit logistics. His ship had the distinction of being one of the first American ships to enter a Japanese port after the Atomic Bombs ended the conflict. He used a jeep from his ship to drive the short distance to Hiroshima to see the destruction there since no one knew anything about the danger of radiation. It was a sight he could never forget.

He returned after the war to San Antonio and completed his undergraduate degree in marketing at St. Mary's University. He was working for General Motors when he met the love of his life, Frances Salley of Alice, Texas. They married in January of 1950. When they returned from their honeymoon, he was greeted by a letter from the United States Navy calling him back to active duty for the Korean conflict. After Korea, he and Frances returned to South Texas where they raised two sons, Robert W Pratt II and Byron Wayne Pratt.

Robert had careers as an executive for Central Power & Light Company and later as a real estate developer of apartment communities. He stayed in the Navy Reserves retiring with the rank of Commander. He was an active member of the Corpus Christi Yacht Club for many years.

Robert and Frances enjoyed a 71+ year partnership and adventure together. Many of their best times were spent with family and friends aboard their 50-foot ketch, the Masquerade, on voyages that went from Florida to Annapolis, Maryland, and throughout the Caribbean. They moved from Corpus Christi, Texas to Fair Oaks Ranch, Texas in 1995 where RW continued to manage some of his real estate assets and mentor younger people he met to grow to their full potential.

We are able to live free today because of the courage of men like Commander Pratt, who put their lives on hold and answered their country's call when it needed them most. Love of family, country, and a life dedicated to service sum up the character of Commander Pratt, a member of the Greatest Generation. These stories will inspire future generations of Americans to pursue a life dedicated to causes greater than themselves. I hope this testament to Commander Pratt's life serves as an acknowledgment of the immeasurable debt of gratitude owed to him by the American people. On behalf of Texas' 21st Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the extraordinary life of Commander Pratt and his dedicated service to our country. Today, a grateful Nation thanks him.

Madam Speaker, I object.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Madam Speaker, a number of my colleagues have asked why I

have made at least two objections tonight with respect to motions to lay on the table and to have reconsideration. And I just want to remind the Chamber that we are here to do the job of the American people. We are here to vote.

Madam Speaker, earlier tonight, we had a voice vote of somewhere around $16 billion of continuing resolution spending to push forward government spending to the night of March 15. And it is my considered judgment, and the judgment of many of my colleagues, that we should have the right to debate that and vote on it. And we had nobody in the Chamber here when we thought, and we were under the good faith belief, that we would actually have a vote on that tonight.

So the purpose of forcing some votes tonight was to call that question and to remind the Chamber that it is our job to vote. It is our job to be here and do the work of the American people.

Madam Speaker, we have not had an amendment on the floor of the House in open debate since May of 2016, to the best of my understanding. We need to restore this Chamber. We need to debate. We need to vote.

Madam Speaker, with that, I will withdraw my reservation of the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability to address a few of my colleagues here on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would note, though, here we are again, we are sitting here at the precipice of the government funding running out. And I hear all my colleagues talking about how great it is: We are going to come up with some great, big omnibus bill. And I am hearing that from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Nobody in America wants us to plus-up more spending irresponsibly.

Nobody in America wants us to say, Oh, let's pat ourselves on the back now. Because some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying, Well, you know what? It is time now to ban Russian oil.

It is not good enough to ban Russian oil if we are not going to open up American oil and gas. All we are going to do is provide more money to Venezuela, more money to Saudi, more money to Iran. But yet, that is being touted as a victory.

And some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are saying, Okay, good. Oh, this is great. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they don't want any oil. They don't mind your gas being $4, $7, $10 a gallon.

Don't get played. But my colleagues on this side of the aisle are about to get played, and everybody back home is saying: What are you going to do to stop vaccine mandates? Nothing. What are you going to do to secure the border?

And my colleagues on this side of the aisle are going to say, Oh, don't worry. We are going to give you more money for ICE, more money for Border Patrol. But you know what that does? It makes it worse, because you are funding the processing of people at our border, because that is all Border Patrol and ICE are doing.

But my colleagues on this side of the aisle are going to say, Oh, look at us. We did something for border security. It ain't true. It is going to make it worse. And anybody who has been to the border, anybody who talks to Border Patrol, anybody who talks to ICE, knows that is true.

We are not going to get a vaccine mandate, we are not going to get a secure border, and we are not going to get more oil and gas being produced in America.

And then we are going to say, Great, let's have a vote and send more lethal aid to Ukraine. And we are not even going to have a debate down here about what we are doing in funding Ukraine, with Putin rolling over Ukraine? All we are doing is backroom dealmaking, waiting for somebody to drop a bill on the floor of the House, and then come down and vote ``yes'' or ``no.''

That is a disgusting display by both sides of this body. We ought to have a full and open debate on the floor of the House about what we are doing in sending arms to Ukraine; how much we are spending; what it means for our involvement; what it means for NATO; what it means for stopping Putin.

And stop spending money we don't have. Stop funding tyranny. Stop forcing Americans to get a jab or lose their job. Stop leaving the border wide open. And stop selling the American people a bill of goods. And I am looking directly at my party when I say that.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for this important time talking about the horrors that have been inflicted upon people by Vladimir Putin. Specifically, we know how much damage he has been causing to the people of Ukraine.

More than 1.7 million--in fact, I saw a graphic just before I came to the floor--2 million Ukrainians have been displaced, have been fleeing Ukraine for other countries nearby.

Over 2,000 civilians have been killed, according to reports. But, obviously, we don't know the extent of the damage and the carnage. Thirty-eight children have been killed that we know of, but there are probably more, and 70 wounded that we know of.

Madam Speaker, $10 billion in damages to Ukrainian infrastructure, probably far more than that; 200 schools, 34 hospitals, and 1,500 residential homes destroyed--these are the basic numbers just coming in. We know they are going to be far greater.

On Saturday, a family with two children, a teenage son and a daughter who appeared to be 8 years old, and several

other civilians were killed by a Russian military strike at an evacuation crossing point in a Kyiv suburb as they were trying to flee Ukraine.

Ukraine has required men to stay to defend their country, forcing families to make the unthinkable decision. One Ukraine woman said: ``It is very hard to have your husband stay home. You have to choose: Save the kids or stay with him.''

I have heard from friends and read dozens of tragic stories in the past few days through friends of mine in Austin, Texas, who have gone to Ukraine to help people. I have been in touch, through them, with an orphanage in Kyiv with somewhere upward of 50 children, up to 14 infants, up near the suburbs of north Kyiv.

They are struggling. They are lacking food. They are lacking the materials to survive. They are trying to figure out how to get to a place where they can get to help.

We have actors on the ground trying to help them, but they can't get to them because of what Putin is doing and not really heeding the calls for helping people be able to get out of harm's way.

Right now, these children are completely helpless. A nurse from Lutsk in western Ukraine who fled to Poland said the decision on whether to stay or go was not instantaneous. When the Russian army first invaded eastern Ukraine, she and her husband decided to wait: ``We were hoping that the situation wouldn't develop into a full-scale invasion. But as hours passed, it became obvious that things were only getting worse.''

The next morning, she and her 2-year-old son, Tymi, got in a car and headed for Poland, where they waited 10 hours at the border. She said saying good-bye to their husband and father, who stayed in Ukraine to build barricades, was heartbreaking.

She and her son were hosted by a Polish family, Robert and Hana, an English language university instructor and a human resources supervisor, who live with their two children. They made it clear that their hospitality didn't have an end date.

Alex in Kyiv is helping his friends evacuate. Sergei in Rivne is setting up shelters for his community and providing food and supplies. Peter in Zhytomyr packed his car yesterday and is currently taking his neighbors to Poland.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, we are seeing Putin's propaganda tactics, as we speak. The world is seeing it on full display. His regime is systematically shutting down the free flow of information surrounding this brutal war in Ukraine. The State run newspapers in Russia have been instructed to not use the words ``invasion'' or ``war.'' Just days ago, Putin's regime shut off Facebook access in the country.

Now, again, whatever Russians are able to see what we are saying on the floor, this is the truth. This is the truth of what Vladimir Putin is doing to the truth and the dissemination of information of what is happening in Russia, what is happening to the people of Ukraine, not the propaganda you're hearing in Russia.

Just days ago, Putin's regime shut off Facebook, as I said. The Russian newspaper translated as ``New Newspaper'' has a brave, freedom- loving editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov--he co-won last year's Nobel Peace Prize--who has been forced to remove all of the material on the newspaper's website related to Russia's aggression in the Ukraine.

Think about that. That is what is happening. This isn't new. It is his track record. He came to power because of a terrorist act that was directed at Russia's own people.

In 1999, three apartment buildings in Moscow, Dagestan, and Volgodonsk were bombed. Those bombings, allegedly the acts of Chechen terrorists, gave a pretext for going into Chechnya for a second war, thus solidifying support for Putin as head of the Security Council.

Since then, almost everyone who has raised questions about these bombings or has attempted to investigate the cause of these bombings has been kicked out of Russia, imprisoned, or murdered.

Those are the facts. That is who Putin is.

During his more than two decades of ruling Russia, Putin has displayed a callous disregard for human life. He has engaged in murderous attacks on his political opposition.

In 2004, the Putin regime poisoned Ukrainian Presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko.

In 2006, there was the polonium killing in London of Alexander Litvinenko, a defector from Russia.

In 2009, Sergei Magnitsky was taken into police custody, beaten, deprived of medical care, and he died in jail.

In 2013, Boris Berezovsky was found in his home in the United Kingdom dead. Berezovsky had long been a critic of Putin, accused the Kremlin of orchestrating the killing of Alexander Litvinenko, who had been poisoned in 2006.

In 2015, Boris Nemtsov was shot four times in the back just a short distance from the Kremlin. He was another critic of Putin.

And in 2017, the world was horrified by the daylight shooting of Denis Voronenkov, who was murdered in Kyiv after renouncing his Russian citizenship and criticizing Vladimir Putin. That is the truth of Putin's brutality.

And how was he poisoned?

Is there any disagreement on the intelligence that this is what occurred at the hands of Vladimir Putin's orders?

Right.

Yes.

That is exactly right. And I want to take 1 minute because it merits repeating because we are sitting here in the United States of America in the protection of our great Republic miles away from what is happening in Ukraine, and it bears repeating that there are two million Ukrainians right now fleeing Ukraine, fleeing their homes. We fortunately haven't had to experience that sort of thing.

But two million people right now are fleeing their homes, dads and husbands staying behind in Ukraine, families fleeing, seeking shelter, thousands killed, we don't know how many, children killed, billions of dollars of damage, destroying crops, destroying infrastructure, taking over nuclear power plants.

And I just got a text, literally as I am standing here, from my friends in Austin, Texas--from the wife whose husband is currently now in Ukraine trying to help people--talking about the orphanage I talked about in northern Kyiv. She says 51 kids are trapped; 51 kids trapped.

Do you have kids? People around here, many of us have kids. Fifty-one kids trapped after orphanage bombed and director killed. The director of the orphanage was killed. Running out of food. No heat or electricity. Cold front coming. Will freeze or starve if we can't get there soon. Fifteen infants. Special needs kids. Currently shelling of all civilian targets being perpetrated and carried out by Putin. The same Putin that killed a Ukrainian leader with nuclear poisoning.

This from my friend: We are pleading for someone to help us get to the children before it is too late. And we are trying. Anybody out there watching, we are trying to figure out how to get to this orphanage and get them to people who can help. But that is the product of Vladimir Putin. And if you are watching this, and if you are in Russia or if this clip gets to you and it isn't cut off by Putin and his thug leadership in Russia, this is the truth of Vladimir Putin. This is what he is doing to innocent people.

And he is lying to you that these children are being put up as somehow being a front and being put up to be put in harm's way. He is indiscriminately bombing. He is the cause of these children being in danger. He is the cause of this murder. He is the cause of thousands of people getting killed, millions getting displaced, billions in damage, and it is all because he is a thug and an autocrat, who is going after and killing innocent people.

Madam Speaker, well, I appreciate my friend from Colorado's question. And I would note in your comparison as to our experience as Federal prosecutors, that there is no entity that is able to hold him to account in Russia because he is running the whole show as a dictator, and there is no free press.

In our country--as bad as the press can be--we at least hope that we can get the truth out through the vestiges of the First Amendment and the importance of the free press, no matter who is in the White House. Right?

Neither you nor I shied away from criticizing the former President of the United States, despite the fact he had an ``R'' after his name. Nor will we shy away from criticizing this President who has a ``D'' after his name. Why? Because we are Article I, and he is Article II.

And the Founders gave us a free press to say we are going to have the press holding all of us to account, and the separation of power so we can hold the President to account. There is none of that here.

And the most important thing that we can do, in my opinion, is do what we are doing right here. And I hope all my colleagues will do this. And I hope everybody will unite. And I hope the American free press will unite, and the worldwide free press will unite, to call this out for what it is--a war criminal killing innocents for sheer power and for sheer determination of what he wants for his own agenda, not for any kind of honorable reasons in defending his homeland.

Whatever he is telling you and the people of Russia that this is somehow an honorable defense of Russia, it is not. He is lying to you. He is killing innocent people in the name of your homeland. And you need to know that. And you need to know the truth. And you need to see what he is doing to people.

And we, in this country, need to continue to do more. And I know we are here to talk about Putin, and we are here to talk about this situation of holding him accountable. And I don't want to get too partisan here, but our country should have been doing more sooner.

We should have been listening to Zelensky. I have heard a whole lot of applause lately for Zelensky from my

colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But where were we last July when he was asking for help with sanctions?

Where were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when my former boss and my friend, Senator Ted Cruz, forced a vote in the Senate on Nord Stream 2?

MIA. Partisan vote: We are not going to continue sanctions on Nord Stream 2. We are going to go along with Biden's decision to stop sanctions on Nord Stream 2.

Well, what do you think happens when you allow Putin and Russia to have a complete control of the energy supply of Europe?

What do you think is going to happen when you empower a thug and a dictator? What do you think is going to happen?

And right now today, we have a complete refusal by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and frankly, too many colleagues on my side of the aisle, who refuse to say that we are, today, going to open up American energy, liquefied natural gas, oil, and produce it in this country to ensure that this man doesn't have the power to do what he is doing in Ukraine.

How has the lawless authoritarian managed to regain his power? Well, I will tell you. Europe made themselves completely dependent on Russian energy.

And if you want a wake-up call and you want a warning shot in this country, Russia controls 40 percent of the EU's natural gas and 30 percent of its oil. Germany buys more gas from Russia than any other country.

They chose this. They chose fracking bans. They chose to shut down energy freedom in Western Europe. They chose to pursue a political climate ideology over national security and commonsense and energy for their citizenry. And now, they are beholden to Russia. And now, we have empowered Russia.

This stuff matters. Wars have been fought over these kinds of things, and we just empowered an autocrat to roll over the people of Ukraine because of the leadership of the Democrats on the other side of the aisle. And the people in this White House are pursuing climate ideology over national security; climate ideology over energy freedom; climate ideology over affordable gas; and the ability for the American people to thrive while empowering the people of Ukraine instead of a thug like Putin.

You are exactly right. And tomorrow, we are going to be voting on a number of things. I got to be honest with you. I am sickened at what we are doing in this body. Instead of debating and voting here and having a serious discussion about how we should spend our assets to support Ukraine but be sensible about what we are doing in policies here, we are going to have a vote on banning Russian oil.

What good does it do to ban Russian oil if you are going to buy it from Venezuela or Iran?

Why don't we produce it here in the United States? It is cleaner and it is better. We should be doing that right here. Instead, we are not going to do that.

I am going to turn it back over because I think it is about time to close.

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind everyone that 51 kids are trapped after an orphanage is bombed and the director is killed. No heat or electricity. Cold front coming. That is Putin's Ukraine. We should be helping these people.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to follow my friend from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, last night when we heard the President of the United States address this Nation and this body in this Chamber as well as our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol in the Senate, you would think there was some sort of magic moment that the virus has suddenly left the Earth and now all of a sudden we are free here on the floor of the House of Representatives to be without masks.

It was just coincidentally timed--just coincidentally timed--when the State of the Union is upon us. A number of States have lifted their mandates--all suddenly coincidentally timed--around the State of the Union. And I was interested in watching the Speaker of the House suddenly saying: Well, it is a new moment in COVID.

I listened to my colleagues from Texas just a moment ago on the other side of the aisle talking about how we have had this great victory through the action of the genius of our Federal Government to free us from the perils of this virus.

Mr. Speaker, tell that to the children who have been sitting in the corners of classrooms wearing masks. Tell that to the members of our military and the members of our Border Patrol who are the so-called heroes. I say so-called because my Democratic colleagues a year ago were calling healthcare workers heroes, and now they are forcing them still to lose their job if they don't take a jab because of the wisdom of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they know best. They know best.

The President stood there arrogantly in that posture preaching to the United States public and to this body yesterday and talked about how we are going to beat this virus and oh, by the way, suddenly magically we need to fund the police. Go back and look at every statement that has been made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle over the last 2 years talking about defunding the police. We know who is defunding the police across the country, and it sure as heck isn't Republicans. It is Democrats across this country.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know it. The President knows it, and the President is reading polls. The President knows that the approach to the virus has been devastating to the American people. Lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates are being rejected by the American people. The polls show it, so the magic moment has then arrived.

The President of the United States knows full well when he says the border should be secured that it is a lie. I just want to be very clear: when the President said last night that the border should be secure, it is a lie. He is lying to the American people.

I was in Del Rio just last week. One thousand people a day are coming across that river, and nobody gives a whit. And they don't give a whit about the 26 migrants who have died in the Rio Grande since October 1, since the cameras have left the Haitians sitting on the Rio Grande. They don't care that there are 26 dead migrants. They don't care about the 119 bodies in Brooks County where the sheriff has to bring a body trailer to Brooks County.

They don't care about the fences getting cut and the livestock getting out. The ranchers I met with last week in south Texas are in tears about their property. No. No. The President gets up, gives a speech, and declares the border secure and all is well.

Then he gets up and talks about the solidarity of the Ukrainian people, yet he refuses to unleash American oil and gas and refuses to unleash natural gas, liquified natural gas, that would change the world. He refuses to stop importing 600,000 barrels of Russian oil every single day because we won't unleash American oil and gas.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we are going to keep telling the truth about the border. We are going to keep telling the truth about vaccine mandates. We are going to keep telling the truth about the need for American energy. We are not going to bow down to the climate hysterics and the false lies about border security that are endangering the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague on the other side of the aisle and I certainly appreciate his friendship and service.

I would take some disagreement with my celebrating the extent to which the President of the United States has announced beforehand the race and sex of the next Supreme Court Justice. And I would remind my friend, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in general, the extent to which the current President rejected, filibustered, blocked Janice Rogers Brown--notably both Black and female--he did so because she wasn't the right kind of Black and female. You see, she was a conservative. She was not a leftist, a liberal.

So the current President blocked, when he was in the United States Senate, filibustered, fought, broke the rules and the traditions of the Senate to do it. By the way, Janice Rogers Brown, a Black female, qualified but conservative, judge. So he refused to let her advance. Why?

Now, the President of the United States is going out and lauding, praising his predetermination that the next Justice must be Black or female, undermining the nominee before even making the nomination.

I would note also that the President blocked, attacked, voted against Miguel Estrada. And did so, we know, for one reason. He was a Hispanic conservative. Now, how do we know that? We have a memo. Yes, indeed, a memo in black and white, spelled out among Democrat Senators and staffers back in 2003. I happen to know this because I was a lawyer on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. But my, how this town loves to sweep aside little details, like the current Democrat President of the United States working in coordination with Democrat Members of the United States Senate when he was a Senator to stop, to block, to filibuster Miguel Estrada because he is a Hispanic conservative.

And we can't have that, can we? Because it breaks the narrative. It destroys the narrative. Republicans are anti-Hispanic. Republicans are anti-Black. We can't have a Black conservative woman advance under a Republican President, George W. Bush. We can't have Hispanic Miguel Estrada advance under a Republican, George W. Bush.

But, no, no, will you hear Jen Psaki talking about that at the podium at the White House? Or will you hear more lies, lies about the whipping of migrants at our border? Will you hear her talk about the fact that no report has been generated by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security or anybody else about the alleged whipping of migrants, which did not occur, which we know didn't occur. By fact, we know it didn't occur.

But yet, the President of the United States and his own White House Secretary sat at the podium and accused them, ``them'' being our Border Patrol agents, standing on the front lines, being ignored, underfunded, chastised, refused to say any apology since that day. They refused to look at the Border Patrol agents and say, You know, we are sorry. We got that wrong. No report forthcoming.

Anybody sensing a theme that my Democrat friends and colleagues in the White House on the other side of the aisle love to make race an issue? But they are going to sweep aside the killing of Miguel Estrada's nomination because he is a Hispanic male, Hispanic conservative; sweep aside the blocking of Janice Rogers Brown; sweep aside running to cry racism and whipping of the Rio Grande when it is the policies of the Secretary of Homeland Security that is specifically and intentionally endangering the American people; causing our young children across this country to die from poisonings and overdoses; causing bullets to be fired upon our law enforcement officers in Texas; ranchers to get overrun, livestock to get out, cartels to get empowered. And the Secretary of Homeland Security literally refuses to enforce any of the laws to stop that from happening.

But, oh, no, he can't bring himself, and Jen Psaki can't bring herself, and the President can't bring himself to look in the eyes of the Border Patrol and say they apologize for saying that they were whipping human beings.

That is the state of the Democrat Party's commitment to race. It is all a fraud. It is all a fiction. It is all a front. It is all about continuing to foment racial division for partisan political gain. It has nothing to do about judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin because if it were, Janice Rogers Brown would not have been blocked and Miguel Estrada would not have been blocked. The President of the United States wouldn't be standing up at a lectern today predetermining the race and the sex of the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, I came down here today to talk about our law enforcement

community. A year and a half ago, I sat here on the floor of the House--maybe in the same spot--with the number 43 similarly positioned on a board. That 43 represented the number of law enforcement police officers killed in the line of duty at that time.

Well, saying to the Speaker and to my colleagues--who, of course, notably, as I like to observe, are not here. This is our idea of debate, you know, in the United States House of Representatives. On fly-out day, everybody is getting home. Nobody is here.

We never have actual debate. We never offer amendments. We never have a back and forth. We come back and have showboats and give speeches on the Capitol steps about how Republicans are better than Democrats or Democrats are better than Republicans. We never sit down here and actually debate. If we did, then we could have honest debate about policies that will protect this country and protect law enforcement officers from the constant barrage and attack levied against them across this country.

I am sick and tired of seeing nonstop attacks on our law enforcement community for being the ones on the front lines every day dealing with crime and figuring out how to protect our communities yet getting tossed under the bus, cast aside as being the ones that we should be targeting.

Eighty-four dead law enforcement officers across this country last year; 346 officers were shot in the line of duty; 103 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers, up 115 percent from the year before; 4 police officers were beaten to death; 3 were stabbed to death.

Sergeant Joshua Bartlett, Lubbock County Sheriff's Office in Texas, shot and killed during a barricade at a home on July 15 of last year. Earlier in the morning, the subject had been stopped by a Texas Highway Patrol trooper for reckless driving and attempted to bait the officer into a confrontation. He returned home after the encounter and began walking around the neighborhood with a firearm at 1:15.

When officers of the Levelland Police Department arrived, the man opened fire and barricaded himself inside. The regional SWAT team was requested as the man randomly fired shots from the home.

Sergeant Bartlett was a United States Army veteran. He is survived by his wife, four sons, parents, and a brother.

Police Officer Mitchell Aaron Penton, Dallas, Texas, was struck and killed by a vehicle operated by an intoxicated driver on February 13, 2021. At the time of his death, he had a stepson, and his wife was expecting.

Police Officer Brandon M. Stalker, Toledo Police Department, Ohio, was shot and killed during a barricade involving an arson suspect. Officer Stalker was on a perimeter position and was struck in the head and fatally wounded. He is survived by his two children and fiance.

Police Officer Jimmy Inn was shot and killed while responding to a domestic violence call on May 11, 2021. He had served with the Stockton Police Department for 6 years. He is survived by his wife, 7-month-old son, and two stepchildren.

Sergeant James Smith, Iowa State Patrol, Iowa, was shot and killed while attempting to arrest a subject who had assaulted and disarmed another law enforcement officer during a traffic stop on April 2, 2021. He is survived by his wife, two children, mother, brother, and sister.

Lieutenant Michael Boutte was shot and killed after responding to a call involving a subject attempting suicide. He was a United States Air Force veteran and served with the Hancock County Sheriff's office for 8 years. He is survived by his wife and two children.

Police Officer Chris Oberheim, Champaign Police Department, Illinois, was shot and killed at about 3:20 a.m. while responding to a domestic disturbance call. He had been on the job 20 years. He was 44 with a wife and four children.

Trooper Chad Michael Walker, Texas Department of Public Safety, March 28, 2021, succumbed to gunshot wounds sustained 5 days earlier when he was ambushed while stopping to assist what he believed was a disabled vehicle near Mexia, Texas. He served with the Texas Highway Patrol for 6 years. He had 18 years in law enforcement. He is survived by his wife, 15-year-old son, twin 7-year-older daughters, and a 2-month-old daughter.

Here are some of the quotes from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue about police officers.

Jen Psaki, White House press secretary, while criticizing FOX News coverage of soft-on-crime policies, stated, while laughing, ``What does that even mean?'' and referred to the coverage as an alternative universe.

President Biden famously expressed support for the defund the police movement in 2020 and then had to walk that back after backlash.

Vice President Kamala Harris applauded Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti for defunding the police.

Representative Ocasio-Cortez said, ``Defunding police means defunding police,'' arguing the cuts to the New York Police Department weren't enough.

Representative Ayanna Pressley said she supports efforts to defund police departments.

Representative Rashida Tlaib called for ``no more'' police. Tlaib's campaign has paid over $150,000 to defund the police activist Rasha Mubarak.

Representative Ilhan Omar said:

Not only do we need to defund, we need to dismantle police

departments.

Representative Cori Bush said that she would ``make sure'' she has private security for her protection while simultaneously promising to defund the police. This weekend, Representative Bush doubled down in her support for defunding our police departments on Twitter.

President Biden's Assistant Attorney General, Kristen Clarke, supported efforts to defund the police.

President Biden's Associate Attorney General, Vanita Gupta, said officials must heed calls to ``decrease police budgets and the scope, role, and responsibility of police in our lives.''

President Biden's Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, proposed a budget to divert funding from law enforcement.

We see now what is happening in Minnesota, where you have one of the individuals who was a part of the mob violence riots in the summer of 2020, who burned down a store, a commercial property, and did so with video footage indicating the glee of doing so--this being an individual with a very long criminal record.

The man who owned or worked at the establishment, I think, had five kids and died as a result of the fire set by this individual in Minnesota. The United States Attorney's Office in Minnesota filed a sentencing brief that read exactly like the defense lawyer's brief, citing all the events of the summer, completely offsetting the dead father of five with a store burned to the ground during mob violence rule in the summer of 2020.

This United States Department of Justice, this United States Attorney's Office in Minnesota, downward departed from the sentencing guidelines of 20 years down to 10 years, purposefully citing the political interest of the summer of 2020, the political cause of the summer of 2020, in recommending that downward departure despite the criminal record of the perpetrator of the crime, despite the destroyed and burned down building, despite the death of the owner of the store and the fact that he had multiple children. All of that was cast aside in the political judgment, not even of the judge, but of the United States Attorney's Office.

Lo and behold, that acting United States attorney a few months later is now working at Main Justice. I would sure like to know why. I would sure like to know who was involved. I would sure like to know who made the calls. I would sure like to know from the current acting United States attorney if that acting United States attorney agrees with the sentencing recommendations of the so-called prosecutors in the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office who turned a blind eye to their duty to keep the streets safe, to prosecute them under their oath to the Constitution and defense of the laws of the United States to protect the people of Minnesota, and chose to choose a political path, and chose to follow politics rather than do their job.

We want to know. We are going to ask questions in the House Judiciary Committee. I can assure you that if the good people of the United States were to give the majority to the Republicans in January 2023, there are going to be

some questions asked and some answers delivered by this administration for their failure to enforce the laws of the United States while American people die, lose property, are harmed, are killed. At the border of Texas or in Minnesota--it doesn't matter--the laws of the United States are supposed to be enforced, and we should be standing up for the rule of law.

We are going to demand answers to questions. I want answers from the United States Attorney General for targeting parents for daring to stand up to school boards. I want answers from the Secretary of Homeland Security for his clearly impeachable conduct for recklessly ignoring the laws of the United States, endangering my people and constituents in Texas, endangering the people of this country while empowering cartels and allowing fentanyl to pour into our schools. I want answers. We are going to demand answers.

We are going to want answers and demand answers from Anthony Fauci and all the bureaucrats at NIH and CDC for shutting down our schools, shutting down our economy, lying about what we were seeing in terms of gain of function research in China.

We are going to want answers, and we are going to get those answers. While this body fiddles, we will demand answers if the American people will give us the ability to get them.

I mentioned our situation at our border. We are in the midst of a fentanyl, opioid, and drug crisis in this country, the likes we have not seen before.

Those of us who grew up in the eighties know what we saw with the cocaine epidemic. I was a 14-year-old when Len Bias notoriously died from an overdose within a week of being drafted by the Boston Celtics after his career at the University of Maryland.

We know the horrors of the cocaine epidemic that led, by the way, to the crime bills of the 1990s supported by this President, supported by Black Americans across this country and lobbied for by Black pastors and Black leaders across this country because of the violence and the epidemic of drugs across our cities and across our towns in the 1980s and 1990s. We responded, and as a result, the crime rate went down.

And now what are we seeing?

Massive spikes in crime, massive spikes in drug use, carjackings in our Nation's Capital where it is easier to get carjacked than to order a hamburger while we are under lockdowns, and vaccine mandates and vaccine passports in the Nation's Capital.

Side note: Yet another reason why we should never let the District of Columbia be a State. It is not supposed to have the political interest of a State. It is supposed to be our National Capital where people can come and go, where they can petition their government, and where they can come and do the business of the people. So we will address that issue as well in the next Congress.

I am proud to represent Texas, but Texas is under assault. Texas is under assault every day by cartel-driven violence fueled by China and driven by the profit motive of pouring fentanyl into our communities, destroying our children's lives, causing addiction, causing death, and causing destruction. And this administration not only does nothing, it is worse than that, this administration purposefully--purposefully-- ignores the laws of the United States to the detriment and the endangerment of the American people.

There is no other way to put it when our laws require operational control of the border and we do not have it.

There is no other way to put it when our ranches are overrun, fences are cut, and livestock gets out.

There is no other way to put it when there are stash houses in Houston, in San Antonio, in Laredo, in Del Rio, in McAllen, in Arizona, and in California. In every big city across this country there are stash houses where human beings are being moved for profit.

There is no other way to put it when the current administration is releasing people into the United States. They are knowingly, in violation of law, releasing people into the United States under the guise of so-called asylum. They know it is not asylum, and they know it is not credible fear. They know they are releasing single, adult males. They are lying about it because we see them talking about the lies on tape.

And the American people are the ones holding the bag. The American people are the ones who have their kids dying because they take a Xanax that is laced with fentanyl. And this administration doesn't care.

This administration ignores the rule of law, ignores the Secure Fence Act, lets fencing rust in the field, and fails to require the fence to continue to be constructed which would help support Border Patrol and the communities in south Texas.

But let me send a very clear warning signal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: My colleagues take for granted the people of south Texas, as a political matter. And I can tell you, the people of south Texas are tired of it. The people of south Texas are tired of being on the front lines of a cartel-driven drug-and-human-trafficking war with bullets flying, people dying, morgues filled, and rape trees being used.

And this body, the people's House, not only sits silent, they facilitate it, and they facilitate the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security who does nothing but fuel the crisis even more.

Mr. Speaker, 100,306 Americans are dead as a result of drug overdoses or poisonings.

Mr. Speaker, how many minutes are remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I do want to finish by saying, it is our duty to secure the border of the United States. It is the duty of the Secretary to secure the border of the United States. There are 100,000 dead Americans as a result of wide-open borders, and it is impeachable conduct by the Secretary of Homeland Security. We are going to address that issue if the American people will give us the ability to be in the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman's remarks about China, and I yield back the balance of my time.