Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

As one who just returned from the border, and having personally seen the enormity of the crisis there, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the humanitarian crisis at the border, and I ask for its immediate action and consideration.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding, and I appreciate those kind words.

Madam Speaker, I rise with my colleagues this evening in support of the Republican Study Committee budget for 2020.

Here in Congress, there are immense problems and vast issues that we deal with, and sometimes they can feel overwhelming. For that reason, it is important that we have a purpose, that we have a vision, that we have a pathway to get us out of some of the issues that we face and to give us a sense of purpose for getting through those things, a playbook, if you will.

Madam Speaker, I just want to publicly commend my colleagues who have labored so diligently to put together this draft. I especially want to recognize the RSC chairman, Mike Johnson, and the Spending Task Force chairman, Jim Banks, my good friend. Their leadership has been invaluable, and we are deeply appreciative to all of them.

I am particularly pleased that in this budget they have included a proposal to eliminate official time. This is something I have been working on for a long time.

For those who may not be familiar with it, official time allows a Federal employee who is part of a union to conduct union activities in the course of their workday even if that means not doing the job that they were hired to do.

In many cases, people are hired to do a job and yet 100 percent of their time is spent doing Federal union activities, and so the taxpayer is paying these people to do a job which they are not doing. It ends up these agencies have to hire someone else to do a job while the first individual is doing union activities rather than that for which they were hired.

Over the years since I have been here, I have personally tried to cut some of the official time usage. That didn't work. We have tried diligently to reform official time, to no avail. We have even tried to just provide some degree of transparency, and yet in every attempt, everything that we have tried to do, we have faced tremendous opposition both from Federal employee unions and many of their allies here in Congress.

Make no mistake, the opposition is real; it is strong; it is entrenched in this place. And yet we have got to continue to move forward. We have got to try to address these issues.

The Federal bureaucracy has tremendous power and influence over our lives, and yet in this case of official time, there is little to no transparency or accountability.

To add to the problem, it is virtually impossible to remove a Federal employee. According to the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, it can take between 170 and 370 days to remove a bad actor, a bad worker in a Federal position, and this is because of the appeals process, grievances that can be filed, complaints that just drag on and on and on.

There are thousands, by the way, of Federal employees who agree with me. Recently, a survey found that 31 percent of Federal employees feel that there are few to little steps taken to remove or deal with poor- performing employees in the Federal Government.

So, Madam Speaker, we need to restore fiscal sanity around here. We

need to enforce accountability and instill transparency in our Federal Government, and I believe this RSC budget is a step in that direction. It rises in stark contrast to the nonexistent budget of the Democratic majority.

So with that, again, I thank my friend for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, the threat to religious liberty and religious toleration in the People's Republic of China is of grave concern. Over the past several years there has been an ever increasing intolerance of religious minorities.

Article 36 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees the freedom of religious belief. Yet the rights and safety of religious minorities in the country are very much in question.

China is the home to nearly 90 million Christians, and the country is anticipated to be home to the most Christians in the world by 2030. Yet, over the last several years, the percentage of persecution cases have risen year over year. Furthermore, the government has increasingly required churches to be state approved, churches have been razed and worshippers subjected to detainment, physical interrogation, and thought reform conditioning.

In the west, in Xinjiang Province, the United Nations has reported the government to be holding roughly one million Uygurs without charge. Those who have escaped have testified to being repeatedly told that God did not exist and that they would only be fed after acknowledging the greatness of communism.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage this Congress and our President to take appropriate actions to promote religious freedom of religious minorities in the People's Republic of China.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mrs. Lesko, for yielding some time.

H.R. 9 is an attempt simply to force the President to reenter an ineffectual international agreement, one that pushes the United States to adopt burdensome, painful measures and hold us to a standard that no other country that is a part of the agreement has bothered to meet themselves, all to do something that we are already doing, and that is lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

But H.R. 9 is not the real agenda of our Democratic colleagues. To understand what the real Democratic Party wants to do, one need look no further than H. Res. 109, better known as the Green New Deal.

Look, people in my district are not asking where I stand or what I think about the Paris climate agreement, but they are asking, eagerly, where I stand on the Green New Deal. Everywhere I go, people are asking about it.

Last night, on a telephone townhall, several questions were asking where I stood on this. They are concerned that their Representative might support a proposal that would drastically increase their energy bills.

And businesses I talk to want to know whether or not I would support what amounts to a torrent of heavyhanded regulations.

I assure you, as I did them, that I do not. I strongly oppose the Green New Deal, but I cannot say the same for my colleagues across the aisle.

Madam Speaker, 92 Democrats have cosponsored the Green New Deal, and nearly every Democrat running for President has endorsed it. It seems clear that this really is the new policy platform for the Democratic Party.

I know that many of my Democratic colleagues disagree with me. They believe strongly in the policies of the Green New Deal, and I am sure some of their constituents would agree as well.

But I am also positive that their constituents, Democratic constituents, want to know where their Representative stands on this issue just as much as mine want to know where I stand. So let's have a vote.

But let's be frank with each other. The Speaker would not allow a recorded vote. Speaker Pelosi knows very likely that to have a vote on the Green New Deal could cost the Democrats the majority.

So, look, here is the deal. We Republicans are more than happy to go on record with our opposition to the Green New Deal, and we are more than happy to help our Democratic colleagues go on record with their support for the Green New Deal. So help us defeat the previous question.

As my friend, Mrs. Lesko, has said, if we defeat the previous question, then we will amend the rule and enable a vote on the Green New Deal, and I hope to have support in that regard.

But I understand it may be difficult for some of my colleagues across the aisle to do so, and if they are unable to help support us on this previous question, then I have another opportunity.

If we do not defeat the previous question immediately following this vote series, I am going to file a discharge petition to ensure a vote on the Green New Deal. I encourage all Members here to vote against the previous question, vote against the rule, and sign the discharge petition. Let's have a vote on the Green New Deal.

Again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, the Office of Government Ethics is a prevention and education agency. OGE is responsible for ensuring compliance with ethics requirements, such as financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules.

These are the folks that the executive branch employees call when they have an ethics question. Their mission is to advise Federal employees on ethics matters.

OGE is not an investigative office, but that is exactly what H.R. 1 wants to turn OGE into, by granting the director the authority to subpoena information and records.

Here is the thing. OGE does not even need to have subpoena authority. It already has the power to request any information needed from Federal agencies, and the Federal agencies are required to comply under the Ethics in Government Act.

The only reason to give subpoena authority is to empower OGE to harass executive branch employees. This is not farfetched, Madam Chair.

The former director of OGE, Shaub, was openly hostile to the Trump administration and to Mr. Trump personally, even before he took office. Under Shaub, OGE went so far as using its official Twitter account in an attempt to coerce President-Elect Trump to divest his business interests. That is not what OGE's role is supposed to be.

We don't want to allow an office that has become so partisan to have subpoena authority and thereby open the door to overt harassment to executive branch employees.

I would just remind my Democrat friends that if this bill does become law--and it won't--but if it does, a future Democratic administration will eventually also have to deal with the same type of issues with the Office of Government Ethics.

Let me further remind everyone that the inspector general of the agency already has authority to subpoena information and documents, so we don't need to expand this and extend it to the director.

At the end of the day, this bill has much bigger problems than this small OGE subpoena authority provision. It is a bad bill. I will not be supporting it, obviously, but I know that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle will be supporting this bill.

Frankly, there is no amendment that is made in order by the Rules Committee that can fix this legislation. Some amendments, I believe, including this one, can at least make it marginally better, but it is a bad bill through and through.

I believe the American people, frankly, are going to be outraged when they find out what is in this piece of legislation, such as public financing for congressional candidates. The American people don't want that. They don't want tax dollars, particularly, six times going to Federal candidates.

And then there is the automatic voter registration requirement. I think the American people will be irate when they find out about this. This particular provision forces States to transfer individuals' personal information from government agencies and services and then transfer those over to election officials for voter registration.

Obviously, that is a violation of the 10th Amendment, but it is even worse than that. The Democratic authors of this legislation will not tell the American people that this provision will lead to huge numbers of illegal aliens and noncitizens being registered to vote.

And here is the problem. Illegal aliens and noncitizens use government agencies and services. Their information, according to H.R. 1, would then be sent to election officials, along with everyone else's, and they will be registered to vote.

The only safeguard that H.R. 1 has to prevent an illegal alien from being automatically registered to vote is if the alien proactively declines, which is not likely to happen because they don't want to draw attention to themselves to begin with because they are here illegally. So for us to expect that they would go publicly and draw attention to themselves, it just simply is not going to happen. That just flies in the face of logic.

Not only does H.R. 1 make it significantly more likely for ineligible voters to be registered, it also makes it next to impossible for States to remove ineligible voters from the voter registration list once they are on there. I doubt that anyone could have devised a better way, or a worse way, as it really is,

to ensure illegal aliens get registered to vote.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R. 1235, the MSPB Temporary Term Extension Act.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that I personally am committed to ensuring the successful operation of the Merit Systems Protection Board, also known as MSPB. In fact, last Congress, I introduced H.R. 6391, the MSPB Reauthorization Act of 2018. My bill would have reauthorized the Board and made other vital reforms. The Committee on Oversight

and Government Reform reported the bill favorably, but without a single vote from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

We all know an effective and functional MSPB is important to the health of our Federal workforce. MSPB's primary responsibility is to adjudicate appeals of Federal personnel actions. MSPB also plays a vital role in Federal whistleblower protections.

To be effective and issue decisions, MSPB needs at least a two-member quorum, but the Board has not had a quorum for over 2 years. In January 2017, Mark Robbins, as my friend mentioned, become the sole remaining member of MSPB.

Last year, Mr. Robbins' 7-year term came to an end, and he was granted a 1-year extension as authorized by law, but that extension ends this week. Starting Friday, the MSPB will be without a single Board member.

My colleagues claim this bill is an emergency measure to prevent the MSPB from extending this crisis of leadership, but I disagree. The real problem is the lack of a quorum.

Without a quorum for the last 2 years, a backlog of undecided appeals has grown to over 1,700 cases. Mr. Robbins cannot fix that problem on his own. His continued tenure will not resolve those cases.

In December, the President selected Mr. Robbins to serve as the general counsel at the Office of Personnel Management, so for the last 10 weeks, he has served in both capacities at OPM and MSPB. Mr. Robbins is planning to serve at OPM in his full capacity beginning this Friday.

Mr. Robbins has stayed at MSPB as long as he has out of a sense of duty to MSPB and its mission. I trust that my colleagues do not intend to use this bill to coerce Mr. Robbins to stay any longer than he wants to.

I urge my colleagues to join me in applauding Mr. Robbins for his dedication to MSPB, the Federal workforce, the President, and our country. I also urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senate's confirmation of President Trump's nominees.

We owe it to our Federal workers to give MSPB a quorum so the board can do the important job that Congress gave it to do.

In the future, I certainly hope we can work together to provide certainty to Federal workers and whistleblowers by making MSPB operational once again.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

``In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

``The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.''

Section 3:

``Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.

``The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.''

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for his leadership on this.

I am honored to be a part of this group dealing with a problem that we all know is a reality and yet so few seem to be willing to do anything about.

We have thousands of new aliens entering our country every day, and this surge of illegal immigrants flooding across our porous borders puts our Nation at risk in more ways than one.

In 2017 alone, more than 900 Americans died every week from the opioid-related crisis and overdoses. Every American, everyone in this chamber knows personally someone who has been affected by this, be it a family member, a friend, a coworker, a neighbor, where the opioid crisis has penetrated into these lives. And its advancement continues to march down the streets of our Nation.

The story of the opioid epidemic certainly begins many times with prescription pain medications, pharmaceutical companies, pill mills, overprescribing, many of these kinds of ways, but today we see the opioid crisis being driven by the widespread availability of cheap, powerful drugs like heroin, often laced with synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

Make no mistake about it: this is a human tragedy. It is a family tragedy. It is a national tragedy. It is a national crisis that we are facing right now, largely because of loopholes that we have in our immigration laws, but also unquestionably because of the physical barriers that don't exist. As a result, we have illegals continuing to storm into our country and bring with them all sorts of illegal activity.

Earlier today, I stood alongside my colleagues and met many angel families who have been so personally impacted, have lost loved ones because of our deeply flawed immigration policies and so forth.

One in particular I met today Susan Stevens. Susan had a daughter, Victoria, who 1 year ago next week lost her life. She was a cheerleader, she was an artist. She was a vibrant young lady whose life was taken from this world largely because of our inability to deal with and stop the smuggling of illegal drugs coming into our country and to secure our border.

We have all heard the statistics. Nearly 90 percent of heroin coming into our country comes into our country from the southern border, 90 percent. Sadly, stories like Victoria Stevens' are becoming all too common; we are hearing these stories on a daily basis.

I am stunned when my colleagues on the other side look at the President's cry at this national crisis at our border as some sort of political stunt. This is no political stunt. This is reality.

Two weeks ago we all watched as Speaker Pelosi jokingly made the claim that she would be willing to give a single dollar to secure our border. I would remind the Speaker, this is no joking matter and this is no laughing matter. These are real lives. This is a Nation that is being impacted by her refusal to deal with the issue at hand.

This country ought to be a safe haven for law-abiding citizens, but instead we are watching communities that have become vulnerable and susceptible to crime.

How many more families need to lose loved ones before we take action? How many more families will no longer hear the laugh of their child because we are not taking action right here, before we secure our borders? What is it going to take? The Mexican cartels are a cunning enemy, and yet Democrats refuse to acknowledge the situation. They call it a manufactured crisis.

I guarantee you, had they been there today with these angel families, they would not have left saying this is a manufactured crisis. They would have been pricked to the heart of the reality of what we are facing in this country.

And yet they refuse to come to the table. They refuse to come with real solutions. They refuse to compromise at all.

Instead, as has already been mentioned, this past weekend they go to Puerto Rico on a virtual vacation while hundreds of thousands of American workers are losing their paychecks, being held by Democrats off on a vacation at an island getaway.

The Democrat playbook is nothing but obstruct at all costs. And, again, this was played out today while the President invites them to the White House, and they refuse to show up yet again, showing what they are really made of. And they refuse to deal with our borders.

More than 49,000 Americans died last year from heroin and opioid- related overdoses, and yet the Democrats, with their open border policies, refuse to deal with this situation.

I am convinced that they are becoming accomplices in the countless deaths yet to come by their refusal to deal with the dangerous drugs, illegal activities, and our broken borders.

This is precisely why we must deal with the President's request for a border wall and to do so immediately. The consequences are too dire. We cannot continue to wait.

We are here today committed to ensure the integrity of our borders and the safety of the American people through the building of the wall on our southern border. We are here today fighting for the families of the victims who want a reasonable immigration system to protect our children and our grandchildren.

Tackling this immigration problem and protecting American families from criminal aliens is a fundamental responsibility and duty that we all have, and I am honored to stand with my colleagues to press this issue and to call the Democrats to come to the table and deal with the issue.

Madam Speaker, again, I thank my friend; I appreciate so much the time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his great leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and urge my colleagues to come together in support of securing our Nation's southern border.

We finally now have an opportunity before us that enables us to take a step in resolving the immigration and border crisis, frankly, one that is growing daily in its scope and complexity, largely because of the inaction of this body. But we have the opportunity now to change that.

The $5 billion requested by the President is a relatively small amount when we consider the Federal Government's discretionary spending this year is at a whopping $1.3 trillion. That comes to about $2.5 million a minute. If you do the math, this $5 billion comes to less than 1\1/2\ days' worth of Federal spending, about 33 hours.

To give people some degree of comparison, in late 2016, the Department of Transportation awarded a little over $1 billion in a grant to the city of San Diego to expand its trolley service 11 miles. That is roughly $100 million per mile for something that the DOT estimated only 25,000 people would use. If we can spend $1 billion on a trolley for 11 miles that very few people will even use, then, certainly, we can spend $5 billion to do something that is going to benefit and protect our Nation, our border.

Wherever walls have been built on our border, whether we are dealing with San Diego or El Paso or Tucson or wherever, the walls have been effective tremendously.

The border wall in itself is no magic bullet. There are some other things we need to do: closing the asylum loopholes, for example; making E-Verify mandatory; ending chain migration; and shifting toward a merit-based immigration system. But this is our opportunity to secure the border, and I urge support for the bill.

But these other solutions cannot be effective unless we can ensure that our border is secure. These solutions are mutually supportive.

It is now or never, Mr. Speaker.

We made a promise to the American people and they sent us here to fulfill that promise.

This bill also provides some much needed disaster relief for States like Georgia.

I urge my colleagues to support the funding bill, to support the President, and--most importantly--to support the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina for recognizing me tonight.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that immigration continues to be one of the most pressing issues that we are facing in our country today. The question of illegal immigration is not going away. In fact, it is growing. It is getting worse. It is getting more complex with each passing day, and Congress has repeatedly failed to take any action whatsoever.

We have the opportunity now in this spending bill to finally deliver results for the American people--again, something that we have not done over and over and over again.

The Department of Homeland Security has reported that, roughly, on average, 2,000 illegal aliens are crossing our southern border every day. Now we learn from Border Patrol that, in recent months, there has been an increase of 90 percent attempted illegal individuals crossing our borders compared to this time last year.

The border crisis is for real, and it is time for us to act.

The President has requested $5 billion. That is really not a whole lot of money compared to the $1.3 trillion that we spend in discretionary spending every year.

Look, the wall is not the whole answer, but it is the first step, because walls work. Wherever there have been walls put in place, there have been great results that have been produced: for example, a 92 percent drop in illegal traffic in San Diego since a wall was there; 95 percent decrease in El Paso; 90 percent decrease in Tucson. Walls work.

Now, look, there are other things we need to do, some practical steps, from closing the asylum loopholes, stopping chain migration, making E-Verify mandatory. There are other things, but I hear, right now, the voices of millions of Americans from my district and across the country, as we have all heard the chant: Build the wall. Build the wall. Build the wall.

We are standing here tonight as a voice for millions of Americans who feel like they have lost their voice in Washington, and we are saying it is time right now. Build the wall. Let's do it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill, H.R. 6108, the Preserving America's Battlefields Act.

Mr. Speaker, the American Battlefield Protection Program was first authorized in 1996 by Congress in order to promote and protect significant American battlefield sites, as well as to provide an educational platform for current and future generations of Americans. Since the inception of this program, Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants have been used extensively to preserve portions of dozens of battlefield sites that have played a significant role in the American Revolution,

the War of 1812, and the American Civil War.

These dollar-for-dollar matching land grants have saved more than 30,000 acres of battlefields across 20 States. Just this past year, in my own district, this program assisted in securing 180 acres of battlegrounds surrounding the site of Kettle Creek Battlefield, which is the site of the only significant patriot victory in Georgia during the Revolutionary War.

This bill would reauthorize the successful bipartisan Federal grant programs, and would dedicate a portion of that authorization for educational purposes and for the restoration and interpretation of high-priority battlefield sites.

This will help make these battlegrounds beautiful, historic, and educational tourist destinations. This program has been one of the most successful and efficient land grant programs in our Nation's history, continually receiving bipartisan support. Both former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama supported the program's authorization and subsequent reauthorizations, respectively. I am very proud to say that this bill has continued in that rich tradition of bipartisan support here in the 115th Congress.

With the 250th anniversary of our Nation's founding fast approaching, there is no better time to protect our battlefields and prepare them for the influx of visitors expected during that time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Bishop, the minority, our hardworking Natural Resources Committee staff, and the American Battlefield Trust for helping us get this bill across the finish line.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6893) to amend the Overtime Pay for Protective Services Act of 2016 to extend the Secret Service overtime pay exception through 2019, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Secret Service is the premier protective agency in the world. Secret Service agents and officers play a vital role in defending the President, high-ranking government officials, and events of national significance.

Protection is a round-the-clock job, and Secret Service personnel often work extensive overtime to fulfill their zero-fail mission.

Under current law, Federal employees across the government may not be paid above an annual premium pay cap. The cap consists of base pay, including locality pay, and premium pay, such as overtime. The cap is in place to ensure a hierarchy of pay so that frontline employees do not earn more than their supervisors who are ineligible for overtime pay. It also helps to control agency spending on compensation.

The cap, however, has led to issues at the Secret Service. Due to a staffing shortage and increased protective responsibilities, Secret Service personnel are expected to work increasing amounts of overtime, causing them to hit the premium pay cap well in advance of the end of the year.

Secret Service personnel are expected to continue working once they hit the cap, but they receive no extra compensation for this work. This phenomenon is known as maxing out at the agency, and it can cause morale and attrition problems.

Committee staff recently traveled to observe Secret Service operations in Europe. During that trip, the topic of maxing out came up as an issue consistently on the minds of personnel in the field. The maxing out issue is expected to get worse in 2020, when the burdens of the Presidential campaign cycle cause a large increase in hours worked by the Secret Service.

In the previous Presidential election cycle, Congress raised the premium pay cap for Secret Service personnel to the Executive Schedule Level II, ensuring Secret Service personnel receive additional compensation commensurate with the amount of time they must work.

This waiver of the governmentwide premium pay cap was extended to the end of 2018 by the Secret Service Recruitment and Retention Act. Without a further extension, Secret Service personnel will once again be subject to the lower pay cap.

H.R. 6893 extends the premium pay cap waiver to the end of 2020. Between 700 and 900 personnel will be eligible for extra pay in 2019, while approximately 1,150 will be eligible in 2020.

The bill also continues a series of reports due to Congress on the premium pay cap, to ensure its appropriate use.

Extending the premium pay cap waiver also gives time for the Government Accountability Office to complete ongoing review of the Secret Service's staffing issues.

Finally, it ensures the agency doesn't backtrack on staffing progress made to date. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee continues to maintain that the premium pay cap waiver cannot be a permanent change and that the Secret Service must fix its own staffing issues and problems.

For now, however, I do urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment to give a huge thank you to the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Steve Russell from Oklahoma. Unfortunately, his flight was delayed. I know he would have loved to have been here to speak on this bill. I give a shout-out to him, thanking him for his leadership here. And also, as the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned, other cosponsors, Mr. Cummings, Mrs. Watson Coleman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), and others, thanks to each of them.

Mr. Speaker, may the gentleman from Massachusetts be aware that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I also urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here to stand in belief and on behalf of the greatest book of the history of the world, the Bible.

There is absolutely no book ever that has had a greater impact on my life and continues to have the greatest impact on my life. Every day here in Congress, I begin with time in God's Word, every day before coming to this Chamber and other meetings and responsibilities.

As a pastor for 25-plus years, it has been the greatest honor of my life to teach God's Word week in and week out, to proclaim the principles of spiritual liberty and freedom that comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the fact that he died for us and rose again. The good news, as it is referred to in the Scripture, is the greatest news the world has ever had.

The Bible has also had an amazing impact in our country. Right here in this Chamber, as has been referenced already this evening from some of my other colleagues, Robert Aitken came here from Scotland. He migrated here to Philadelphia and started a newspaper. He later became the publishing company that recorded the Journals of both the House and the Senate. Then he requested that this Chamber publish the Bible in English, which this Chamber voted to do in September of 1782.

This Chamber encouraged the citizens of this country to read the Bible. It became the Bible of the American Revolution.

I believe today that this Chamber, this country, would be well served, better served, if we would take the teachings of Scripture. Things like not to view ourselves and esteem ourselves more highly as we ought, but to esteem others as more important than ourselves; Scriptures like the Golden Rule, to treat others the way we want to be treated; to not be overcome with evil but to overcome evil with good, all these are found in the Word of God.

These issues that we face today cannot be answered from the wisdom of these Halls, but they can be found only as we submit ourselves, once again, to the truths of God's Word.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving this opportunity and leading this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Dylan Ceraso, Jeanna Presley, Alejandro Tovar-Villagomez, and Morgan Watkins for being selected as 2018 REACH Scholars for Barrow County, Georgia.

Standing for ``Realizing Educational Achievement Can Happen,'' this needs-based mentorship and college scholarship program provides opportunity for academically-promising students from their eighth grade year through high school. In addition to remaining in high academic standing, students are required to meet with a mentor and maintain good attendance. Upon graduation from high school and successful completion of the program, the student is awarded a $10,000 scholarship toward the cost of any HOPE-eligible institution in Georgia.

These REACH Georgia scholars are our future. Georgia has made a commitment to awarding those in need who demonstrate a high level of merit--an investment that will increase our workforce and grow our economy. I'm proud that we take these steps to ensure a brighter future for our children, our state, and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I expect great things from each of these special young scholars, and on behalf of Georgia's 10th Congressional District, I offer them my congratulations and wish them continued success.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Talexia Brooks, Luna Espinoza, Isabella Harp, Isaac Harris, and McKinsey Pennamon for being selected as 2018 REACH Scholars for Baldwin County, Georgia.

Standing for ``Realizing Educational Achievement Can Happen,'' this needs-based mentorship and college scholarship program provides opportunity for academically-promising students from their eighth grade year through high school. In addition to remaining in high academic standing, students are required to meet with a mentor and maintain good attendance. Upon graduation from high school and successful completion of the program, the student is awarded a $10,000 scholarship toward the cost of any HOPE-eligible institution in Georgia.

These REACH Georgia scholars are our future. Georgia has made a commitment to awarding those in need who demonstrate a high level of merit--an investment that will increase our workforce and grow our economy. I am proud that we take these steps to ensure a brighter future for our children, our state, and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I expect great things from each of these special young scholars, and on behalf of Georgia's 10th Congressional District, I offer them my congratulations and wish them continued success.