Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thought it was appropriate, FOX News had this headline: ``Farewell to Representative Walter Jones--a man who lived his life putting people above politics.''

Another headline from W. James Antle: ``Walter Jones and the Road Not Taken.''

Another from CBN News, Crystal Woodall: ``A Man of Faith, Honesty and Integrity.''

He was all of those. He, I guess, manifested a bit of what Robert Frost talked about when he said:

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

That was Walter Jones.

He was not going to take the easy way. He was going to--and did--have great integrity, great conscience, and fulfilled his commitment to the people in his district in North Carolina.

Those attributes, he would say, go back to his Christian commitment. He said on one occasion, There are some documents you can't rewrite, and truthfully, one of them is the Bible.

He said, For over 15 years, I have led the charge to return freedom of speech to our churches and houses of worship. During that time, I have spoken with countless legal experts, and we believe the clearest avenue to rectifying those First Amendment rights is a full repeal of the Johnson amendment.

He also said, America was built on Judeo-Christian values, and these values should be protected. During my years in Congress, I have been a steadfast supporter of traditional marriage, the unborn, and the free exercise of religion.

Some people think that Christians must hate everybody that disagrees with them. And I think Walter Jones was a living example of what a Christian should be.

With that conscience, with love, even for those who hate, Walter had that love. And I saw that that last day that Thomas Massie and I were with him.

God blessed America with Walter Jones.

God blessed this body with Walter Jones.

And God blessed me for having a friend like Walter.

We miss you, Walter.

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the Speaker's new policy that says a Member of Congress can only have one Special Order in which they are in charge of the time each week once a week. I have been trying to get Republicans to take our time, much in the way my colleague, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the group they call the ``30 Somethings'' did in 2005 and 2006.

I have not had a great deal of success in getting a lot of people to take Special Order time. But with this new rule and some of the terrific freshmen that we have got who have come in--some of the folks who have been here a term or two--they are stepping up and taking our time to discuss critically important issues for our country. Today, I am it from our party, and I am honored to be here.

We have heard a lot of talk, and the reason we say have heard a lot of talk is because there is truth in seeing a double standard at the Department of Justice for a number of years now.

There was a time when it was the Department of Justice that Jeff Sessions remembered back in the 1980s during his time as U.S. attorney. That time changed with top people in the FBI and top people in the DOJ; it became no longer about justice, but just us and what we want at the DOJ and the FBI.

In talking to former Justice attorneys, prosecutors, one dear friend in Texas--not in my district, but a very dear friend--we were talking about how the things that were done by people, including Rosenstein, the former U.S.

attorney, McCabe, Strzok, Page, all of these other people, Ohr, were incredible, just incredible, and I would include Mueller in that.

Mueller as FBI Director, I continue to believe did more damage to the FBI during his 12 years as the director of the FBI than anyone, even the problems that J. Edgar Hoover created, especially in his later years, the wiretapping that he did of people who should not have been wiretapped. Of course, he didn't just do it on his own. As I recall, Attorney General Kennedy had supported wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr., if I remember correctly.

But what we have seen in the unmasking of American citizens who have been followed by email, by wire--not taps, but just following their conversations as the NSA and our intelligence community is able to do these days, is absolutely incredible. Hundreds and hundreds of Americans were unmasked. We were assured with the PATRIOT Act when it was up for being reauthorized, oh, no, we are so careful to make sure that we don't capture Americans that should not be captured unless they are involved with a terrorist organization or a known foreign terrorist. They don't get picked up.

But now, if they are talking to a terrorist, a known foreign agent, then it is possible they could be picked up, but those names are masked. They are never unmasked. That is too big of a burden. And then we find out under the Obama administration, the American people have had their privacy violated, like Democrats and Republicans alike swore to us would not happen. Well, it has happened. And it has continued to go on.

I had hoped that Christopher Wray would clean things up at the FBI, but he appears to be more concerned about covering up problems rather than cleaning up the problems. I saw a good example of that at the end of August when, once again, the intelligence community had made clear they sent their investigator, Frank Rucker, over to explain to Peter Strzok, as head of the FBI's counterintelligence--and also Dean Chappell, their liaison--to explain that we now have 100 percent proof, there is no question, Hillary Clinton's private email server was hacked.

They embedded a direction into her server that forced every email coming in and going out into what has now been disclosed publicly by others as a Chinese intelligence agency front.

They were getting every one of Hillary Clinton's--over 30,000 emails to and from. There were four that were glitches, but otherwise, over 30,000 emails. So that must include the ones that President Obama sent using another name so people wouldn't realize it was him using a private server.

But there were also the President's daily intelligence briefings that went through her home. She had somebody at the home print them out for her without any security clearance. There were all kinds of violations, what appeared from the code to be outright crimes, but the double standard appears to continue.

This is from February 25, an article from CNS News, Terence Jeffrey reported that the inspector general says, ``Prosecution Was Declined for Senior DOJ Official Who Sexually Assaulted a Subordinate.''

And it goes on to talk about that. The name is not disclosed. He sexually harassed subordinates, sexually assaulted yet another subordinate, and then lacked candor. That is the DOJ's explanation for people they don't want to prosecute when they are actually saying that he lied, committed a crime, but lied when the IG investigated this matter.

So the unnamed prosecutor or prosecutors were not disclosed, but allowed to retire, no consequences, though guilty of sexual assault in the DOJ.

Now, there were a lot of things I disagreed on with a late, former Federal judge in Texas named William Wayne Justice, but one thing I agreed with him on, and I heard him tell people: ``You, of all people, especially, knew better.''

And he would come down harder on somebody like this who had been part of the DOJ. I would imagine Judge Justice, if he were around, he would throw the book at somebody who worked at Justice and still committed crime and abused the system. I can just hear him still today coming after somebody like that.

But not in the DOJ. We have got lots of carryover from the Obama years, and I know my friend, Jeff Sessions, called them career people because they were in career slots. But he was talking about people who loved Sally Yates, thought she did the right thing in refusing to defend constitutional positions taken by the Trump administration.

Yet, many of those people are still there undercutting President Trump, undercutting Matt Whitaker when he was acting, and will, no doubt, be undercutting Attorney General Barr.

So this is a real problem when the Justice Department, the one we counted on for many decades now, if there was something wrong, whether it is civil rights or others, and justice could not be found, the Department of Justice could be counted on to come in and pursue real justice, to their credit.

FBI agents and prosecutors, some retired now from the Department of Justice, have privately conveyed to me their broken hearts over the damage done to the Department of Justice and to the FBI because they became so calloused, so self-absorbed, and so political that they have damaged not only the FBI and not only the Department of Justice, but this country.

But when you have willing allies in the alt-left media--or some call them the mainstream media; certainly, alt-left these days--it is understandable that same feeling of desperation is felt by the American people: Where do we turn when the Justice Department is not honest?

It used to be you could trust the media. You could find somebody who would do such great investigative journalism that they would get to the heart of it and bring something to the forefront, to the point that the American people would justifiably become outraged, and that would force either elected or appointed Federal officials with the Federal Government to do something.

But here we have alt-left, lamestream media saying that there is no crisis on our border. Yet if you look at the same things said by Obama officials about the same problems, except now exacerbated on our border with all the caravans that have come, are coming, and are continuing to be established in Central America, it is amazing how some of these media outlets can even continue to call themselves journalists.

An article from Brian Flood, January 10, this year, points out that: ``News outlets readily described a `crisis' at the border under then- President Barack Obama when he sought funding to deal with a surge of migrants, many of them women and children. But now that President Trump is in the White House, the mainstream media seem far more reluctant to use the word.

``Back in the summer of 2014, the headlines and stories referring to the C-word''--apparently the crisis word--``were plentiful as the border surge was taken seriously along the Acela corridor.

``The Washington Post''--now an alt-left medium--``wrote in 2014, `White House requests $3.7 billion in emergency funds for border crisis' ''--there is that C-word, crisis--``while CNN published a feature, `Daniel's journey: How thousands of children are creating a crisis in America.' It described a problem of `epic proportions.' ''

Now, they point out that: ``Around the same time, the Huffington Post declared that `photos of the humanitarian crisis' ''--even Huffington called it a crisis--``along the southern border were `shocking,' and ABC News reported that Obama requested `$3.7 billion to cope with the humanitarian crisis on the border and the spike in illegal crossings by unaccompanied minors from Central America.' ''

The ABC News story even mentioned this word to deal with plans for $3.7 billion. This was ABC's headline: ``Immigration crisis funds.'' Incredible.

NBC, June 2014, Andrea Mitchell said the undocumented children flooding the border were, in her words, ``creating a crisis'' for authorities.

How these news outlets can turn around and now say that there is no crisis when the testimony and the evidence is clear that the overall numbers for last year may have been down, but

as the testimony and evidence makes clear, in October, November, December, and January, those numbers spiked to numbers that our Border Patrol has not dealt with before for minors and family units.

Why would they all of a sudden spike during that time? Because it appeared the Democrats had a chance of taking the majority here in the House, and in so doing, Democrats have made clear they wanted to continue to allow illegal immigration. They welcomed the families. Naturally, you were going to see a spike.

These people below our southern border in Mexico, Central America, South America, and now coming from the Middle East and other continents, have been coming for some time from other countries. They are being lured in.

The head of the Border Patrol testified this week in our committee that they were being pulled in. But really, it is being lured. They hear: Gee, if we will just come now, we have people who are in charge of the House of Representatives who want us there, and they are going to try to stop the President from enforcing and securing the border, so now is the time to come.

And they are coming. We heard the testimony that about 80 percent of the people who came across our borders in decades past were normally male adults. It made sense. Usually, it was people who were coming looking for work, and they were going to send money to their families back in Mexico. But the word got out the end of last year and this year that if you will come and bring a minor child, whether it is your child or not, then you have a good chance of staying in the country.

We know that nobody crosses our border illegally on the south unless they have gotten permission by paying the drug cartels. Over and over during the nights I have spent on the border, the question has been asked: Where did you get the money to pay to come?

Oh, 1,000 here, 1,000 from people in the U.S.

Well, what about the rest of the money you have to pay?

The drug cartels are going to let me work it off when I get where I am going.

They would normally have an address. As I understand it, that is often the address the drug cartel told them where they would need to go get set up and work off what they owed to the drug cartels.

But, Madam Speaker, you shouldn't be surprised when you see headlines like: Meth lab in major U.S. city busted, run by drug cartels.

As the Department of Homeland Security folks have pointed out to me before, the drug cartels call us their logistics. All they have to do is get somebody illegally into the country, and they hand us the address of somebody supposedly that they know where they can go live, and we handle the shipping for them. We ship them to wherever they want to go. Sometimes, they are detained, but we have shipped millions of people around, all over the country.

If what they have told the Border Patrol about working off what they owe the drug cartels is true--I haven't seen or heard any reason it wouldn't be--then our Homeland Security Department for a decade or so has been shipping people to the location where the drug cartels want them. The drug cartels are making billions and billions of dollars a year.

When you hear any Mexican or Central American official who says they want to keep the American border open, you can just pretty well guarantee they are getting money from the drug cartels.

The best thing, the most caring and loving thing, we could do for our neighbors to the south would be to secure our border, put border barriers where they need it, whether it is a wall, a 30-foot barrier, whatever. Secure the border and then that will cut off the billions of dollars of American money going to the drug cartels for them to terrorize people in Mexico and people in Central America.

You care about people south of our border. Of course, we can't bring in all those millions who are suffering under drug cartel rule and reign, but we could secure our border and cut off the domestic terrorists called the drug cartels, cut off their funding so they won't be able to pay people to cut off the heads of police chiefs or mayors who take a strong stand against the drug cartels and put those heads on a pike as an example to anybody who tries to stand up against the cartels.

It used to be that the drug cartels had a deal. It was just kind of a policy that they are not going to allow any kind of crime or violence to tourists because that is too important for Mexico to have those tourists' money coming in. That has long since gone by the way. Tourists are killed and terrorized.

I long for the day when my wife and I can go back to where we honeymooned in Mexico, back to where we celebrated anniversaries. It was wonderful. We don't believe we can do that now.

If we secure our border and dry up the money to the drug cartels, then the money can begin flowing to Mexico for something besides drugs, and we can cut off the fentanyl and the massive amount of drugs that pours across our southern border undetected.

I know some people say the majority of drugs are coming through the ports of entry. That is where they catch more of it. But as it was explained to me and Steve Chabot some years back down in Colombia, when they were showing us--we had DEA. The British had people who were helping. They were doing a great job fighting the FARC's drugs down in Colombia under then-President Uribe. They were saying that this guy is fearless. It is hard keeping him alive, but he is amazing. He is fighting the drug cartels down there.

I said, well, so you are saying about two-thirds of the cocaine, the drugs from Colombia, goes up through the Gulf of Mexico into Mexico, so it can cross our southern border. Another one-third apparently goes up to California, trying to cross the border, it goes into Mexico across our southern border. I mean, if they have boats that will go that far, why not just have them pull up to a Texas or California beach that is deserted?

These Colombian, American, and British drug experts explained that it is because the drug cartels are businesspeople. They have a business model. They have a business plan. They play the odds. They know the odds are many times better to get the drugs into America if they don't go to a port of entry and they don't go to an abandoned beach somewhere. They bring it into Mexico, have it cross the Mexico-U.S. border, and they will get most of their drugs in. So that is their business plan.

That is still going on. It was going on during President Bush's administration, probably back to Clinton and the former Bush and even Reagan, to a lesser extent. But it is sure going on in the 21st century.

With all the discussion about there not being a crisis when clearly there has been and is--it is a humanitarian crisis, but it is also a crisis of U.S. sovereignty.

We cannot have a country that is based on laws if we cannot control our own borders. We will be overwhelmed, as we have been, by more and more people who do not observe the laws, do not think the laws are important. They do not understand. They have not been educated how important it is to enforce the law fairly across the board. They don't know what it is to preserve self-government.

Franklin knew that, Benjamin Franklin, when he said: ``It is a Republic, madam, if you can keep it.'' He knew. He had studied history, as had our Founders. They knew that the Constitution that came together, as Washington referenced, had to have divine providence at work, because no way these guys who started out for 5 weeks doing nothing but yelling at each other could have come up with a document that was the best governing document, the best constitution, put together in the history of mankind.

Here is more about the media's hypocrisy, an article from the Washington Examiner, Eddie Scarry. This has a quote: ``We now have an actual humanitarian crisis''--there is that C-word again--``on the border that only underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our immigration system once and for all.'' That was a quote from then- President Barack Obama in the Rose Garden in 2014.

He went on to say--that is, President Obama--``In recent weeks, we've seen a surge of unaccompanied children arrive

at the border, brought here and to other countries by smugglers and traffickers.''

That is basically, as the Examiner points out, what President Trump said. He said: ``Last month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the United States, a dramatic increase. These children are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs.''

This article says: ``The only difference is how the media are covering it.''

The Washington Post said, 2014--this is The Washington Post's words-- ``The current crisis on the Southwest border, where authorities have apprehended tens of thousands of unaccompanied Central American children since October''--well, there you are. There is that C-word they used then and belittle the word being used now.

Anyway, this is an article from The New York Times from 2014 by Michael Shear and Jeremy Peters. They said, talking about the border crossing into Texas, it is ``an urgent humanitarian situation.''

Their article said, and this is from Senator Marco Rubio: ``Let's remember, this administration''--talking about the Obama administration--``went around for years saying the border has never been more secure than it is now. I think,'' and this is Marco Rubio, ``that's been exposed as a fallacy over the last 3 weeks.'' That is because people were realizing it was a border crisis during the Obama years.

Just the fact that it has gone on for years and years does not diminish the crisis. It actually exacerbates the crisis. When you put the October, November, December, January numbers, record numbers, of people coming in claiming to be family units--why? Because they have heard, if they have minor children, then they will be allowed to stay, and they will be allowed to keep the minor children. It is encouraging a dark market, a criminal market, in children.

Make sure, if you are coming to America, you have a child in your group, because then you claim: Oh, we can't be separated.

As the Director of Border Patrol pointed out this week in testimony under oath, now the huge majority is people coming who are claiming to be family units. Most of them are, but we don't know. That is why it is important to check.

So this is a time of crisis, and you would hope that major media, whether it is alt-left or whatever, would be reporting what is happening in America. It is a humanitarian crisis, as they acknowledged during President Obama's term. It is even more of a humanitarian crisis now that there are so many more minor children who are being brought here.

Once again, for those who bring up the term ``war on women,'' how about the fact that over a third of the young girls, the young women, who are brought to our southern border illegally are being sexual assaulted, raped, normally multiple times along the way? Do people not care what is happening? Wouldn't that be a war on women that some of us want to stop?

The estimate by doctors who have been treating these people say that 17 percent of the young boys coming up and crossing into the U.S. illegally have been sexually molested, assaulted.

Where is the outrage? It ought to be from both sides of the aisle.

These are people whose lives are just being terrorized. When we hear about, ``Oh, well, people are just caring about their families,'' really? You would subject your daughter to being one of the third who is sexually raped numerous times while you want to come into America? You would do that to your daughter?

We ought to be helping Mexico. They are not helping much. They are helping some. But we ought to be shoring up the border. It is the best thing we can do for Mexico, continue to be the most generous country in the world, in the history of the world, in allowing people to come into our country legally.

Keep that going. It is good for America. But stop the drug cartels from controlling our southern border. It ought to be our authorities controlling our border, nobody else.

If that is not enough, here comes what has been called a Green New Deal. Some have accurately called it more of a green socialist manifesto, a green raw deal.

Rick Manning has a great article this month: ``Everyone is talking about the Green New Deal and how it would end domestic airline travel, the internal combustion engine, fossil fuel usage, most electricity generation, and even ban cow flatulence. You have groups guessing what the cost of the Green New Deal would be in terms of dollars on an annual basis. . . . To everyone seeking to normalize this Green New Deal, please just shut up.

``The Green New Deal is the baring of teeth by the new American communist, a new breed unleashed that we have seen in the streets, attacking people attending Trump rallies, screaming at teenagers wearing Make America Great Again hats, shouting down and rioting against conservative speakers on college campuses.

``Here is the truth. Socialism and communism are evil. Putting a shroud of legitimacy and normalcy to the destruction of the American ideal is being a Menshevik in a Bolshevik revolution. You cannot moderate the bloodlust of those who seek to enslave you by trying to come up with common ground or discuss alternatives to meet their needs. The revolution demands immediate payment.

``So let's stop talking about the symptoms which the Green New Deal represents and actually begin to dissect the disease that is collectivism. First, definitionally, the only difference between socialism and communism is if you voluntarily surrender your freedom and wealth or have it confiscated. Either alternative ultimately comes from the coercive power of the gun and are based upon the premise that those who have attained wealth used ill-gotten means to get it. As a result, they have no moral authority to keep it from those from whom it presumably was stolen.

``In socialism and communism, individual rights are not derived from God and guaranteed by the Constitution. Instead, everything you have and can expect comes from the goodwill of the government. It is no mistake that John Lennon's socialist anthem `Imagine' starts with the following words: `Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try. No hell below us; above us, only sky. Imagine all the people living for today.'

``In order to achieve a kingdom ruled by man, unfettered by morality or rules, you have to nix a sovereign God from the equation. If there is no God, then all rights are nothing more than those that the government chooses to allow you to have, and the only protections that exist are those which they grant. The only question is who gets to be the one holding the keys over everyone else's life.''

This is what, on one hand, surprises me about billionaires in America funding a move toward socialism. Obviously, these are not stupid people. They can look at the history of socialism, communism. They know that, whether it is socialists or communists, you have two classes. You eliminate the middle class. There is no middle class. You have this small group of ruling class, and then you have everybody else, all the miserables.

I guess they think they get us to socialism and they will be part of that elite socialist class that rules over everybody else.

I have seen it. The summer I lived in the Soviet Union, when it was the real Soviet Union, there were some nice things, but it was clear they didn't have freedom. The government watched, through spies, everything that those people did.

I asked, on one occasion: Why is that lady running off?

Well, she is going to go report me, he said.

Why would she go report you? You are not anything to her.

No. In your country you can get ahead by making money. In my country, he said, we get ahead by stepping on others. So anybody you can turn in for anything, anybody that you can step on, it elevates you in our system here in the Soviet Union.

He was right. And that is where we are headed with people thinking socialism is a good way to go.

The bumper sticker is true. The big problem with socialism is you can vote your way into it, but you will have to shoot your way out.

That is what we are seeing play out in Venezuela. They voted themselves

into it, and now they are having to shoot their way out. Unfortunately for most of them, they don't have guns, so they are pretty empty-handed in fighting a government that has the guns.

It is a tragic situation. It should be one of the most prosperous countries in the world. It was until socialism took over. And again, as Rick Manning is trying to point out, that is where we are headed.

``It makes one wonder if Ono,'' he said, ``has given up 100 percent of her songwriter royalties to the song to the government as a show of solidarity for the dream.

``And here is what they don't say,'' he says, ``in order for the world to `live as one' with no possessions, someone is going to have to take all the stuff and hold it collectively for the common good.

``In order for there to be stuff to take and most importantly eat in the future, someone is going to have to do the hard work to produce it. Someone is going to have to figure out how to produce it, and someone is going to have to get it from where it is produced to where the brotherhood is living. And then someone is going to have to distribute it, being certain that everyone gets the same amount of gruel.''

And I saw that, too, in the stores back in the Soviet Union. If you were part of that elite ruling class, they would keep back a really nice pair of shoes, maybe the only pair they got, for the highest ranking person that they dealt with.

In the stores, the Soviets would tell me: We never find toilet paper; they hold it in the back for the ruling class. We never find good, fresh vegetables. They hold that back for the ruling class.

It is really tragic the way people are treated, ultimately, in a socialist or communist society, or now called progressivist.

So, good article by Brad Polumbo, February 26, How Socialism Destroys Private Charity and Hurts the Poor. It is tragic.

Between what we see destroying the rule of law in America, coming across our southern border illegally, overwhelming our schools--how fair is it? If you really care about children, how fair is it to this big group of children in school?

And as teachers have pointed out to me: I love my kids. I love the kids that come in and don't speak English. But they throw them into a class of English speakers because we are required to educate them, and we have to stop teaching, basically, the English-speaking citizens and residents and go to teaching the new kids that just got thrown in, no fault of their own. But those that suffer are the kids.

They have dreams, but, unfortunately for them, they were either born here or came here legally and speak English. But their dreams are going to be put on hold. They are not going to be able to be educated as well because we have not secured our southern border. And children who don't speak the same language are thrown into their classes, and they are harming the dreams and the hopes of the children who were here.

So is the solution to welcome in 30 million or so people from Mexico? No. It would overwhelm this country, and there would be no place for people to flee to when they are trying to find real asylum from danger.

The better thing is just enforce the law. Secure the border. Cut off the flow of money to the drug cartels, and allow people to live freely here, without worrying about extra crime that wouldn't be here if people weren't here illegally.

It is about preserving the Republic that the Founders gave us. It is about acknowledging that we have, as a nation, been more blessed than any nation in the history of the world. Solomon's Israel didn't have the individual opportunities, the individual assets, the freedoms that we have.

When a majority of Americans fail to recognize that we have been blessed by God and His protective hand has secured our Nation, then those blessings and that protective hand will disappear; and we will be the once-great Camelot, where people could live free, and they could work and keep what they grew, built, earned, that once-great country where people were treated the same, whether poor or rich. They were treated the same under the law.

That once-great country. Wow, what a dream. How did it go wrong?

Well, we just talked about it, and it is time we did something together to stop it.

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

Madam Speaker, I, too, miss my friend Walter Jones. I just greatly treasured the hour each week we spent together visiting. It was a fitting tribute today at his funeral.

I do want to address this bill we just passed. I had hoped to vote for it after I was hearing, well, it is not much money; it is less than $2 billion. But the trouble is there are provisions in here that are going to make it difficult to remove anybody who is here if they have got a child in there.

And, yes, I know, there is language that says if it is based on information shared by HHS, so that means they are going to be covered up with discovery requests, FOIA requests, probably people will find Obama judges who let people out.

This was not a good bill in the end. That is why I had to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my dear friend and, actually, college friend for these many years, since we were in school together at Texas A&M, and the great tribute.

There was another superb tribute today paid to a giant of a man in more recent days. John Dingell had been reduced to a wheelchair, but having visited with him when his health was great and when he was in his wheelchair, Madam Speaker, I can confirm either way he was a giant of a man.

Now, make no mistake, we had some significant political differences of opinion, but I never, ever had to wonder about the integrity, the honesty, just the greatness of John Dingell. He shot straight. Sometimes they were things you didn't want to hear.

I loved his mischievous sense of humor, his way of making his point. I had no problem with the way he sometimes went after witnesses that he felt were being less than candid. He was a great man. He was a great Member of Congress.

One of the things that has brought prior comments of his back to mind, prior activity here, was the proposed Green New Deal. I disagreed with John Dingell's effort for some type of government-run or universal-type health insurance, but we both--and I know the man's heart. He wanted what he believed was best for the American people.

He was a man that staunch conservatives like me could talk to and could trust. He, as was pointed out by the majority leader earlier today and others, loved the Energy and Commerce Committee; and it was humorous, earlier, when it was mentioned the times when he thought that was the only committee here.

But after decades and decades of service and wanting to do something about the problem with healthcare--it certainly has problems. He was so looking forward, as chairman of the Energy

and Commerce Committee, the committee of jurisdiction over such a healthcare bill as the ACA, ObamaCare, whatever you want to call it, he was looking forward to shepherding that through as the great chairman, as the great Member of Congress that he was.

At the time--this was between 2007 and January of 2011 when Republicans took back over the majority here in the House--he had appropriately become chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. He couldn't wait to shepherd through what he believed would fix so many of the ills with the healthcare system, health insurance system.

And I would certainly agree that the health insurance companies are not really in the insurance business; they are more in health management. I would love to see them back in the insurance business instead of the management, where we either have the government or the insurance companies telling us what healthcare we can have and not have.

But John Dingell wanted what was best for the American people. And Speaker Pelosi made it very clear, there were two important bills that she wanted coming out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and one of them was a healthcare bill. If you are a Democrat, you should have wanted John Dingell to be chairman of the committee that would bring that out of committee and to the floor.

But the other bill was given the name cap and trade, and the cap-and- trade bill included a carbon tax. It was an early form of a Green New Deal. It was going to get us off of any carbon-based energy--or make it very expensive to be on it. That appears to be a big purpose of the Green New Deal.

But earlier this week in our Natural Resources Committee, we had testimony regarding this Green New Deal issue, and there was a very sharp African American witness who made the point of something I understood he called energy poverty.

It was something that John Dingell had made the point about that got him fired by Speaker Pelosi as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Because John Dingell knew, when you run up the cost of energy, of electricity, of gasoline, of the things that people need to get to and from work or to and from healthcare or to and from important meetings, you run up the cost of that.

As one lower middle-class single mom told me back some years ago when the Obama administration had helped to run the price of gasoline through the roof, run up energy costs--in fairness, candidate Obama had promised, like with coal-based energy, he wasn't going to just necessarily make it illegal, but he would skyrocket the cost of that energy. So, in fairness, he was keeping a promise. He was skyrocketing the cost of energy.

And this single mom was desperate. She said: I can't afford the gasoline to get to work, and I am maxed out on my credit card. I can't get another one. And I have to pay just enough on my credit card so I can get gas on it so I can keep going to work. But the prices keep going up. I don't have room on the only credit card I have got to get gas so I can keep my job, and now I may be in danger of losing the job that allows me to pay a little bit on my credit card so I can get gas the next month and keep my job.

I mean, it was tragic to listen to somebody struggling, for all they were worth, to take care of themselves, their kids, and the government was intentionally running up the cost of fuel and electricity.

I mentioned before, one 80-year-old lady in east Texas had commented: I am afraid that, with the way the cost of energy is going up, I am not going to be able to afford anything, not even propane, electricity.

She said: I was born in a home that only had a wood-burning stove, and I am afraid I may leave this world in a home that only has a wood- burning stove for energy.

And I said: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this administration, the Obama administration, is trying to make it so you can't have a wood-burning stove in your room because that will violate emission laws they want. So you can end up actually worse off than the home in which you were born.

Well, thankfully, that administration is no longer in office to continue driving up the cost of energy. But let's face it, when the cost of gasoline goes up, jet fuel goes up. When the cost of electricity goes up, it doesn't hurt the rich. It hurts the middle class tremendously, and it hurts the lower middle class and the poor even more.

And my understanding of what was considered the final straw that caused the Speaker to fire John Dingell as chairman of the committee that he loved dearly and fire him from the chance to shepherd through a healthcare bill was when he said--and as I recall, these are his exact words--talking about cap and trade: That bill is not only a tax, it is a great big one.

And he made clear he knew that, if cap and trade passed, electricity would skyrocket, the cost of gasoline would skyrocket, every cost of energy would skyrocket.

The rich would be fine. All of those rich Democrats, some rich Republicans, fly around in their private jet, have two or three Suburbans. Al Gore would have more than one, with the engines running while he went and gave a speech or made an appearance.

Those kinds of folks, they wouldn't be hurt. They get to keep having their big, energy-guzzling Suburbans running even though they weren't in them. They would be able to keep flying their private planes. But the Nation's poor would be devastated if cap and trade had become the law.

But because John Dingell could see the damage that was going to do to the Nation's poor, he said: I can't, in good conscience, bring that bill, get it voted out of my committee.

So he got fired. He got fired from the chance to do what he had dreamed about doing for decades, and that was having a big healthcare bill that he believed would fix so many of the problems that especially the Nation's poor were facing.

Now, the irony was apparently not lost on John Dingell when we were having the last hour of debate on the healthcare bill that he had been prevented from shepherding through. He was put in the chair as Speaker pro tempore to preside over the last hour of debate on the healthcare bill before we voted on it.

He had long since been replaced as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee by Henry Waxman, who famously said to Republicans: We not only don't want your input, we don't need your votes.

That was the new chairman's approach, and it was the way he pushed the unaffordable ACA through. It was the way he pushed through cap and trade out of committee that would have been such a horrible blow to our Nation's core.

But he had been fired from the chance to get a better bill as chairman of the committee, and yet he got put in the chair as Speaker pro tempore to preside over the last hour of debate before the vote. I found that rather ironic.

Mr. Speaker, I talked to the former Republican chairman of Energy and Commerce, Joe Barton, who said, long after ObamaCare had passed and we were finding out that the architect of ObamaCare knew it wouldn't work, knew that when the President said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, the architect of that for the Obama administration said he knew all of that was not true, but they had to say those things to sell it.

But Joe Barton pointed out that John Dingell was such an amazing chairman of Energy and Commerce and was so adept at forging together bills, Joe told me that if John Dingell had been left as chairman of Energy and Commerce, he would have called us Republicans in and he would have said: Look, we are going to pass a healthcare bill, and I would like your support. I want it to be bipartisan. So give me a few things that you have got to have in a healthcare bill so that I can find some way we can make this a bipartisan healthcare bill and we can get at least a bunch of your party's votes so this truly will be a bipartisan bill, and that will make the bill a better bill.

As Joe pointed out to me, the thing is, if they had left John Dingell in as chairman of Energy and Commerce, he would have forged together a bill. As Joe said, it would have been a bill that

some of us Republicans, if not all, we would have had to vote for it because some of the things he put in there that we just agreed to strongly with, we would have had to vote for it.

If John Dingell had been left chairman of Energy and Commerce, it would not have been a bill that would have cost the Democrats the majority in November of 2010. It would not have been a bill that Republicans could run on in 2010 and 2012 and say, we have got to completely repeal ObamaCare, the ACA, whatever you want to call it.

We wouldn't have been able to do that, because the master at bringing together parties and forging together a good bill, he would have been the one that brought it together and it would have lasted. We wouldn't have all been running to repeal it because too many of us voted for it.

So as we pause to honor a truly great man today, John Dingell, I can't imagine somebody breaking his record of 59 years in the House--I am sure not going to--but what an amazing man.

I recall that day--John Dingell was at that point relying heavily on a cane, that political congressional giant had to rely on that cane very heavily to get up to the Speaker's chair. He had to rely on it to come down out of the Speaker's chair that day that we voted on the ACA, and the majority leader appropriately called attention to the great man he was, and that day everybody rose in a standing ovation, and I am forever glad that we did--the majority leader pointed out that this had been a dream of John Dingell's for decades, that he wanted a big healthcare bill that would fix problems, and now we were finally getting to vote on it. So it was only appropriate that that great man, that great legislator, John Dingell, would sit in the Chair and preside over the debate in that last hour. So he asked unanimous consent that we all show our appreciation, and that is when we had the standing ovation.

But I was thinking I know this guy. He is not only a righteous and honorable man of integrity, honest, he is really, really smart. He is not stupid. Anybody that ever tried to match wits with him soon learned that they were going to feel like an unarmed man in a war of words. They tried to do combat with words.

I just knew there is no way this brilliant man has lost the irony of getting all this great praise and recognition as he presides for an hour over debate with really no control over what goes in the bill during that hour when they fired him from the chance to forge together a much better bill.

And it was that overwhelming sense of irony--sometimes I should keep my mouth shut when I don't--but the majority leader had asked for that unanimous consent recognition which was entirely in order, so I came over and grabbed that microphone and when the applause died down, I said: Mr. Speaker--to the Speaker pro tempore that replaced John Dingell in the Chair--and basically I said in that same sense of love and admiration for a great patriot, a great man, a great Congressman, something like that, I would ask unanimous consent that we give him his chairmanship back.

Anyway, it took a couple of seconds or so for people on this side of the aisle to realize the irony and just die laughing. And I know so many of the people across the aisle, great people with great senses of humor. We kid around, joke around about things.

I was surprised nobody was laughing across the aisle because they knew. They liked Dingell. They knew that Speaker Pelosi fired him because he wouldn't push through the cap-and-trade bill that would have been so detrimental to the Nation's poor. But they weren't laughing. I couldn't believe they were not laughing.

But I had one of the Capitol Police tell me afterwards--actually, there were two of them that came up when I was leaving in the Speakers lobby, nobody else out there--they said, I know there weren't people on the other side of the aisle from you laughing at what you said, but you should have been out here in the Speaker's lobby as they left.

So many of them were saying: Wasn't that the funniest thing you ever heard? I know, but did you see the Speaker looking around for anybody that was laughing? I couldn't laugh. She was looking toward me.

So anyway, it was an amazing moment. I thought it was not just ironic, but humorous. The next day, John Dingell, who it was not easy for him to get around at that time--it became even tougher--but he had sought me out at the back of the Republican side of the floor here, and he said: Louie, I wanted to thank you for what you said yesterday.

I said: John, the irony, I just couldn't stay quiet. The irony overwhelmed me.

And he said: I know. That is why I just wanted to say thank you.

Well, that is a thanks I will treasure for the rest of my life. John Dingell was a great man. He was a great legislator, and one of the best committee chairmen this Chamber has ever had in any committee. I got to serve side by side for 2 years on a subcommittee with his wife, Debbie, now a widow, and I came to find out that so much that I liked about John Dingell existed in Debbie.

She was the ranking member of that subcommittee when I was chairman, back when they let me have a chairmanship on our side of the aisle, and I loved working with her. I still do. She is a treasured friend. She is a great American, and she is hurting.

So for those who believe in the power of prayer, I hope, Madam Speaker, that they will remember all of John Dingell's family and lift them up in prayer for the peace that surpasses all understanding because we have lost a great man to this world.

I rushed over here from a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, a strange hearing. The Acting Attorney General that is going to be acting for another week maybe had a big circus about having him come in and testify in a long hearing, where everybody gets to go after him that wants to.

But in that hearing, as well as in media in the past, as well as in other hearings in the past, I kept hearing friends across the aisle talk about these great career officials in the Department of Justice who were giving great advice to Jeff Sessions, like to recuse himself, and Jeff Sessions himself said: I listened to the career officials at the Department of Justice who recommended that I recuse myself on the Russia investigation.

Some of us heard--it was understood who he was referring to as giving him this great advice to recuse himself--and you could say they were in career positions. But these were not the career positions or officials of days gone by when a U.S. attorney or even somebody in the Justice Department here in Washington could be trusted to give nonpolitical advice.

But as we have seen in the Department of Justice and FBI scandals of the last few years, we have people who were disastrously political that were seeking political victories through the Justice Department and certainly were not the nonpartisan, bipartisan people of the past.

I know from working with U.S. attorneys and assistant U.S. attorneys in decades past, we knew how they voted. We knew party allegiance, whether they were Republican or Democrat, but when it came to criminal law, criminal violations, those things, they may have different personal philosophies, but justice was justice. And if somebody violated the law, they were going to pursue it. They were not going to let party affiliation or their regard or lack of regard for the President or anybody else keep them from pursuing justice.

But this has been an extraordinary time in American history when we have found a Department of Justice had officials to the very top who were far more political than they were just; where people, even an Attorney General, would say they had a chance meeting on a tarmac, when the facts of the day indicate it really could not have been a chance meeting on a tarmac. And if it hadn't been for a reporter spotting what he thought might be former President Bill Clinton, nobody would have ever known about that meeting while, supposedly, Hillary Clinton was under investigation.

We now know there was never going to be any prosecution of Hillary Clinton, no matter how grievous or egregious any criminal violation may have been, even if it meant obstructing justice by destroying emails that had been subpoenaed and destroying with a hammer or with BleachBit cellphones or computers.

This is clearly obstruction of justice. Those would have been lay- down cases

to get convictions. But it was now clear those were never going to be pursued because the people who were in position, supposedly career, some political appointments, they were not going to let that happen.

Now, people like Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok--the guy is the head of FBI counterintelligence, and he has no problem lying over and over and over again. Then he has the gall to come in and basically say, as his deposition testimony ended, oh, he always tells the truth.

Any good lawyer knows you don't ever say, ``I always tell the truth,'' because you make mistakes. But he did, and that was a lie. He just couldn't help lying.

There were stories after the shock to the Obama administration in having Donald Trump win, the arrogance that existed in the Democratic Party that, gee, there is no way Donald Trump could win, even though it certainly appeared to be funny at the time when President Obama--I think it may have been on Letterman where he read something about a comment that Obama would go down as the worst President, and he said: Yeah, at least I will go down as having been President.

Everybody laughed because, gee, how could he ever get elected President? Well, he did.

So there were articles written and word spread that in the remaining days of the Obama administration after Donald Trump was elected President, there was a flurry of activity in November, December, and early January to move people from political appointment positions into career positions in all these different government departments and agencies, including the Department of Justice.

If you look at the person who answered to Rod Rosenstein, Tashina Gauhar--she was the liaison between the National Security Council and the Attorney General, but she answered directly to Rod Rosenstein. That was a change I understood that occurred in the organizational chart for DOJ some time back.

I tried to tell Jeff and persuade him: You need to reorganize. You need to have critical positions answering directly to you.

He didn't know why he kept getting such late notices to NSC meetings. Everybody else got them timely. What I heard was Tashina Gauhar was getting them timely like everybody else but delaying Jeff Sessions getting them, so he would either develop a conflict or he would not have time to properly prepare. He would go into the meetings looking bad before the National Security Council, because he wasn't as prepared as others were because he didn't get his notices timely as he should have because a person who was more--or certainly appeared to be much more--devoted to Sally Yates and her obstruction of the Trump administration was the one who was supposed to pass on those notices to Jeff Sessions.

As we are seeing, there were people who have been forced to leave the DOJ and leave the FBI in scandal for lying. I understand Andrew McCabe supposedly is currently being investigated for criminal violations. This is a guy right there close to the top, nearly the top, and he had become a political hack and a political operative.

Others would look at somebody like him or Peter Strzok and say these are career people, so we can trust them, without realizing, oh, no, they are politically motivated, and they are going to use their job for political purposes to try to keep one party from winning the Presidency and try to help another to win the Presidency.

It is shocking what is going on. I believe that if the roles had been reversed and that was a Republican FBI, Republican DOJ--it shouldn't be political at all, but it has been. But if that had been them, and they were the doing to a Democrat President what has been done to this one, I just feel sure I would have objected.

This is wrong. I don't care what the party is, you don't abuse a justice system for political purposes. I think I would--I really believe it is one of the things that makes some in my party so mad at me sometimes when they are not doing the right thing, and they are not keeping their word.

It is still my hope and prayer, literally, that we will come together to recognize what John Dingell did.

We work better when we work together. Apparently, at times, he called Republicans in. He was so skilled at negotiating, but making clear: We are going to get this bill passed, but we want your buy-in. We want you involved. We want you to have things in it that you are proud of. So what do you got? What do you need? What can we work out?

That kind of diplomacy is going to be sorely missed here. But one comfort is I see so many of those traits in Debbie Dingell. John Dingell will be missed.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting day, perhaps more than most.

We have heard over and over again about Republicans supposedly causing the shutdown, but in my days as a trial lawyer, judge, chief justice, it is always good to look at the evidence. And the evidence is very clear.

You had Republicans in the House and Senate and the President actually pass a spending bill in the House before the end of December, and the only thing that was keeping it from getting through the Senate was that Democrats there, led by Senator Schumer, would not negotiate. They arrived at no agreement to get 60 votes so that it could go forward with debate. That wasn't the Republicans.

In the position of the White House, President Trump made clear: This is negotiable, but we do need wall, we need barrier. Call it whatever you want.

He moved from talking about concrete to talking about the steel barrier. And having spent time with some other Members of Congress, invited by Congressman Biggs and Congressman Gosar down to the Arizona border, we saw a lot of it. And then it would just end. And then you saw a clear path right around the end of it as people kept coming, invading this country illegally.

From the border patrolmen, it was clear some were carrying big loads of drugs. Sometimes they are able to catch them, sometimes they are not. And it sounds like, from the times I spent on the border south of McAllen, southeast of McAllen, the Texas quadrant, more often than not, they don't catch the drugs coming in. It is an invasion. It is a huge problem.

And I was hearing people, friends across the other side of the aisle, some Senators who are Democrats, acknowledging: Yes, we need to do something. But when it came to negotiating, there was no negotiation.

So we had this bill today decrying how horrible shutdowns are. But if you look at the tactics, when the tactics of the leaders--and I say at least some of the leaders--of one party are ``we are not going to negotiate; we are not going to compromise; we are not going to do what is best for the country,'' in effect, as they have stated on prior occasions, as they have voted on prior occasions, some of them, that is what causes a shutdown.

You know, we did not need this shutdown. We shouldn't have had to have this shutdown. It should have been agreed back in December by at least some of the Senators so that we could have gotten a spending bill.

Of course, we had spending passed on three-fourths of the government. It was about one-fourth of the government that was not funded. So we talk about a shutdown. It wasn't a full shutdown. But, still, it did harm to those who were not getting paid.

But as I would go through airports--and TSA agents would know who I was--numerous times I was told: We are hurting not getting paid, but we are all right. We are going to be a whole lot worse off if we don't get a wall or a barrier or something built and start securing the border.

We heard from teachers who were saying: We love our kids, we want to teach them, but it is so unfair to the students who are already there to have people brought in and say you have got to educate these, and they don't speak English. And the teachers would say it really did damage, it does damage to those students that we are supposed to also teach. And now, all of a sudden, we have people we have to teach who don't speak English.

There are some school districts that have done a great job of trying to work around that and teach English in an immersion-type setting so that we can help people not be relegated to manual labor the rest of their lives, but help them speak good English so that they can get good jobs.

But we need a barrier in some places on the border where we don't have it, and that is clear. You can't just have a 20-, 30-foot barrier just proceeding along that is stopping the drugs, stopping the sex trafficking, stopping the human trafficking, and then just stop it. Because, as we saw down the Arizona border, the path goes for miles and miles, and it comes right up to the point where the barrier ends, and it goes right around.

In one place, there is a little barbed wire gate that is held to the barrier. This massive barrier is held with a little, probably a quarter-inch, nylon rope. And they leave it in a slip knot so you can open the gate and the drugs can come pouring in that will kill Americans.

Something had to be done. And yet what happened was the President was willing to negotiate, Kevin McCarthy and the Republicans were willing to negotiate, Senator McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate were willing to negotiate, and yet the word from our Speaker was: We are not negotiating at all on a barrier, a wall.

So we continued to have people in the interim, while the government was shut down, continue to die as a result of us not securing our border.

We were told by Border Patrol, every day, there are women who are pulled into sex trafficking. Every day, there are women--often young girls. We are told about one-third of the girls who are brought up to bring them into the United States illegally are raped at least once and, normally, multiple times.

As long as we keep our border so unsecured, that is going to continue. I mean, how much lack of compassion do you have to have to say: ``We are fine with the rape trees; we are fine with one-third of the girls coming into the United States illegally having been raped. We are fine. We just leave things like they are. That is fine, but we are not going to negotiate because.

Apparently, from what we are hearing, even though many of the people who refuse to negotiate have talked about the need for barriers and talked

about the need for securing the border, they were very concerned that the President would get a political win by getting even part of a wall or barrier. So people are just going to have to keep suffering, getting raped and dying.

So we didn't secure the border, there is no additional wall, so they can claim the President didn't keep his promise on the wall. That was more important than saving lives, saving rapes from happening. It is all about politics.

And that is not across the aisle. I have talked to too many friends across the aisle that, if we had been left to our own resources, we could have worked something out.

But apparently, at the top, it was more important to keep a political win from the President than it was to do what was right for the country.

I don't know anybody on our side of the aisle who loves shutdowns, but there were some claims made in the bill that went too far, so most of us voted ``no.''

We don't want a shutdown, the same way we don't want anybody in our military dying. But, if we never had any military willing to risk their lives, we wouldn't have the freedoms we have today.

If we didn't have a President willing to put a stake in the sand and say: We have got to do something to secure our border. We need some barrier, wall, whatever you want to call it in some places. And I will negotiate. The amount is negotiable--he came down to about a fifth of what he had been saying and what we are told really needs to be spent, $25 billion or so. Yet there was no negotiation on the other side.

I know there was one dollar mentioned, apparently in jest: Oh, I would give a dollar for a wall.

But it just seems so hypocritical to have a leader, or leaders, that would not negotiate in good faith, which caused a shutdown, with one side willing to negotiate on everything except we have got to have some barriers someplace and no negotiation on the other side.

Then we come in here with a bill today to condemn shutdowns that were caused by a refusal of one side to negotiate. Like I said, I know that is not the case.

There is an article here from the Washington Examiner, Anna Giaritelli. It says: ``House Republicans say at least 60 Democratic lawmakers have indicated in the past few weeks that they support some type of barrier, wall, or fence at the U.S.-Mexico border, even as Democratic leaders say they won't agree to President Trump's border wall.''

It is just amazing that that ends up being the climactic bill today, condemning shutdowns, after the leadership on one side says: We are not compromising; we are not moving an inch. It causes a shutdown; we will blame that on you. We will even pass a bill. We have got a majority. We can pass a bill, you know, that condemns shutdowns.

They took out the language, thankfully, that blames the Republicans.

But I would like to recognize my very dear friend from Pennsylvania for his comments and observations.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

The gentleman mentioned the 51,000. That is just, as I understand, those who were apprehended.

In 1 month. That is not everybody that was coming in.

My friend, being a general in the United States Army, served our country so meritoriously. We had a situation under President Woodrow Wilson where a small part of Pancho Villa's gang came across the border into the United States, killed some families, and then went back into Mexico.

Devout Democrat that Woodrow Wilson was, he apparently saw that small incursion as an invasion. He sent--and I have asked the Congressional Research Service for their best numbers, and the estimate, taken from articles and information they had gotten, was probably around 75,000 of a new group called the National Guard--new back in the early 1900s.

He sent them down to stand guard on the border--75,000--and sent General John Pershing down into Mexico pursuing Pancho Villa's troops. They

didn't ever get him; they got a lot of his lieutenants. But, apparently, when 75,000 people were put on the border, there was no more invasion.

If you look at the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4--this is our Constitution--says: ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.''

Now, 51,000 in a month is many, many times more than the folks that Pancho Villa had come in and kill Americans. Would the gentleman consider that an invasion, what we have going on on our southern border?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Madam Speaker, I do want to hit one point that the gentleman made about the drones. They can help. The television cameras, all of the sophistication, the technology, can help.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania was not here when $8 billion, as I recall, was passed in the House and Senate, signed by the President, and given to protect our southern border for, the terminology I recall, a virtual wall. And that was not a wall but cameras, airplanes, drones, whatever they could get, whatever they needed, whether it was microphones, listening--it was whatever the Secretary of Homeland Security thought appropriate.

There was a provision that was added in the Senate that became part of the law that said, if the Secretary of Homeland Security decides that money is not going to accomplish the purpose of securing the border, then she can wave that off and spend the money elsewhere.

That is what Secretary Napolitano did, as I recall. She waved it off.

I have been trying to find out for a number of years now: Where did that $8 billion go that was supposed to be for this technology that we are hearing from some across the aisle: That is all we need is that?

Well, not one single Democrat did I ever hear say: Do you know what? Napolitano shouldn't have waved off a virtual wall.

They agreed that just wasn't going to do it. Secretary Napolitano said that is not going to do it. That is not going to help secure the border.

That is all we hear in response to President Trump saying wall, barrier. Whatever you want to call it, it is what we need there.

I yield to my friend, Mr. Perry.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania so much for sharing his thoughts. It continues to be a problem every day.

An article here from The Hill, by Madison Gesiotto, says: ``The Mexican Government is doing more to combat illegal immigration into the United States than the entire Democratic Party put together. While the Democrats continue to pretend the crisis on our southern border is imaginary, Mexico is heavily investing in border security in anticipation of yet another massive caravan of migrants heading for the United States.''

It goes on: ``Hundreds of Honduran migrants began their journey in hopes of seeking asylum at our southern border, a goal that proved elusive to the previous caravan. Instead of dismissing the new caravan as a `manufactured crisis' as the Democrats did after President Trump made his appeal . . . Mexican authorities sprang into action, announcing a list of strengthened requirements to address the problem.

``According to the latest reports, the Mexican Government is reinforcing all the entry points along its own southern border with additional immigration enforcement agents and is stepping up surveillance of known illegal crossing points. It also plans to enforce strict immigration protocols, such as requiring the migrants to undergo biometric scans and acquire immigration documents before they can enter the country.''

So that is Mexico. We have worked on a bill in the past that said, if you think the Mexican law is so much better than ours, why don't we just adopt the policies and the laws of Mexico, with regard to immigration? The bottom line is, if we were to do that, we wouldn't have millions of illegal immigrants in this country.

I have to give the President some credit here. When we see this article from Reuters, an unlikely source, it points out: ``The United States sent the first Central American asylum seeker back to Mexico through a crossing at the border city of Tijuana on Tuesday as part of a hardened immigration policy, an official at Mexico's National Migration Institute said.''

Somebody has been doing some amazing negotiating in order to make that happen, where Mexico would agree to take back some folks who are claiming asylum. As I understand it, we may have more people going back to Mexico, pending their hearing.

As we heard from Secretary Nielsen back in December before our committee, where there are walls and barriers in place, it cuts illegal immigration by 90 to 95 percent. That is something that works. Nothing is going to work 100 percent, but that is amazing at how well it works.

I now yield to my good friend, Congressman Gaetz.

I am very grateful to my friend, Congressman Gaetz, for that insightful comment. The gentleman is right. When you are right, you are right.

I would like to comment on something else that has been in the news, and that is the longest war in which the United States has ever been engaged.

For a little history, it took a few weeks for the United States to find out where the training and preparation for 9/11 came from, and that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were behind it. They had control of Afghanistan, the Taliban did.

It was an amazing bit of negotiation by President Bush, with incredible help from intelligence and special operations. The special ops people from our military were able to negotiate an agreement with tribal leaders that ended up being called the Northern Alliance. It contained some people who have become friends, people who love their country.

By October, we were putting in about 300 special ops military. There is a great book called ``Horse Soldiers'' that delves into this issue, and a movie, ``12 Strong,'' although the ending wasn't quite accurate. Our American forces were never to lead an operation. They were to support Dostum in his operations, which is what they did, heroically.

By the end of February 2002, apparently, there was no organized Taliban left in Afghanistan. It had done an amazing job. The heroic fighting of those in the Northern Alliance, the Afghans led by General Dostum, did an amazing job.

We provided some weapons. We gave them aerial--well, there were B-52s flying, but only our special ops guys could call down bombs.

The leaders could tell the Americans: Look, there is a bunker. There is a problem.

They would get the coordinates, call down the bomb, take care of it. Dostum and his folks would go in and clean up. That is how, by the end of October, we had not lost a single American, and the Taliban had been defeated.

Unfortunately, at that point, we became occupiers. We sent in lots of American military, and in the 7-plus years of Commander in Chief George W. Bush, we lost just over 600 precious American military lives in Afghanistan.

During the 8 years of Commander in Chief Obama--I believe, personally, it was because of the tough rules of engagement, and our people not being able to defend themselves until it was sometimes too late--we lost about three times as many people under Commander in Chief Obama as we did under Commander in Chief Bush. Whatever the problem, the buck stops with the Commander in Chief, and we lost three times as many when the war was supposed to be virtually over.

What happened, once we became occupiers, was then more Afghans were joining the Taliban. I have talked with an individual who was part of the inner circle that was being made at the State Department about what kind of government we would give the Afghans.

That shouldn't have been our job. We defeated the Taliban, or the Northern Alliance did with our help. They should have been the ones deciding what kind of government.

The people I have talked to in Afghanistan, friends I have made there,

they said: Look, there is not a much better place on Earth fitted for a federalist form of government where the power is in the states or provinces and in the localities. We don't need a big powerful dictator. We need strong states or provinces.

Yet, the constitution we hoisted onto the Afghan people, led by a man who is now in the State Department once again leading efforts--as I understand it, he is the guy who said let's give them a centrist government.

That is what the constitution gave Afghanistan. The President of Afghanistan appoints the governors. He appoints the mayors. He appoints the police chief.

The people in Afghanistan have said: Look, this is horrendous. This is a formula for corruption. For heaven's sake, at least let us elect our governors, elect our mayors. Let us choose our own police chiefs.

But that is not the constitution that we gave them. But there has been an amendment movement for some time. The Obama administration would not support it because they had some of the same State Department people that said: No, let's keep this corrupt centrist--they didn't say corrupt, but that is exactly what it gave them. And the Afghan people don't like what America forced on them.

The solution is, encourage them. And since we spend billions of dollars there, look, you want another dime? Amend the constitution; allow an election of governors and mayors, local selection of police chiefs. Let's return the power to the provinces.

As my friend, former Minister Massoud, there has said: Look, if you will help us get that amendment done, then whenever America leaves, we have got power back in our local areas. So if the Taliban takes over one province, or tries to take over the national government, all the other provinces can rise up and come after them and kick them out like we did last time.

But as long as we have got this coerced, very centralized government, all they have got to do is knock off a few people at the top; which is why we have people that shouldn't still be in the State Department who are negotiating with the Taliban, not even our friends. Our friends are going to be dead when we pull out because we are leaving all this power for easy reach of the Taliban.

We ought to be negotiating with our former allies, the ones that defeated the Taliban within six months, and get them that amendment, push them to get that, help them have those first elections under the amended constitution, and then get the heck out of Afghanistan.

In that regard, we have a man who is not here on the floor this week, hasn't been in January, named Walter Jones. He wanted us out of Afghanistan, and he has for a very long time. He is not going to be around to see that happen is the indication.

But, Madam Speaker, I know there are many of us that love that guy, and I was sad to see him in hospice last Friday. Prayers are with his family, because Walter is going to go home and be better off. But we miss him.

I was heartened to see our friend, Alcee Hastings here on the floor a while ago. He has been going through a difficult bout of pancreatic cancer; been going through chemo, and I know my friends on both sides of the aisle will continue to pray for and encourage him.

We can have strong disagreements. We don't wish anybody to go through what Walter and Alcee have been going through.

One other friend that I spoke to in the last week, she has been in my prayers, Anne Graham Lotz. What an incredible gift to America Billy Graham's children have been. And our prayers will continue to be for Anne, Alcee, and my friend, Walter, and his family.

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 31, 2019, at noon.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here tonight, with so much going on, but it seems, other than some people rushing to judgment to beat up on a smiling high school kid with a sweet disposition, people are still concerned about the border.

In talking to some TSA agents, some Border Patrol, some of those who are not getting checks--we are still getting some calls--I am still hearing from people, personally, saying: Look, it is really hurting not to have gotten a check; and if we don't get a check, our next check here in the next week, it is going to hurt. But we also know how many American people are hurting because of an insecure border.

How many people have to die, how many people have to have their homes broken into, how many people have to be hit by drivers that should not be driving without insurance, without a driver's license, without fully understanding the laws?

It shouldn't have to be said, but because there are so many people who are quite dense in the liberal media, we know that everybody who comes into this country illegally is not out to hurt America. But what they don't understand and what some in this country--thank God, literally, that it is a minority--don't understand is that, if you keep the border as open as it is, then this country will continue to be more and more overwhelmed, and we will

lose that great light on the hill that has helped illuminate so much of the world through our being the most generous country in the history of the world, helping others that couldn't help themselves.

But when you do enough damage to a country, this country--the greatest, I would continue to submit, in the history of the world, and that is because of all races, creed, color, gender. I mean, we have blessed the world. God has blessed this world through us.

But as we weaken ourselves by having more and more people without regard to the law and we give more and more of our cities over to being used by the drug cartels in Mexico, and as we continue to use Homeland Security--thank goodness it is to a much, much lesser extent than during the Obama administration. But during the Obama administration, I have said here before, the Border Patrol says: The drug cartels call us at Homeland Security, and also HHS, their logistics. They get people illegally into the country who still owe more money to the drug cartels, and they provide them with a piece of paper with an address, a name sometimes, sometimes a phone number, but mainly that address.

And Homeland Security, sometimes HHS, they ship them where the drug cartels need them to be to help finish out their network through the United States that will continue to poison our young people with drugs, 70,000 or so a year, to their deaths. At some point it has got to stop.

I was fortunate to be on a trip to the border. Actually, we all just met there, down in southern Arizona. I have spent a tremendous amount of time, all hours of the day and night, on our Texas-Mexico border, but I had not spent time, like I should have, on the Arizona border. It was quite eye-opening.

They have areas where they do have some border fence that is making a world of difference. Like Secretary Nielsen testified, when we add a wall barrier, it cuts down illegal immigration by 90 to 95 percent. They have seen it in San Diego, El Paso, and some places in Arizona where there is a massive fence or barrier. So it was interesting.

Here is something we put up down by Douglas, Arizona, and we have got this fence here, and you can see between these big metal poles--and those go deep into the ground. These metal, hollow pipes are filled with concrete. So it is not easy to get through those. And then even if you do, you get over it--and there is some razor wire. But if you get over it, then at least to this point you still have another barrier.

When there are heavy rains, there is water in there, but then you have got that to get over, and then you have a road here that the border patrol drives. They can see--and I was there--you can see for a long way. They can come zipping up, just like we watched them do near Nogales, Arizona, yesterday.

So it does make a difference. Talking to the border patrolmen that were patrolling this area, they said: Oh, you wouldn't believe what a help this is. It is a huge help.

Here is another area. This barrier, it is hard to tell, it looks solid, but you can see through the wall. Border patrolmen say they actually like to see through the wall or the fence so they can see what is on the other side, and, you know, see what is coming, and it is very helpful. And this is a great fence--a great barrier. You can tell a little better here that, you know, it has got razor wire.

And they were telling us that that is something that the National Guard, that President Trump had sent down--or not National Guard--our military. The military has been sent down. Just in the last 90 days, they put up a tremendous amount of concertina wire that has made it much more difficult for people to get over.

So this has been a terrific barrier until you get up here to the end, and that is the end of the barrier. They say: Well, then we have got this Normandy barrier for vehicles. Well, most of them aren't coming in vehicles into the United States, unless they have real serious drugs. But anyway, this is a major, major problem.

So I now recognize my friend, who was down there on the border with me on this trip that Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar helped put together. I yield to Morgan Griffith.

Mr. Speaker, it looks like--no, it is him because that is his--nobody else had binoculars that good. I yield to Congressman Griffith.

Mr. Speaker, funny he should ask. Yes, we just happen to have the rope. So here is the end of the barrier right here. It is an impressive barrier till you get to the end, and then you have got the rope he was referring to, and then they have got this barbwire fence-- pretty sad barbwire, four-strand, and it is anything but tight. The only thing that keeps somebody from crossing our border, you have got the massive barrier, the concertina wire, and then you have this little quarter-inch cord here and kind of a slipknot that you can undo, and then pull the gate open and come right through.

That is one of our brave border patrolmen right there. I won't give Art's full name. But anyway, and the other thing we saw, there is a trail that goes right down there. That trail--and I know Mr. Griffith noticed this--but that trail doesn't come down all the way to the barrier. It leads--and you can follow it all the way through this area for miles. It comes right here to where the cord is instead of where the big barrier is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, it absolutely does.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear from the landowners down there that, you know, even up to the 1990s, the people that came were, you know, mainly people looking for jobs, and they would put out food and stuff. The border patrolmen had confirmed this. We were hearing it from the landowners, and we were hearing it from the border patrol. It used to be that when they caught people, it was the first time they had been caught. They probably were just looking for a job in the U.S.

But now, most of the people coming, other than family units, most of them have records, criminal records. Not just in Mexico. Like one that we were being told about is wanted for murder in Mexico, but for all kinds of crimes, including murder in the United States. And that this has become a common event. You catch them, you do the fingerprints, and then here comes this big criminal history, and that that is what they are getting so much of. That used

to be an anomaly, and now it is regular course of business.

I yield to Mr. Griffith.

It is amazing.

Mr. Speaker, he brings up a matter that touched a memory of what was being said by my friend--and sometimes people say that sarcastically--John Garamendi is a friend. He is a good man.

But there were people talking before us about the drugs and that 90 percent of the drugs are coming through our legal ports of entry.

I have been contending for some time, having spent so much time on the Texas-Mexico border, we cannot know how much drugs is coming where. They are catching more drugs coming through the legal port of entries. But there have been all hours--virtually every night down on that border south of McAllen, southwest there, where the border patrol tell us: We know. They send a group of people across in the middle of the night; they know we have to all come to start processing them, asking the questions, and we know that is when the big drug shipments come across, and they know we are tied up.

And how do we know how much drugs? Nobody can say there is a percentage.

I now yield to my good friend, Ralph Norman.

Mr. Speaker, this is a different spot where the wall ended from the one that we are talking about a moment ago.

Mr. Speaker, he pulled that sleeping bag out, and that was in the area where the wall stopped, was it not?

If my friend will yield for a question.

Did you go in the Sasabe little store there where we stopped?

How were those bullets packaged? I had not seen them in a store like that.

Have you ever seen bullets for sale in a plastic bag like that before?

What was the other big thing you don't normally see, but it took up a whole row there?

MREs, Meals, Ready-to-Eat.

I hope the gentleman can stick around and we can talk some more.

But we have been joined by our friend from northern California, Congressman Doug LaMalfa. I know his friends and families have endured quite a tragedy this past year with the fire, but I yield to the gentleman for such comments as he might have about our border.

What was that something? He signed off on the amnesty. What was it that the other side didn't provide that they had promised in that law?

Has the gentleman been there where the fence is or where the barrier is, like San Diego?

All three of you, Mr. Norman, Mr. LaMalfa, and Mr. Griffin, you guys are caring guys, and the Republicans are often castigated as being hard-hearted and not caring. But the stories we have heard from Angel Families and Angel Moms, I know it has affected you guys. We have talked about it.

How anybody can work so hard to get elected to come to this body and not be deeply moved by these stories of families that are ripped apart because someone came in illegally and killed a family member--and I know it is a serious issue.

We don't normally abide separating children from families, even though it is temporary, but there is a point to make sure that children are not handed over to sex traffickers.

But it broke my heart as a felony judge, and it happens in this country over and over every single day of the year, that someone commits a crime and they are taken away; their children are separated from the parent--the parent goes to jail--because we don't believe in incarcerating the children for the father's sins or illegal activity or the mom's. It happens every day.

So it rings kind of hollow to me when people start screaming about that and yet have no compassion whatsoever. We heard from a lot of Angel Moms, so many of those who are so derogatory about Republicans wanting to secure our borders, but they will not even give these moms who have lost precious children a minute of their time to hear these tragic stories.

One of the stories we heard this weekend was there was a group of people who were being smuggled into the country, and as we have talked about before, nowadays, the drug cartels control every inch of our border from the south side--and, some might argue, from our side as well.

There was a wife who was the only female with the group, and they got to the border and they spent, I believe it was, 7 days where the wife was raped by all the other men; and they would hold the husband hostage while the men, for

several nights in a row, raped his wife, and there was nothing he could do about it.

I mean, how hard-hearted do you have to be to not want to stop the invitations of the drug cartels to contribute to that kind of activity?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for his comments.

I hope my friend from California won't have to go far because we have got enough microphones for everybody here.

It was over 200,000 acres in one of the fires.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask Congressman Norman if he would reflect. We heard from a lot of landowners. Individually, we talked to a number of folks on a separate basis.

But, yes, we see here the end of that barrier, all you have to do is just go to the end.

Mr. Speaker, after all the folks we talked to in the last few days, I would like to ask Mr. Norman his thoughts about what needs to be done. We have some of our friends across the aisle who say we don't need any kind of barrier. We just need the technical equipment, the cameras, the drones. We don't need a wall.

After what he has seen and heard, I would like to hear his thoughts regarding that.

Mr. Speaker, that was a family member of some of the folks we were with.

Mr. Speaker, that is right. It was seven people raping his wife 3 days in a row.

Right. That is it.

Mr. Speaker, we were all taking pictures down there.

I want to go to a point about the caravans. We all heard about the caravans. We knew that this was a serious invasion coming. The mainstream, or lame stream, media was trying to say it was a manufactured crisis. These were thousands and thousands of people coming to try to invade this country.

From news reports, it sounded like they were originally heading to Texas, but our Governor made it clear he was going to work with the Federal Government and anybody the President would send, and we were going to do all within Texas' power with Federal help and the military that was there, to keep them from coming in. Then we hear they are heading toward California, Congressman LaMalfa's State.

It sounds like this new caravan that is ginned up may be heading to California, too. I would appreciate the Congressman's comments and thoughts about people heading toward California. People elected him. Surely, they can't be thrilled about an invasion coming like that.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great point, just a great point.

We have heard from angel moms, angel families here, and they complain that they have tried to talk to our Speaker and others on the other side of the aisle, and they are not given time.

But we heard from additional angel moms and families down in southern Arizona in the last few days. They didn't seem to me to be bitter. They were just heartbroken, seemed like, not only for losing their loved one, but there will continue to be people who were separated from their children forever, not just for the pendency of a hearing, but forever, because we weren't doing our job that we took an oath to do.

Congressman Griffith, what about those meetings struck you?

Mr. Speaker, she didn't know who we were.

Mr. Speaker, I know some on the left try to say, oh, this is because you are a xenophobe or afraid of Hispanics. I know this is a generalization, but personally, in my opinion, I think the three things that helped make America the greatest country in history were a love of God, a love of family, and a hard-work ethic.

Generally speaking, when I look at the Hispanic culture, all my friends, they have a love of God, tremendous devotion to family, kind of like a lot of people in my hometown used to have, but don't have.

I think the Hispanic culture can help reinvigorate what made America the greatest country in the world. I want those folks coming. But like Congressman LaMalfa was saying: Legally. I know Congressman LaMalfa has got a lot of agriculture, and it takes a lot of workers who are willing to get out there and sweat. I hear it is harder and harder to find those folks. We know it. Hispanic folks are some of the hardest working folks I have ever been around. But, as Congressman LaMalfa said, it has got to be legal.

Some people are saying: Well, so what is it going to take? Why don't you throw out there on the table so many more visas? And my contention is: We have been through this in `86, again when Clinton was President; how many times do we have to be fooled?

I keep contending: We secure the border and we can work this out. We are

already the most generous country in the history of the world when it comes to legally allowing people to come into this country. Nobody gives a million visas like we do--over a million. But, even then, we can still get the workers we need, we can do what we need.

But as long as that border is porous--it is silly to keep luring more people in with the hope that they will be given amnesty before we secure the border, because then we will see more and more of the human tragedy that both gentlemen have been talking about.

California has had its share of human tragedy at the hands of illegal aliens, but so has the whole country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from California (Mr. LaMalfa) one more time, and then I would like to hear from my friend, Congressman Griffith, before we wrap this up.

By the way, we saw, last week, a big photograph of a massive metal barrier around the perimeter of the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Somebody there knows that walls or fences work when they are combined with security.

I yield to my friend.

So you are going on the record as saying, you believe the question of citizen or noncitizen should be on the census?

Well, that would exclude some of our Federal judges, apparently.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman LaMalfa, and I thank my friend, Congressman Norman, who was here earlier, for their comments.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to be able to extend that barrier just a little further. It is too easy to walk around the end. Where it is there, it does a lot of good.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Griffith. I appreciate his wisdom. I always have and always will.

I, again, echo the comments he made about thanking Congressman Andy Biggs, for arranging this, and Paul Gosar for his help. They are both fantastic Members of Congress from Arizona.

I thank Arizona for sending Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar here. They are invaluable.

I hope we are going to be able to help Arizona finish--look, the President has already backed off of the $25 billion requested. I thought that was an exceedingly reasonable request when you look at the damage occurring to families all over America, and especially to the families of people who are being lured in here to their death or detriment.

Let's move that fence a little further along. Let's get an agreement done so that we can help out these landowners and the people who are suffering, so no more people will be stabbed, even though they were not American citizens, stabbed and forced to watch your wife be repeatedly raped. I mean, how callous do you have to be to say: No, we don't want to deal with that problem; we are going to allow that to keep going? How callous do you have to be?

As we understand it, the family member--we have talked to his sister--he went out there and always provided water and food to people who were illegally crossing into the United States and were illegally on their property, and yet he ends up being shot dead in the head.

It is time to start doing more to protect Americans. It is time to start doing more out of compassion for the people of Mexico to dry up the tens of billions of dollars every year going to the drug cartels. Let's extend the barriers where we need it. Let's do the humane thing for our friends south of the border, and especially those people to whom we have taken an oath to protect their constitution, including them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 9 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 23, 2019, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend, Congressman Smith, for his efforts in this regard.

Madam Speaker, I have talked before about my wife's and my first child being born prematurely. We didn't know if we were going to get to keep her. My wife had to stay in the hospital in Tyler. They took our precious daughter many weeks early to Shreveport.

The doctor there said: Her eyes are not working properly. She can't see, but she knows your voice. She has heard it for a number of months now. It will give her comfort. So caress her, let her know you are here, and talk to her. Let her feel your presence. Let her hear your presence.

They said: You can stay a maximum of 2 hours before you have to take a break.

While I was touching her little hand, she took my finger and held it.

The doctor came along in an hour or so and said: Have you looked at the monitors? That erratic breathing is now much smoother. Still very shallow, the heart rate still very fast, but it is not erratic. She is drawing life, and she is drawing strength, through you.

I am telling you, these children, unborn and born prematurely and born full-term, they want to live. They want a shot at life.

I know there is so much out there: Oh, but a woman has a right to choose.

But we should speak up for the most vulnerable who can't speak for themselves.

That is what Ramona Trevino did, former director of the Sherman Planned Parenthood. She said what finally drove her out of Planned Parenthood were the monthly statistics. The most important statistic was how many young children, as young as 12, are you getting on birth control pills, because the younger you get them on birth control pills, the more likely they will miss days, but they will be sexually active, multiple partners, and the more likely they will get pregnant, and we make a lot of money off the abortions. So the most critical thing: get them on those birth control pills.

Where in the world does that end up being good for the child? Where?

We have people in China; they abort female children right and left. Let's speak up for the females, for the unborn. Give them a chance. Let them live. You will be better. They will be better.

This is an important week in history as I was taught in law school that courts do not take up cases to merely give an advisory opinion, that there has to be someone who is actually harmed by some action about which they are suing.

As we know, in the Roe v. Wade case, at the time it was adjudicated, there was no justiciable issue. The plaintiff in that case now publicly states she was used by the pro-abortion groups, she was manipulated, and that she has suffered because of what the pro-abortion groups talked her into. She has dedicated her life to try to undo the wrong that has been done purportedly for her.

So I appreciate my friends' speaking up. As I said, in my case, I will never forget my child, many weeks early, holding on, breathing rapidly, but doing everything she could to live.

Most of us have seen the in utero photograph of an unborn baby, an unborn child, grasping the finger of a doctor. They want to live. They want to grow. They want to be. They want to know.

Though my child couldn't see me with her eyes because they weren't far developed, as the doctor said: She knows your voice. You give her comfort because she knows your voice.

We heard testimony in our Judiciary Committee previously from a doctor who did maybe 1,000, I think he said, late-term abortions. It is difficult to take as he described.

Of course, the female body is not able to birth or get rid of a child without intervention, so if somebody wants an abortion of a child that is further along and is developed, he described--and I won't use the detail he did because it gets me too emotional.

He would go in with clamps, find something that felt like an arm or a

leg, grasp hold, pull it off from the body, dispose of that, reach for something else that felt like an arm or a leg and pull it off, because the body with the head and the limbs attached cannot be brought out.

He would rip one after another the two arms and the two legs off. Then, as he would describe, the last thing you reach for is something bulbous, and when you find it, you have to crush it so you can get the child out of the womb.

After he lost his daughter in a tragic accident, he simply could not pull another child apart like that. He gave it up and regretted all of those abortions that he had done with no feeling until he lost his own daughter in an accident.

I want to say I appreciate Majority Leader Hoyer bringing up a request that people speak civilly about each other. I get pretty frustrated with some folks here, some in the Senate, and that is just my own party.

But I keep hearing--and we have heard this in the Judiciary Committee. We have had hearings on it. People keep wanting to say that the biggest problem is this rising anti-Islam hate crime body that is emerging.

But we have got the numbers here from 2015, 2016, 2017. Even one hate-based crime is too many. There were 257 incidents in 2015 involving anti-Islamic feelings, hatred, prejudice, 307 victims. That can include yelling, but normally, the offenses, there were 301.

But anti-Jewish, in 2015, there were 664 incidents, 695 offenses, and 731 victims. That is pretty much 2 to 3 to 1 more anti-Jewish hate crime offenses and incidents than anti-Islamic. One is too many, but I hope that people who are in the House will cease the anti-Israel bigotry and the anti-Israel hatred.

After 6 million Jews were slaughtered during World War II, before that and leading up to it, they needed a place, and, of course, it satisfied and fulfilled a great deal of prophecy that Israel came back. There are no descendants of anyone who preceded the Jewish people in that area currently alive. Yet there is so much hatred for the Jewish people.

I saw it in Germany last year. I couldn't believe I was seeing hatred rising again. Much of it was from people who were refugees, but it is shocking.

Germany was trying to show the world how loving, open, and accepting they were, so they took in all of these refugees, most of whom were Muslim, and now they have all this anti-Jewish hatred. So, hopefully, this House can set the proper precedent by stopping the anti-Semitic comments.

For heaven's sake, I have been mad at Senator Graham over different things, but one of our House Members accused him of being compromised and then made allegations insinuating that he is really hateful. So I am hopeful that my friends across the aisle will be able to avoid going to those hateful places so that we can have rigorous, tough debate without trying to assassinate character.

One of the places we see a tremendous amount of bigotry, hatred, and racism is in the Judeo-Samaritan areas from the Palestinian Authority. It is unbelievable that, in today's time, an area the United States is sending a tremendous amount of money, that we would be mute while the Palestinian Authority sentences a man apparently of Arab descent, Issam Akel. He is a U.S. citizen. But he was abducted by Palestinian Authority intelligence October 11 in Ramallah, and he has now been sentenced to life at hard labor because he sold what they say is Palestinian property to a Jew.

That is incredible. We are sending them money to help cultivate that kind of bigotry and hatred against Jews? Really? This day and time we are doing that? It needs to stop.

I have seen literature that is being used in Palestinian areas to teach children to hate Jews, to think of them, as Farrakhan said, like termites or rats, for heaven's sake. Then I see friends across the aisle in pictures embracing Farrakhan as he has said some of the most hateful, vile, mean-spirited, and bigoted comments about our Jewish friends. Really?

I would share the desire and the hope that one day we really will achieve Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream where people are judged by the content of their character and it won't be necessary to ask people on forms what race they are.

I think it is important to know if people are citizens or not because that is how we arrive at how many Representatives, that kind of thing. Those are important things. It helps a lot with governmental decisions when we know who is a citizen and who isn't, that kind of thing.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the day we don't have to ask race. Everybody would just check ``human race,'' and it won't matter. It doesn't matter if you are Hispanic, black, white, red, or green. It won't matter.

And I look so forward to that day. Then we won't need any groups that use race or skin color to delineate the group, because we will have other things and other priorities that draw our interests; and we will be determined by those kind of groups, not hate groups, but groups that come together because of shared interests, and race doesn't matter. I look forward to those days.

But in the Palestinian areas, the Palestinian Authority is multiplying the hate, and we keep funding them. I was glad we cut back some of the money being sent that is still being spent and still going there.

The other thing that we keep hearing more about than anything is how hateful, immoral, and mean-spirited walls are, even though everybody who talks about walls has an outer wall around their home or their apartment building. Whatever they live in, there is an outer wall.

Why? Madam Speaker, it is because you don't want everybody coming and parading through your home unless you invite them.

Yes, Madam Speaker, just because there are burglars who can get past your dead bolt lock or break through your window, you still have a wall. You still have dead bolts because it will help slow people down from trying to get in, and hopefully they will be caught before they can get in and do damage.

Hopefully, just the presence of an outer wall around your home--I understand most people want to have interior walls to give family members some privacy, but if walls are immoral, why would you have one around your home, the outer wall of your home? It is because they work. They are not immoral.

Some people say, oh, it is a 14th century solution. Actually, it is more like a 3000 B.C. solution.

I have a picture in my office of some of our military there at a place called Ur, where Abraham came from. There has been a massive wall there since about 3000 B.C.

They are used to slow down people whom you don't want coming in without your permission.

So it isn't a 21st century problem with having people walk into your home or homeland unimpeded. It is as old as humanity itself, and walls can help.

Madam Speaker, that is why I had the picture the other day, earlier this week, of the huge fence barrier that was put up at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, because the people in charge there--and Hillary Clinton was the nominal head of the party, being the nominee. Those folks understood those help keep out people you don't want in.

Nobody told the head of the Democratic National Committee, including their nominee, that fences, barriers, and walls don't work. So they had it out there on full display because they didn't want anybody coming in they didn't want there, and that includes people who were not delegates or the people they wanted. They knew that walls, fencing, and barriers would work, but only if you have security there to watch over them.

So it is a good thing. So we had that picture.

Then here is a picture of a wall and fence. A lot of people say Israel has a wall around it, because they do have some wall, but most of it is fence. It works because they guard it.

We ought to be doing the same thing because, if we allow this Nation to continue to have people pouring in, even people who pour in well motivated, coming in illegally, they haven't been educated on how you keep a self-governing country, and you lose it.

Mostly, in history, they haven't lasted 200 years. That is about the end. We are beyond that. But we are headed to the dustbin of history unless we begin to teach all those here how you keep a republic.

And I know some have been miseducated and think socialism is the way to go--oh, it is so much more caring; you have got billionaires pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars--because they think, when all is said and done, they will be part of that top ruling class. In socialism you never have just one class--that is the way it is sold--but you have the big, powerful, rich ruling class, like oligarchs in Russia, and then you have the ruled class.

Actually, I saw it firsthand as an exchange student in the Soviet Union. You have got the rulers and you have got the ruled, and you don't really have a middle class. It is not a good way to live because you have got to have a totalitarian government, as Khrushchev found out when he tried to come up with a plan to get rid of government and go just to the ``share and share alike'' philosophy. He disbanded the commission because it didn't work. There is no way to ever go without a totalitarian government that tells you everything you can or can't do.

Anyway, Israel, walls work, fences work, those barriers work. And I think this is a lovely wall and fence.

My understanding is this one is part of--well, it protects the Hillary Clinton Chappaqua residence, Chappaqua, New York. Nobody has gotten word to Hillary Clinton, apparently, that these things don't work. You have got security. You have got the walls. You have got the fence.

I know she is saying otherwise now, but she knows. That is why she has got a wall and a fence. She knows it works. It is not immoral, trying to protect what you have got, protect the people you love, what you love.

There are just so many examples around the world.

I needed this marked. I believe this is Bill de Blasio's. I am not certain. I think this is his wall and fence because, even though he has said something like, ``They have got plenty of money; it is in the wrong hands,'' he doesn't realize he is one of the wrong hands it is in.

And if he would get rid of his wall, he could invite all those people into his home, and he could stop saying walls are immoral, because he got rid of his immoral wall.

And, obviously, for those who don't understand sarcasm, that is sarcasm.

And these are examples here of walls, fences that work. They keep people out.

Now, the Iron Curtain, that was a different matter, because they were keeping people in that didn't want to be in, shooting people that didn't stay in.

But they work. That is why they are around prisons. That is why they are around jails or jail facilities. Yes, they work. We have found that for thousands of years.

So I hope that we will be more realistic in the arguments and debates that go on here, stop the ridiculous rhetoric.

Everybody in here knows walls work. That is why their home has outer walls instead of just some partitions in the middle of the home where anybody can walk in and around and through their home. They know those walls work.

So let's talk about what most people in here have voted for. Let's get the government reopened because we agree to do something to stop the death, the human carnage, the rape, all of these horrendous things brought about by drug cartels controlling our southern border. Let's stop it. Let's dry up the cartels.

And for those who don't care about the Americans, if your number one goal is to help the people of Mexico, help the people of Central America as well, the thing to do is get a barrier, get a wall where we need it, but secure the whole thing. Then we dry up the money to the drug cartels and Mexico becomes a top ten economy; they have a burgeoning middle class and they have a better standard of living.

The best thing we can do for Mexico and Central America: build a wall where we need it; secure the border; cut off the money, then, flowing to the drug cartels; and give the people of Mexico a life they deserve.

Having some trickle in--they have got 130,000 or so in Mexico. Having a million come in a year, that is still not helping the people of Mexico, and it is bringing down our own country because we are not prepared and able to take care of such mass illegal invaders on top of the million-plus legal visas we give people to come in our country.

Why? Because we are the most generous country in the world when it comes to philanthropy and when it comes to giving visas, because we know it is a strength to have many races, to have many national origins.

But the one thing that I loved about 9/12--when we gathered in our town square and we held hands, we sang hymns together, we prayed together--that day, for that day, there was not a single hyphenated America out there. Every person there said, ``I am an American''--all races, creed, color, national origin, age. On 9/12, we were one nation, under God. And I hope and pray we can get back to that place.

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

Madam Speaker, it may have taken eighty-one years, but the doggedness and passion that fueled the city of Longview, Texas, to harness the great oil boom and a state championship title in 1937 has once again proven undauntable--resulting in the Longview High School Lobos capturing the top rung in Texas high school athletics to become the 2018 Class 6A Division II Texas State High School Football Champions.

As the Lobos' fight song attests, the team was determined to ``circle in and hit them hard'' when facing the tangle with the Beaumont West Brook Bruins, culminating in a thrilling 35-34 victory for the Wolf Pack in front of a spectacular throng numbering more than 48,000 strong, a big majority of which were apparently loyal Lobos fans.

The down-to-the-wire fight was the culmination of a perfect 16-0 season for the Lobos, and was even more gratifying since the Lobos had faced West Brook in the playoffs for three straight years. This was the first opportunity, however, for the two teams to grapple for the state trophy.

This represented the first top tier title opportunity for the Lobos after decades of near misses and close calls, providing passionate fans a long season to bask in the momentum and a history making trip to capture state wide bragging rights.

Though the Lobos were down at halftime 28 to 20, they certainly were not out because of their heart, their talent, their coaching and their community support. This was a Longview team that simply refused to stay down, and refused to lose.

And the Lobos earned those bragging rights in spectacular fashion, coming from behind in the closing minutes of the fourth quarter to secure a fantastic win. Trailing Beaumont West Brook 34-29 with 8:17 left in the 4th quarter, Quarterback Haynes King's outstanding passing pushed the Lobos offense to West Brook's red zone. Stalwart running back Jessie Anderson then punched through to the end zone, giving the Lobos a 35-34 lead with 4:42 left in the game. The Lobos were ahead by one, but played the odds and went for two points in case West Brook tried a field goal. Though the extra two-point conversion was unsuccessful, the two were unneeded because of the way the Lobo defense, yet again, rose to the occasion and crushed the Bruins' comeback attempt along with their hopes for victory.

No question Beaumont West Brook deserved to be in the State Championship, had an absolutely fabulous team, and played a stellar game. But the Longview Lobos proved they had everything a fan could want in an unbeatable football team. They made Longview, Gregg County, and all East Texas swell with pride.

The game's Offensive Most Valuable Player was Lobo quarterback Haynes King who was 16-of-27 for 423 passing yards. He connected on two touchdown passes and rushed for a touchdown as part of his 65 rushing yards.

Kamden Perry secured a Class 6A state championship game record of 8 catches for 218 yards including a 77-yard touchdown catch. Perry's amazing reception record was joined by Kaden Kearbey's great catches that added another 87 yards, which included a touchdown on a 40-yard catch.

Kyas Moore, who also has another year to play with the Lobos, caught a breathtaking pass that took Longview 54 yards down the field on their 4th quarter go-ahead drive.

Though Jessie Anderson's total rushing yards was not his high this year, he showed once again how incredibly valuable he is to this championship team. His two touchdowns on two punishing runs showed him to be a weapon that is anything but secret. In fact, his second touchdown was the final and go-ahead score of the game.

The Lobo defense showed the huge crowd at Cowboy Stadium in Arlington that both sides of the ball deserved to be State Champs. Tyshawn Taylor made 11 brutal tackles, including pairing with a crashing hit by Ja'Vontae Writt, creating a final Bruin drive-stop because of its recovery by Micheal Martin with 1:02 left in the game.

The Defensive Most Valuable Player was Jephaniah Lister with a team- high 12 tackles. Yet another defensive standout was Isiah Rodgers who had 10 tackles and one broken up pass. Of course the play of Robert Pierce and Jaylon Allen have to be mentioned as they both participated in an important sack.

As many college and pro teams have learned, a team must have a good kicker to be of championship caliber which is exactly what the Lobos have in J.K. Martin, who kicked a fourth quarter 28-yard field goal, and four times prevented any runback at all with touchbacks in the end zone. He also showed college quality in averaging 44 yards on his two punts.

Proving who had the better offense not only with the score, Longview had 569 yards of total offense compared to 493 by West Brook.

After the Lobo go-ahead score in the 4th quarter, West Brook Bruins took the Lobo kick off and began their drive to try to retake the lead. But that is when the crushing blow created the fumble Martin recovered. Even then the game was not on ice until a first down was made by a long run by Keilyn Williams to create a first and goal with only 2:08 to play, but Longview showed its grace in victory by taking a knee until the clock ran out and the Lobos' stellar win was secure.

It is an esteemed honor to pay tribute to the members of the 2018 state championship Longview Lobos team: Otarvio Buchanan, Jephaniah Lister, Kybrien Jackson-Jamerson, Ja'vontae Writt, Ty'monyahe Abney, Jessie Anderson, Cedric Hopkins, Dylan Davis, Jacob Johnson, Daquavion Randall, Jy'christon Baxter, Haynes King, Marqualon Haynes, Kamden Perry, Jayden Williams, Jecoby Jackson, Jordan Malone, Spiro Mijalis, Da'kiemion Mumphrey, Datravious Nelson, Micheal Martin, Markevion Haynes, J.K. Martin, Tyree Hale, Kameron Sublett, Keith Halton, Dalton Serrato, Kaden Kearbey, Jacobie Bowman, Keilyn Williams, Patrick Webb, Cameron Wilson, Jakobe Ross, Isiah Rodgers, Jaharious Jones, Jamien Horne, Dezmond Armstrong, Reginald Hutchins, De'leon Jones, Tainique Taylor, Aisaiah Taylor, Charlie Templeton, Shannon Jackson, Kevin Jones, Robert Vinson, Tyshawn Taylor, De'cameron Thomas, Kaden Meredith, Jacorey Valentine, Lavayvian Godlock, Davyon Mitchell, Laqualon Hale, Asiyas Hall, Alex Zulueta, Hunter Jones, Coy Sanders,

Corey Evans, Davian Reese, Harvey Boyd, Dasabrian Parker, Logan Noguera, Logan Peters, Dakirin Buchanan, Ruben Flores, Robert Pierce, Xavier Blanton, Andrew Beltran, Brandon Snyder, Bryant Arthur III, Timothy Polk, Syre Moore, Kaleb Snoddy, Jahkamian Carr, Daniel Mancha, Devin Brooks, Bailey Smith, Xabier Evans, Isaiah George, Joaquin Tovar, Leundrae Craven, Brady Miller, Kevon Green, Brian Bell, Jacob Warner, Marcus Williams, Alessandro Lazalde, Marcus Harry, Gavin Roberts, Jhy'mhriyon Gay, Jamie Jones, Connor Cox, Parker Cox, Cedric Smith, Daniel Warner, Lakeithan Duffey, Jonathan Tutt, Logan Washburn, Eliyjah Cox, Elijah Byrd, Malik Miller, Da'qwaylen Reed, Tavion Sterling, Trevor Ford, David Parks, Kaylon Allen, Damykal Mcmillan, Anthony Parker, Jakeilan Howard, Quintele Jackson, Kyas Moore, Trevor N. Tamplin, Miguel Maldonado, Daze Wallace, Kenterias Parker, Asriel Jones, Austin Pencheon, Jorge Rebollar, Samuel Mijalis, Jhailon Braden, Asontte Smith, Aiden Diaz, Jaydyn James-Rollins, Michael Mavhunga, Antonio Onofre, Sawyer Goram-Welch, Joe Jones, Kiyaus Ingram, Owen Kuenemann, Spencer Powell, Jonathon Davis, Jared Reese, Carlos Vazquez, Jordan Wallace, and Jaylon Allen.

The Lobos are a perfect representation of what can be accomplished when a team possesses both perseverance and discipline, combined with motivation, guidance, and resolve from an experienced and proficient coaching staff. Among those individuals committed to ``Making A Difference: One Student At A Time'' are: Superintendent Dr. James Wilcox; Assistant Superintendent Secondary Education James Brewer, Athletic Director/Head Football Coach John King; Assistant Athletic Director Johnny Hamilton; Football Staff consisting of Oscar Wilson, Chris Vallery, Jon Writt, C.J. Lottinger, David Ashley, Casey Pearce, Randy Huffstickler, Scott Hartt, Chris Lashley, Brandon Bonds, Trevor Murphy, Brad Faulkner, Tracy Carpenter, Jalen Claiborne, Robert Hanna, Cade Carnett; Athletic Trainers Deirdre Scotter, Jessica Hill, Kristin Croley; as well as Band Director Tommy Moore, Viewette Director Deborah Mcgowan, and Cheerleader Sponsor Heather Gee.

It is with great pride that I join with the citizens of Longview, as well as the entire First District of Texas, in congratulating the Longview Lobos on their State Football Championship. This is an outstanding accomplishment, and may God continue to bless these young people, along with their families, friends and neighbors in Longview.

Madam Speaker, we hear that walls don't work, yet this is a picture of the Democratic National Convention in 2016. They put up a barrier. They put up a fence because they wanted to protect themselves like people in America want to protect themselves.

And there is a lovely gate, wall. They have them everywhere there is something that needs to be secured. Every single Democrat who is standing against securing our border has an outer wall to their home.

If walls don't work, they can eliminate that. People can come and go as they please. But they know deep down in their hearts, they secure their dead bolts. They secure their home. They may even have a wall around their outer wall because walls work.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding to me.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for not only her service but also this Special Order. This is such an important issue.

Madam Speaker, having spent so many nights all night on the border, it is incredible what you see down there. But what is even worse is what the Border Patrol can tell you about, things that you can find on the internet, there are videos and there are pictures. I have daughters, and there are some things I would just rather not see.

But as long as our border is porous and as long as we don't have a wall or a fence where we need it, people are being drawn into this country. Mexico alone has about 130 million people. Obviously we can't have an influx of 100 million people without destroying the economy, and then we are no longer able to provide light to so much of the world.

But if we secure our border--wall, fence, barrier--where we need it, it cuts off the tens of billions--maybe over 100 billion now--going to the drug cartels and the corruption comes to a crawl. But as long as we have this porous border, we are funding some of the most evil and horrendous human tragedy that is going on anywhere in the world.

The police try to stand up--it is not hard to see pictures, find the stories--mayor--they end up with their head cut off and put on a pike.

How callous, how mean-spirited does somebody have to be and how politically driven to say ``we don't care about that''? This is a political issue. We don't want the President to have a win, so we are just going to let the border stay as porous as it is.

They talk of rape trees where women are tied to the trees and repeatedly raped. Objectively groups say that maybe 37 percent or more are molested sexually, normally multiple times. How callous do you have to be to say, yeah, but this is political. It is helping our party. We want to keep it going.

It is time to do the right thing by the people of the United States and, for heaven's sake, to do the right thing by the people of Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Clarification of Remarks

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Iowa, for his comments. I have traveled with him, been to different parts of the country and different parts of the world with my friend, Mr. King from Iowa. I have seen him dealing with different races, nationalities around the world. And I have had a lot of private conversations and never seen anything that indicated anything but condemnation for white supremacists.

But he is a proud American. He is an American; he is very proud of it. And he is proud to carry the moniker of being an American in any situation, and I would contend that is not a bad thing.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches on the floor here this week. There has been a great deal of righteous indignation and constant condemnation for a shutdown. It is deeply troubling. There are some people working who are not getting paid. I would like to see that fixed.

But President Trump got his answer this week when he continued to try to compromise with Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi, trying to get a compromise.

I was delighted to hear Majority Leader Hoyer mention that we have to have compromise. It is how things are

supposed to work. I agree with the tone o that comment, but it is not a compromise to say I will give you a dollar for the border wall when it is such a serious matter, and especially when we have a history of people making comments on the Democratic side as well as the Republican side about the need for border security, the need for either a wall, a barrier, a fence, but tough, tight border security for the country, which is the most generous country, not only philanthropically. There has never been a country that has given more, done more, without any request in return, but just out of the goodness of Americans' hearts, for other parts of the world. We do that. We care deeply.

But the only way you can have people who are giving and who have money to share and spare is if we have a vibrant economy here. Otherwise, America continued the move we saw during the last administration where the middle class kept shrinking, the poor got much bigger, and the rich, well, it is easiest to put it this way: We have never had a time in the United States history, never, when the policies of an administration would have the effect that the Obama administration had.

Here is what President Obama acknowledged: For the first time in American history, 95 percent of American income went to the top 1 percent.

But that is what happens as you move more and more toward a socialist form of government. You will have the rich ruling class, virtually no middle class, and then you have everybody equal in the poor ruled class.

That is where socialism goes, and that is where this country has been heading as young people have been miseducated and not been informed that socialism has never worked. It will never work. It always leads to totalitarianism. You can't have socialism without totalitarianism.

One might ask, why do we have so many billionaires supporting socialism, the Democratic cause, the progressivism, as they call it? Well, it is because they see themselves being in the rich ruling class once they get rid of the middle class. It helps to get rid of the middle class if you keep bringing illegal immigrants into the country so they take the jobs of Americans. But never forget the cost of that.

Here are some quotes:

``Well, look, I voted numerous times when I was a Senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders.'' That was Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

She was asked: ``Would you commit tonight that you would finish the fence and speed up the construction?''

And she said: ``Both Senator Obama and I voted for that as part of the immigration debate . . . . We were voting for the possibility that, where it was appropriate and made sense, it would be considered.''

So she was watering it down already a little bit from where she had been before.

But Senator Barack Obama said: ``We fail to protect our Nation if we do not regain control over our immigration system immediately.''

It is really heartbreaking to hear people that I like condemn as hateful and immoral a wall like they have around their house. The walls of the houses themselves show that wall works. The fact that so many people in this body at night, the last thing they do, they make sure all the doors are locked. It didn't used to be that way.

If you are in a gated community and you have really tight security in your gated community, you may not need to lock your doors. You may feel safe enough without that. But most will secure their doors, not because a burglar can't break through and get into their home, but because walls work. They are secure in slowing down people who would be trespassers, burglars, long enough, hopefully, for either the police to arrive or for the homeowner to be prepared for the burglar coming in. That is the hope.

I mean, that is why people don't just have a roof. They have walls around their home. People that they don't want to come in and interrupt their families don't come unless they are invited. That is the way the immigration system works.

So I would encourage all my friends who say walls don't work, go home this weekend and get a contractor to destroy your outer walls. If you have a wall or fence around your home, you have a gated community, tell them, demand, that the walls, the gates, they all be destroyed and say: ``Walls don't work. I have been saying it over and over on the House floor and in the media, CNN, MSNBC, `Walls don't work,' so I am going to eliminate the hypocrisy that some could see in my life. I am going to eliminate the outer wall of my home, because walls don't work. I am not going to have a door anymore, no walls, because walls don't work.''

That is what needs to happen this weekend to avoid--some people I really care deeply about, I don't want them to look like hypocrites. I want them to look fine and upstanding, but you have to eliminate the walls of your house, because walls don't work, according to you.

The righteous indignation that we have heard this week and in prior weeks about the shutdown, I want to put the focus on people who are working right now and who may not get their next paycheck if Speaker Pelosi and Schumer do not at least agree to some compromise, something, not continue to say no to a wall, no to a barrier.

Then when he says: Okay, I will compromise. It won't be concrete. It will be steel. There is a compromise.

They said: Oh, now we see you don't have a definite plan.

Well, yeah. He is trying to compromise with people who disagree with him. Fine, but if you are going to compromise, you are going to do it with the President: Okay, I will compromise. We will make it a steel wall.

Okay, we will compromise, and we will have barriers.

Let's work it out, what we will have.

Oh, see, they say: He doesn't have a plan. We need to see exactly what his plan is.

Oh, he has got a plan, but you said under no circumstances would you agree. He has been compromising. That is what it is called. That is what he is trying to do. And that is what we have been wanting to do here in the House. Let's have a compromise. But don't say under no circumstances will you ever agree to any kind of wall, fence, barrier and then say: There is our compromise. That is not a compromise.

And if people would just go back and look at what they have said in the past, it will be much easier for them to reach this compromise: Oh, I forgot I said that. I did.

And I know they wouldn't have said it in prior years if they hadn't meant it.

Now, some of my friends across the aisle are saying, well, we don't need a wall. We need a virtual wall: the drones, the cameras, and that kind of thing. Well, you also do need a barrier or those things don't work.

And, in fact, under the prior administration that had, as I recall, about $8 billion to create a virtual wall in support of securing our border, there was one little out that they had to avoid doing any of that, and that was if the administration declared virtual walls wouldn't work, the technology wouldn't work. And that is what Secretary Napolitano did.

I can't find out what they did with the $8 billion in the prior administration since they didn't spend it on the drones and the technology, but they declared, in the prior administration, that that kind of thing doesn't work, and so they weren't going to spend money on it.

Now they come back some years later and say: Well, do you know what? We think we were wrong before. Those kind of things do work. The technology, that is what we need.

Why they are saying that now, when they disagreed some years back, is because President Trump, who creates PTSD--President Trump stress disorder. They are suffering from the PTSD, the President Trump stress disorder. And now, in that condition, they are saying: It doesn't matter what he wants. We are not agreeing to anything he wants, period. He has to have total capitulation, and that is our offered compromise.

Going back just a little bit again, you had this comment: ``When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel

a flush of patriotic resentment. When I'm forced to use a translator to communicate with a guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.''

My friends may recognize the name. That was Senator Barack Obama.

You have another here: ``The American people are fundamentally pro- legal immigration. . . . ''

And put me in that category, too.

But he said: ``The American people are fundamentally pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. We will only pass comprehensive reform when we recognize this fundamental concept. . . . First, illegal immigration is wrong, and a primary goal of comprehensive immigration reform must be to dramatically curtail future illegal immigration.''

That is what President Trump is trying to do. That is what we are trying to do.

By the way, that was Senator Schumer who said that.

We had a President that recently said: ``I'll tell you what we can't have; it's these parents sending their kids here on a dangerous journey and putting their lives at risk.''

That was President Barack Obama in 2015.

I have several pages of quotes from Democratic friends who have been supportive in the past of what we are asking for now. Let's not play politics with this. Let's just help the American people.

I got a great quote from President Clinton in his State of the Union back in 1995, when he felt like the Republicans do now.

Here is a good quote: ``It's a competition for space.''

I don't buy that, but this is what was said by a Democrat: ``It's a competition for space. Whether the space is a job, the space is a home, a place in a classroom, it becomes a competition for space. This is a country that's based on immigration. And we all know that. . . . And yet, at times you become so overtaxed you have to concentrate on saying, `The people who should be here are those who come legally at this time.' And we've got to, for the time being, enforce our borders.''

That was a well-educated Senator named Dianne Feinstein on a visit to the border. And, yes, it was some years back.

And again, I have got lots of these quotes. Here is one.

``Do we have a commitment to secure the border? Yes. What are the options that we have available to us; let's make sure they work. . . . Because we do need to address the issue of immigration and the challenge we have of undocumented people in our country. We certainly do not want any more coming in.''

And I agree with Speaker Pelosi when she said that previously in the last Democratic majority. That was made in 2008. That helped the Democrats keep the majority for a second term.

And now, I think, to put the needs of the American people behind the desires of people who want to come in illegally is a big mistake. You will erode and destroy this country's ability to be the most philanthropic, to be a country that every year produces cleaner air or cleaner water, like Texas has. You erode that ability. Because when people are struggling financially, the thoughts of a cleaner environment and helping others fall behind the desires of just making enough to feed their family. We have seen it throughout history. It is important to secure our border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Florida (Mr. Yoho), a real patriot. I don't believe he minds being called a patriot.

Do they secure their doors and secure their cities because they hate people who are not part of their home or their city?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida. We have been friends for a long time, and I know how deeply my friend, Representative Yoho, cares about this country and about the people who are under our charge.

This poster has some more recent folks. You have heard about Officer Singh, who was recently killed by a person illegally in the country. That is the charge. Pierce Corcoran, 22 years old, and I was hearing his parents talk about him yesterday; Justin James Dennis Lee, 14 years old, a cute kid; Steven Marler, his family would love to have him back. Some of these were not intentional murders. Some of these were accidents, some by drunk drivers, and some by negligent homicide, but they killed Americans.

Grayson Hacking, she was 22 months old. It is a little harder. Ellie Jean Bryant reminds me of one of mine, killed when she was 4 years old; Blake Michael Zieto, he was 20; Chrishia Odette, 13; Rocky Jones, 51.

Now, Dominic Durden's mother is a friend of mine, and I know how she has suffered--she is a single mom--at the loss of Dominic. He sounds like he was an absolutely awesome young man. Then there is Shayley Estes and Grant Ronnebeck. He was 21.

I got to see a little bit of my friend Sean Hannity's show last night and I saw these names scrolling, and I was going: Oh, my gosh. Look at those names. And there is a website his producer, Linda, directed me to that they were using that has lists of names. There are three columns, in case someone can't see, three columns of names.

This isn't everybody that has been killed by illegal immigrants. So knowing people who have lost family members to illegal immigrant homicides, it is difficult to absorb the pious, righteous indignation that we have sometimes heard here on the House floor about the shutdown. It sounds like callousness on this floor, potential callousness to the murders and the deaths of so many Americans that would not have happened if Congress had done its job.

And it breaks my heart to think of the murders and the homicides, negligent homicides and otherwise, that will occur if we continue to fail to do our job, which is, I would submit, a part of our oath.

Our oath is not to protect and defend people who want to break into this country illegally. That is not the people for whom and to whom we took an oath.

I have heard from teachers who were saying: My heart breaks for these groups of kids that are thrown into our classrooms that don't speak English. But my heart also breaks for the American citizens and legal residents who are not getting the education anymore that they would have gotten had we not had so many illegal immigrants thrown into the classroom. We can't take care of both. We can't teach them both because if we try to concentrate on the people who don't speak English that are illegally here--and I am hearing from teachers saying, we are getting them constantly.

We are getting more people, and we are not prejudiced against anybody, but we can't teach them and the students who are legally here because they can't learn at the same level. So what happens? The American citizens, the legal residents, people who are legally here, they are not getting the education that they would get otherwise.

I would just submit, before I yield again to my friend from Florida, this is a compassionate country. It is one of the things I am proud about. But I ask the question, Mr. Speaker: What is more compassionate? Is it to allow people to flood into America illegally when we know 37 percent of the girls are being sexually assaulted, normally multiple times; 17 percent of the young boys are being sexually molested on the way, as they are drawn toward the United States to come in illegally; and every day another girl is pulled into sex trafficking that would not be if our border weren't so porous.

Is that compassionate or is it more compassionate, looking at the situation--and I love Mexico. They have got some of the most beautiful places in the world. My wife and I honeymooned there 40 years ago and we loved it. I got certified in an hour to scuba dive. It was a great certification process, and I loved scuba diving. It was just beautiful. They have got incredible beauty in Mexico and in Central America.

They have more natural resources than most countries in the world. They have got actually a better location in Mexico and Central America for commerce than North America does. They are between two continents, two oceans. They ought to be one of the very top economies in the world. There is one reason they are not, and that is the corruption.

Where does the corruption come from? It comes from the tens of billions of dollars that Americans pour into the drug cartels. Because they are getting money for people coming up here from human trafficking; they are getting money from sex trafficking; they are getting money from the drug trafficking that is going on in the U.S., and it is funding corruption.

We have got places where the police won't step up because they know they will get killed like the last ones that stepped up. It ought to be a top economy in the world. It ought to have a burgeoning, huge middle class that is thriving and doing so well. It is not because we have a porous border, and we are funding the corruption in Mexico.

They have got some of the hardest working people in the world. I know some. It would be so much better for the people of Mexico if we would secure our border, cut off the money to the drug cartels, and let them become what they could be if we weren't funding the corruption through our porous border.

So I ask my friend from Florida if he would agree that the compassionate thing to do is to secure our border, if our only goal was to help all of the people in Mexico.

Please.

It is worse.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, Representative Yoho from Florida, not just for his eloquent comments, but also for his friendship and his deep, abiding love for America.

There are three rows of names on each of these, and these are just a part of the people who have been killed by people who came into the United States illegally.

I would like to go back to the place I honeymooned with my wife, one of the prettiest places on Earth, Las Hadas.

For our 25th anniversary we went to Cancun. But I am not comfortable going back now. I read recently near Cancun cartels had some people killed. I want Mexico to return to being a safe place to go. There was a time when the cartels would not do anything like murder around any of the tourist attractions because tourism was so important to Mexico. That has gone by the way. The corruption is terrible. People who stand up many times pay with their lives or family members' lives.

I have heard people here on the floor say that this is a manufactured crisis and that, of course, the megaphone that is used in places like CNN, MSNBC, and others repeat the same exact talking points. I don't have any talking points here from the President, the White House, or from Republicans. This is just coming from the heart and from the facts.

We are in trouble. This little experiment in self-government our Founders knew would not go on forever. They knew it would go on for only so long as we could keep it. As Ben Franklin said:

It is a Republic, madam, if you can keep it.

I know a lot of my friends across the aisle think they are acting from compassion when they say: let's leave these borders wide open, and let's do a blanket amnesty for everybody who can get here.

But as someone who has worked in our legal system, our judicial system, much of my adult life, I do believe with all its faults--and there are plenty--it is the best legal system the world has ever known.

One of those legal doctrines that has evolved over the years because it is fair, it has been deemed to be fair by Americans, I think it exists in every State, it has a strange name for a doctrine, attractive nuisance.

Mr. Speaker, most Americans know inherently or through education that if you have something like a swimming pool or a really cool playground and you don't put a fence around it, then if someone comes and is hurt in that swimming pool or drowns or falls in the playground, or is killed or hurt in some way, the landowner that refused to put up a fence or a wall or something to keep people from getting to that attraction are held financially liable, and they have to pay financially to those who have suffered, or, in the case of a death, to the family of those who have suffered. That has been considered one of the great doctrines of our legal system.

But thankfully for people here in the House and Senate, we haven't applied that sound doctrine to the fact that America has become a lure, a draw, and it is drawing people by the thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands. Some die on the way here or when they get here. Some are pulled into sex trafficking, their lives are destroyed.

I have been there so many times when it is not on their lists of questions to ask, but many times they ask: How much did you pay to get into this country?

The response was 5, 6, 7, $8,000.

Where did you get that kind of money?

Well, $1,000 here, $1,500 there.

Where are you getting the rest from?

The drug cartels are who get the money.

They are going to let me work it off when I get where I am going.

I have watched them hand over different addresses. 2, 3 in the morning, while the Border Patrol is coming down and asking the questions, getting the information; they pass around a different address.

I have seen them say, basically: Do you want to claim this child?

No, you claim the child.

Mr. Speaker, you don't know how many are unaccompanied and who are accompanied by people who they shouldn't be.

Let's stop luring people to their demise or to their despair. Let's continue to be the most generous country in the world when it comes to allowing people in legally, as we do. As my friend, Congressman Yoho, pointed out, over 1 million visas legally a year. Nobody else does that. China? Russia? Nobody does that. We do.

But let's make sure it is legal; that it is not MS-13 gang members who are going to repeatedly stab a young boy or girl and rape women. Let's make sure that it is not drug cartels sending people in.

I hear people say: well, there is not that much drugs that comes across our border on the south.

Mr. Speaker, I have been there too many times, and the Border Patrol will tell you, down there at 2 and 3 in the morning: look, they just sent over 20 in a raft.

You hear it on the radio. They call all the Border Patrolmen in. They start processing the people, and as the Border Patrolmen will tell you, that is when they send in the illegal drugs.

The two guys who said that we got pinned down a while ago by a 50- caliber--there is no mistake about that 50-caliber when it is fired-- and we were hunkered down behind the tanks wondering what high value individual or what big drug shipment are they bringing across right now when they know we don't have anything that stops a 50-caliber.

Look, the drugs are coming in. We have been there when we used thermal technology--I say, we, it was the Texas Department of Public Safety that gave that information by radio to the Border Patrol. They float up a balloon. They use their thermal technology.

They say: oh, yeah, we see those two or three people here. Apparently they are carrying drugs, some big thing they are bringing in. Here are 17, 18 people, they are not carrying anything; they are clearly just trying to come in illegally.

They would find the people that we would tell them about as they float up the balloons and get to zoom in. In the end, they said: okay, we have got all the people. We are processing all the groups that you saw that appear to be just trying to come in illegally. But the ones who appeared to be bringing in drugs, they knew some little way and they got away, so we didn't catch any of those guys.

That goes on every day, every night. Who dies from those illegal drugs coming in?

The compassionate thing for Mexico, for Central America, and for the people to whom we owe our oath, is to secure the border. Build a barrier where we have got to have it to secure the border, and let's stop Americans dying unnecessarily, so we can save the righteous indignation in this room for those who have died because we did not do our job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 22 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, January 14, 2019, at noon for morning-hour debate.