Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for National School Choice Week, because I believe that every family should be able to choose a school that is right for their children's needs.

School choice is important because it gives families the autonomy and freedom to do what is in their own children's best interests. It also creates competition and education, through which we can really begin to achieve excellence and innovation.

There is enough evidence to suggest that competition created by more education options increases college readiness and better prepares many students for life after the classroom.

It opens up balanced opportunities for students and their families, whether that is traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, or other alternatives. That is because what may be right for one family and their children may not be right for their neighbors' kids.

National School Choice Week recognizes the need for families to make that decision for themselves. Your child only goes each step in their education one time. Let's make the most of each year of a child's education opportunity, not subject them to experiments.

Thank you, Mr. Gohmert, for leading this tonight and for allowing me and some of my colleagues some time on this.

Yes, coming from California, you know, we feel the brunt, as any border State does, especially. But we know it is pervasive through all 50 States of this Nation.

What are the ideals of this country, its founding? We welcome legal immigration. What is so hard about that concept?

Instead, we get into these euphemisms of just immigration or immigrants or migrants. And that is the disservice that is being done by people out there who are listening and watching what we are arguing about here, that we are somehow all against immigration or against migrants or evacuees or refugees, and that couldn't be further of from the truth.

You don't have a sovereign nation if you don't have defined borders that we as a nation set the policy, set what is going to happen with who is going to enter, and so it is chaos.

So, Mr. Gohmert, we could do DACA after DACA, amnesty after amnesty. Ronald Reagan, in good faith, back in 1986, sat down and hammered something out, and the other side did not adhere to it.

A continued effort at establishing a solid border, a barrier. Mr. Norman talked about this as well.

We are not talking about a solid fence for all 2,000 miles. We are talking about a system. We are talking about a system where the fence makes sense, where there would be patrols where you have the type of terrain where you don't need to do a whole lot.

So it is a combination, like any other aspect of--whether it is a sports team, you know, a football offense, you have got linemen, quarterback, running backs, split ends, or even in the military situation.

An Army tank by itself is a good piece of equipment, but you have got to have people in it. You have to have people surrounding it. You have to have air support. It is not that much different an analogy that you have to have an overall system that is tailored to each piece of region there.

So when we have seen our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in previous years, Bill Clinton, right on this floor, talking about the scourge of illegal immigration in this country--Barack Obama, Senator Schumer down the hall here, Senator Hillary Clinton, they have all talked about this, and others that I am not naming, they have all talked about the need to do this.

So the question is: What has changed? What has changed in the last 2 years, 4 years, 5 years, when we, just as recently as 2013, had funding put in place in a bipartisan fashion to put stronger and more border barrier up? What has changed?

Is it merely because of the election of Donald J. Trump, and we are all in for resistance from here till whenever that Presidency ends, that we have to hold hostage the entire country to this concept of merely resistance instead of doing what is right for the border?

This shouldn't be a partisan issue at all, and, in the past, it has proven not to be partisan. It has proven to be what makes sense for our sovereign border. And it is so sad and maddening, I think, for a lot of American people because here we are right now. The line has been drawn on this, and we need to get this done.

Nobody wants to get the government operations open once again that are closed, that are being hampered right now, but there is a combination of things that need to happen here.

What is so appalling is that this President has put a lot of different ideas on the table: a year ago, the four pillars, and recently, with different ideas, different combinations. He has invited every Member of this body to come down to the White House at one time or another and sit and talk about this.

And when the other side roundly rejects the opportunity to have a conversation, that is what we are supposed to always try and do, have a conversation in this body, in this place, where we are duly elected, to hammer out our differences.

We come from such diverse backgrounds and diverse States and diverse districts. Just California alone, 53 different Members of the House, very diverse viewpoints and ideas and geography. It is our job to hammer this stuff out.

Why are Members of this House and over in the Senate getting away with roundly rejecting a conversation about our sovereign borders here, about the need to have a good steel barrier and the other combination, the other system, parts of the system that make the whole thing work? It is appalling, and we need to do better.

Mr. Gohmert, you were speaking with Mr. Norman and others about your recent visit. I have also spent time on the California border, San Ysidro, and a little bit of time in Arizona as well.

The San Diego portion, yes, but not currently, as additional pieces have been done. I need to go back again and see how the newest design is working and such.

But we have had experience at this, and we see that the stations where people are coming through, we have got an incredible amount of volume being done, an incredible job by our personnel there to vet people and vet their vehicles and make sure that stuff is not getting through that should not get through, whether it is drugs or guns or what have you, and they are doing an incredible job.

But we are also doing them a disservice by making it so overwhelming for them by not giving them the whole system and the whole amount of funding as the President laid out. He wants to put extra border security personnel, I think 2,750, as well as the facilities for those who are coming to meet that border for medical attention and for speeding up the process for those who are seeking asylum.

What is wrong with this package? Or what is wrong with at least the conversation that could be had about well, if it is a little short in some area, then talk to the President, talk to all of us about what needs to be boosted up in it.

Instead, it is a nonconversation, and that is what is so appalling for the American public who are watching this, who are depending on us to uphold our oath for the security of this Nation and of its people.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that even Mexico is catching on to this, because, yes, it is about twice as many miles to come from those Central American countries just to gain entrance to the U.S. If you are doing it legally at a point of entry, why wouldn't you go to Texas and go through the process?

It is almost double the mileage to come over toward the California border from Central America, because California has a sanctuary-state and a defy-the-Federal-Government-on-this-work attitude, and so it is a magnet for that.

We are seeing, in Tijuana on the Mexican side of the border there, those folks are fed up with what is going on there.

We are doing a disservice. The other side wants to talk about compassion. Where is the compassion when you are basically fooling people into saying: Oh, I guess we have an open door up there. Let's all go do it. Let's all head that way and get an opportunity.

You are teasing people, basically.

When we talk about compassion, as my colleagues mentioned, as a family, we were talking about this over the weekend. Rape trees? Articles of women's clothing there that are basically trophies for these people, showing who is in charge. It is the gangs at the border? Who are we helping?

Then we talk about the individual names. I can name some Californians here. I will go back to Kate Steinle; Jamiel Shaw; and, more recently, a police officer from central California, Ronil Singh, serving honorably, cut down unnecessarily by people who shouldn't be having access to be able to commit crime in our country.

So where are we? There are a lot of things we need to do.

California, being very heavily involved in agriculture, high-value crops that really don't grow anywhere else in this country, we need a labor force. We need a legal labor force. All this goes hand-in-hand here.

You do the workers a much better service by having them come here with legal documentation, with numbers that we decide as a country, and allow them to take part in what we see fit. They have documents; they are safer.

We have so much more we can do by having a comprehensive approach to legally enforcing our borders and who comes across. It is better for the people and better for those who we ask to come in, and not have them break in.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line, for our personnel on the border, our Border Patrol folks: this infrastructure helps them to do their job much easier, with much less risk. We are talking about the stadium analogy. Having a focused effort where they don't have to run every mile. They can put one every 10 miles, one officer every 10 miles.

Of course they do. They have worked for millennia. The argument these days is really very specious on this.

I throw it right back: How is it compassionate to put people at risk with the magnet this country is, the opportunity it is, when we are making people take horrendous risk, whether it is the men in the family, their wives, their children, the separation, and all the things that happen. That is not compassion at all. It, indeed, is a horrendous crime against them, by giving them these mixed signals.

We need to have a legal process for people who want to come here to work, who want to come here for education, whatever it is. I do not see the downside of anything they have argued about here tonight: Mr. Griffith on the environmental side of it, the wildlife and all that. There is no downside to what we are talking about. Once we put this barrier in place and that infrastructure is paid for, it will pay for itself many, many, many times over, not just in tax dollars, but in people's lives, in people's quality of life, in this country and those that would approach it.

There is no negative argument to this, other than the rhetoric out there in this resistance movement that is seeming trying to cash out, I guess, in terms of elections.

When we are talking about the census that is coming up here, the number of illegal immigrants that are in California is probably untold.

But here is a distortion that happens in California: We may have up to three or more Members of Congress in the State who are representing a population that is not legal here, which is unfair to the other 49 States and their representation because they should be counting citizens and not illegal aliens in this country in that State.

Absolutely. I think anybody with common sense would look at it that way.

I can't speak for everything.

Yeah, the common sense seems to be lost because of this obfuscation, the resistance, and what have you that is a political end.

Normal people sitting around their kitchen table would say: Yeah, that is right, we should count citizens.

We treat people, otherwise, humanely in this country, we help them. We need to help people where they come from. Whether we are talking about the refugee situation, whether it is in the Middle East, or in Central America, help them to thrive where they are, help them to beat back the things that are causing the problems there, whether it is the drug cartel. We shouldn't have the magnet of drug use in this country, but that is a whole other discussion and battle. But let's help them where they are. We are that compassionate country that will do so. We can't be a magnet for, basically, an erased border and think that is going to provide a solution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time tonight, and my colleagues for bringing this argument forward. I hope the American people can hear that we care about all human life. We do. But address it in a way that works as a sovereign nation and for other nations as well.

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart and great sadness that I rise today to mourn the loss of 22-year-old Davis, California, police officer Natalie Corona, who was shot and killed a few days ago after what seemed to be a routine response to a traffic accident.

The motive remains unclear, but then what does it matter what the motive is? We have lost a beautiful, amazing young officer.

It comes just a few months after she was pinned as a new officer by her father, Merced Corona, who himself spent 26 years as a veteran of the Colusa County Sheriff's Office.

Young Natalie, after spending much of her time volunteering with the police force in Colusa County, graduated from the academy in July, an eager rookie, ready to protect and serve her community.

Even before joining the force herself, she frequently posted on social media to honor fallen officers and show support for the thin blue line.

Her police chief, Darren Pytel, had these words to say: ``She was just an absolute star in the department and someone that pretty much every department member looked to as a close friend, a sister. . . . She just worked like you can't believe.''

This is on the heels of Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. We are losing too many of our great officers in this country and California as well, especially a vibrant, young lady like Natalie Corona.

God bless her family and her memory.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative Hartzler, for having this Special Order tonight and for allowing me to be part of it.

I join her in my great concern for the crisis that is happening at our southern border. I agree with our President that it is a humanitarian and national security crisis that has been ignored for far too long.

Being from California, I can name three names, just right off the top of my head, that are the sign of our porous borders and the tragedy we have seen from them.

We all remember Kate Steinle, killed in San Francisco with her family; Jamiel Shaw from southern California, needlessly killed; and, as Mrs. Hartzler mentioned, most recently, Ronil Singh from central California, a police officer, as she mentioned, who did it the right way, serving in honor to help keep our streets safe, all mowed down by illegal immigrants in our country.

Now, some will downplay this. Some downplay the necessity of a strong fence at our southern border. There areas of our border that already have barriers that are significantly better at preventing illegal trafficking.

In San Diego, illegal traffic has decreased by 92 percent since a physical barrier was constructed back in 1992. There are few situations that I can think of where 92 percent isn't seen as a win and as effective. The fact is that these barriers work.

There are long stretches of our southern border where even more sturdy fences would be more effective. Many of my Democratic colleagues seem to know this, but they are apparently more interested in obstructing this President than in reaching a compromise to reopen our government, secure our border, and provide disaster funding to the West Coast and the Southern States.

Now, this is only a few years after passionate speeches by major Democratic leaders and the votes to back it up. We saw, again, Mrs. Clinton, President Obama, Senator Schumer, as well as President Bill Clinton right at this dais a few years ago passionately speaking about the need for this.

It is about giving Border Patrol agents the tools they need to be successful in protecting our Nation's sovereignty from gunrunning, human trafficking, and the mass flow of high-risk drugs, as so eloquently outlined by Mrs. Hartzler, by all of these violent gangs that have free access to our borders.

The complete and total lack of negotiation by our Democratic colleagues is telling. They are not happy to reopen the government. They are just fine with our porous border the way it is. I guess, does this poll well?

I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans are not happy with it. They want solutions for border security, for the coyotes who are preying on those who are seeking passage into this country--unspeakable things that happen to women in these crossings by these coyotes and others who take advantage of them. Is that compassion?

We seek legal entry for people who seek work permits for agriculture and other work needs and a DACA solution that we can all come to the table and find common ground on. So, indeed, real negotiations need to happen in good faith to reopen our government and secure our border, as is our duty to our sovereign Nation that we swear an oath to protect.

I thank Mrs. Hartzler for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight the good work that has been done by FEMA in my district in California where we had the devastating Camp fire affect and devastate Paradise, California. The cleanup and the recovery from this disaster is going pretty well, with a coordinated effort with FEMA, Army Corps of Engineers, and State entities like the Cal OES.

The response from the Federal Government after the President's visit has not been disappointing but, indeed, going pretty well.

So far, more than $48 million has been approved by FEMA to help recover from wildfire losses in California, including Butte County and Paradise. FEMA has been on the ground helping people get the assistance they need directly. Nearly 7,000 individual assistance applications have already been approved.

It is still extremely challenging for people who have suffered losses and who are, indeed, displaced from their homes, having to live with friends, relatives, motels, whatever that might be. I get that. It is very difficult. But we are all working in a coordinated way together to move along the recovery efforts as quickly as possible with State entities and Federal entities and local government. The outpouring of people who support each other has been amazing.

The administration has made a commitment from day 1 to help our people recover, and they have been backing it up to this point, and I expect this will fully continue.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 22.

Madam Speaker, due to flight issues, I was not able to get back to Washington DC in time for votes on January 8, 2019.

Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call No. 013 (H.R. 269), Yea on Roll Call No. 014 (H.R. 251), and Nay on Roll Call No. 15

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in recognition of National Law Enforcement Day.

Our officers who hit the streets on behalf of our safety, we need to show them appreciation, and I do. We also need to give them better tools and better laws that make their job easier, because it is, indeed, at the end of the day, us who they are protecting.

We have things happen in California, like we saw with the tragedy, due to lack of control of our borders, with Officer Singh, who unfortunately had to give his life unnecessarily. These tragedies need to end.

On this day, as we recognize them, the thin blue line between us as citizens and the harm that could be brought to us is greatly appreciated.

For those who are always out there and every day get up, kiss their families good-bye, and, hopefully, return home at the end of that day safe as they have kept us safe, we honor them. We ask for God's blessings for safety and to return home each day intact as they keep our communities intact.

We need to do a better job of honoring them by giving them the tools, the laws, and the secure borders that would help them accomplish that.

Mr. Speaker, I commend our Republican leadership today for listening to our conference and putting back into the continued resolution the needed disaster relief for the southern States and for the West Coast, and the border security measure demanded by most Americans in this country.

To not do so, to just accept the product that the Senate punted over here, would have been a travesty and a dereliction of our duties here, I think, in the U.S. House of Representatives. These are very important things that need to be done and need to be accomplished, with the caravan amassing on our southern border and the security measures that, although heroically done so far by our Border Patrol folks, need to be augmented with this asset.

Heaven knows, our southern States, having been affected by hurricanes; and farmers depending on decisions to be made in this place; and, on the West Coast, with the fires in my own district, the stability needed from the funding that would come from a disaster relief package, I am really pleased to see the work of the House today put this back out there and send it over to the Senate, where I hope they will have the guts to actually deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and commend Secretary Sonny Perdue of the USDA for a recent decision to help northern California with its water situation. They are offering a $449 million loan to help the Sites area project, an intertie that will help the Tehama-Colusa Canal and the Glenn-Colusa Canal intertie to each other, and, therefore, be part of the infrastructure that will help the Sites Reservoir be successful when it is finally built.

It is much needed for northern California's water interconnectivity, flexibility, and overall goals of more water storage in our State, especially upon the heels of the California State Water Resources Control Board's shift of what could be up to 700,000 more acre feet away from human use towards dubious environmental use.

Mr. Speaker, we need help with water storage, water capacity. I thank Secretary Perdue and Secretary Zinke for their attention to northern California for these water needs, and thank the Trump administration for it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 2, but also strong commendation toward our chairman, Mr. Conaway, for having the many, many hearings about all aspects of the farm bill and the condition of the ag economy in this country.

This does represent a strong compromise response to the needs of rural America, where stability is needed; certainty to the farmers and ranchers weathering a 50 percent drop in farm income in recent years. A positive step for rural America and its ag economy where stability, again, is greatly needed.

Much of these resources are to remote, rural towns to improve broadband connectivity, which is critical for telehealth and further rural development.

It acknowledges the challenges faced by many California farmers, including prioritizing mechanization research to help address the continued ag labor shortage.

It maintains an accessible food supply for families in need, especially in rural, poor districts like mine, while also bringing an increment of accountability to the food stamp SNAP program.

It strengthens our rural development title to boost jobs in rural America, such as water conservation improvements and incentives as well.

I wish we could have done more on forestry. The town of Paradise and the surrounding area that suffered so much is a prime example of why we need to have better forest management in that State, in this whole country, but I think that continuing to have these conversations is extremely important.

So with the worst fires in State history, I am really, really hoping for that improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Conaway for fighting for policies that support American agriculture.

We are in tough times right now, with 5 years of lower incomes. And the consistency and stability that farmers

need, all Americans need in the rural economy, this farm bill will make a significant impact in helping on that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Calvert, for organizing this tonight. Indeed, it isn't pleasant, because we are losing some great colleagues here.

The people have spoken, it is their will in the election, and we all know that this is a fleeting time and opportunity to be here. It just really is a reality check when you have plans and you are going along, and an election happens, and all of a sudden those plans change for some of your colleagues or even yourself. Who knows?

But indeed, it has been a great pleasure for me to serve several of my years here overlapping with David Valadao, Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher, Darrell Issa, Steve Knight, Jeff Denham, and Mimi Walters.

It is a fleeting moment, but also one you will always remember. The friendships are the most important things. I am not going to list bills we have passed or this or that, because indeed what I take away are the friendships.

Having come up in the legislature with Mimi, Jeff, Steve, and David, we

came in together, we formed our early competitive political lives together in that crucible in Sacramento. I think when I think back on this, I am not going to remember a lot about the bills or a lot about that, and I don't think any of us really will so much. It is the friendships. It is the relationships. And I count Mimi, Jeff, and David as my closest friends in this place.

So when you go around the hallways here and you see that the bronze plaques have been ripped off the offices there, indeed it is like having a part of it ripped off your heart, you know? But we soldier on, because the people have spoken. It is the will of the voters.

I know I have been proud to always stand with them. Whether fighting for water, for agriculture, for fiscal responsibility, for the right direction for our Nation, I have always counted on these friends to help keep all of us moving on the right track, thinking about the right things.

So indeed in these relationships, the fun that comes along with it, like with my friend ``Cowadao.'' And Jeffrey, who we always refer to each other as our full formal first names. And M-I-M-I. We have had a lot of fun in this. And I think we have all fought hard in the trenches to advance not only our State at that level, but our country as well.

We are all better off for it. I am better off for having known them. And it is not going to be as fun, it is not going to be as fulfilling to be around here without friends like that, but, again, it is the will of the voters. It is how things go.

We will see each other in many other capacities as we move through this life together.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Williams) for leading this tonight. He finally ran out of Texans to present here, so we are now up to California.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be able to be here tonight to join in the commemoration celebration of President Bush 41. When he was looked to for leadership, he came through in spades.

I recall mostly, I think, one of the strongest moments was, indeed, during the Gulf war, Desert Storm, and his steady hand was what was needed at a very perilous time for our allies and neighbors in the Middle East who were counting on us, but also on the ability to keep the coalitions that America had built over so many years and, indeed, form that coalition to help us be successful on the world stage in that effort.

He exuded leadership. I love the photograph--I think it is the best of him. He is standing there in that bomber jacket, looking off in the distance, and just that photo exudes confidence and gives us confidence in him as a leader at that time when it was so very perilous.

He was a good man. He learned from mistakes that happened, and he built upon them to be successful.

As a President and I think most importantly, he would say, as a family man--indeed, when we all viewed the service for him last week here, that beautiful family that he was so proud of really is a legacy that he can be proud of, along with Barbara. That is the most important legacy.

But also what he brought to the office--civility, it is something that might be a little shorthanded in the dealings in Washington, D.C., these days. He brought civility, and he brought respect to the office, the institution, and the interactions.

Indeed, his ability to work across the aisle, and post-Presidency, work with people who had been his opponents previously for causes that were bigger than all of us, he showed the way. He showed the light when he talked about the thousand points of light and being able to accomplish and help others post-Presidency.

His sense of adventure, jumping out of perfectly good airplanes at each birthday or landmark birth date, that is something else. It makes me smile.

Mostly, he had a sense of humor. You saw it in his son, George W., as well. You see it all the time, but he could take a joke and give one out.

Always one of my favorite things was his interacting with Dana Carvey on the Saturday Night Live skits there and his playing along, because he saw the fun in it. He saw the humor in it when people chalked him up as a combination of John Wayne and Mr. Rogers in how he carried himself and the whole ``na ga da'' thing. That he interacted with Dana Carvey just showed what a well-rounded and great man this man was.

We are appreciative of the opportunity to commemorate him and his service in all capacities and all phases of his life.

God bless him, and God bless the whole Bush family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Newhouse, for his leadership on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill that includes consideration of the Manage Our Wolves Act introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

The legislation would remove gray wolves from the Federal endangered species list and allow States like California to more effectively manage local populations. As the number of gray wolves continues to explode in population to nearly 6,000 in the lower 48 States, yet, the species continues to be classified as endangered for nearly 40 years now.

It really makes no sense because the numbers, they speak for themselves.

Even in my district in northern California, gray wolves have reemerged in 2015 after having been listed as extinct since 1924. Not surprisingly, the reemergence of the gray wolf has caused a number of problems for ranchers, their livestock, as well as citizens in their homes with their pets, and a decimation of the wildlife population.

Cattlemen, farmers, and local communities have continued to advocate for protections against wolves, to no avail. There had been efforts in recent years to delay or outright ban all nighttime hunting and trapping in California of other predators like coyotes, et cetera. Adoption of such a ban would have disastrous, unintended consequences for rural communities across my district and, indeed, across the West.

Any attempt to curtail or outright ban people in local communities from protecting themselves or their own private property from these predators, should be opposed. That is why I wrote a letter to the Fish and Wildlife director earlier this year urging the Service to delist the gray wolf range-wide based on overwhelming evidence supporting delisting, based on the Fish and Wildlife Service's own 5-year recommendation for delisting.

Management of gray wolf populations will continue to be extremely limited unless the species is removed from the Endangered Species Act. The fact remains, States are better equipped to responsibly manage the local wolf populations to meet the needs of local communities, ranchers, and livestock populations, as well as decimated wildlife populations.

We have seen gray wolf management successes in States like Montana, Wyoming, Michigan, and Wisconsin. It is past time that we are able to add States like California and others to this list as well. We need swift passage of this bill, because the endangerment and the damage being done to local ranchers with their livestock; the endangerment to communities, people in their homes out for a walk, is unnecessary and it is not right.

We need these tools for local control so we don't have to unnecessarily endanger and harass rural Americans with regulations that are poorly thought out and, indeed, ignoring the Fish and Wildlife Service's own recommendation to delist this species.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart. In my district, just a few days ago broke out a tremendously devastating wildfire. It affected the town of Paradise, California, and has completely destroyed the town and displaced at least 27,000 people, with many missing, their whereabouts unknown.

Mr. Speaker, we ask for the prayers of the people of this country for this still unfolding situation. The fires aren't even all the way out yet. They haven't investigated everything yet. And they still have many, many missing people there.

So what we really need is a little more time to put the fires out, so that we can have re-entry and find those who are missing.

For those who want to support and help in this country, Mr. Speaker, monetary donations at this time for the Paradise, California, fire, known as the Camp fire, would be the most helpful thing that people can do at this time, to give the most assets and resources, the most helpful for those who are providing and helping with the shelters for so many people who have been displaced.

I thank the American people for their prayers and support for our Paradise citizens.