Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, Supreme Court Justices are already protected. Really? Really? They are already protected?

The Speaker said no one is in danger, no one is in danger after an assassination attempt. I don't know if I would feel very protected. On the very day of the assassination attempt, in violation of the law, protesters are at the very house of the Supreme Court Justice being intimidated by protesters.

The Speaker says that no one is in danger. I don't want to engage in personalities, so I might say a high-ranking official on the other side of the Capitol here said: You have released the whirlwind; you don't know what will hit you. And then down the street, Pennsylvania Avenue, a high-ranking official said there might be a mini-revolution.

Does that not sound like intimidation to you? It sure sounds like it to me. I don't know what my friends on the other side of the aisle want to happen. I don't know. I am not in their heads, and I am not in their hearts. But I listen to what they say, and I watch what they do. We should have passed this much longer ago when it was available to us, and the fact that we didn't might be the cause for people to come to assassinate a United States Supreme Court Justice.

This is not a third-world country. If you don't get your way, you don't blow up the Court and kill the Justices. But, apparently, that is what some people in America think is appropriate. It is not appropriate. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, reality TV. I think most of us are familiar with reality TV. You are going to see some of that tonight. Now, when reality TV first started, people watched that, they were enthusiastic about it, maybe a little intoxicated at times.

I don't know how many shows you had to watch. I don't know how many iterations you had to watch, Madam Speaker, before you figured out, well, this really isn't reality. This isn't even real, right? The drama was contrived, the relationships made up. I suppose it was all to make you feel better about your own life, watching the crazy, unhinged existence of these aberrant things on TV.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are going to see some more reality TV tonight, on this January 6th alleged committee. I call it an alleged committee because it is not really a committee. There is no minority. There is no minority on the committee. I know because I am in the minority. When you have a committee basis, you have the majority, they pick their members, and the minority picks their members. But when the majority picks members for the minority, they are the majority. It is all one side. What you are going to hear is a one-sided tale.

Madam Speaker, this is not a court of law, but it is kind of like trying to be one in front of the public, trying to act like it is a court of law for the public to decide. It is a show trial. This is a Soviet-style show trial.

Unfortunately, there are huge things happening in people's lives right now. They are paying the highest prices they have ever paid to drive back and forth to work or to daycare or to get their kids to school or if they can even afford a vacation. If you have got a small child, you are worrying every day, am I going to be able to get formula to feed my child? Of course, we have got this border crisis, cost of living, supply chain, all that stuff, and we are spending millions of dollars.

This should actually be a campaign contribution to my friends on the left. The FEC should make them file a report. Millions and millions of taxpayer dollars for a show trial, a Soviet-style charade.

How do we know? We know so many ways. We know in so many ways. Like I said, we are going to get one side of a story. The outcome has already been determined, Madam Speaker, by the people on this so-called committee. They issued subpoenas. But they didn't tell the people they issued the subpoenas to; they told the press. Does that sound like how things normally go in a court of law where due process is happening?

But this isn't a court of law. You are just supposed to believe it is one. You are also supposed to believe there is due process. But there isn't. You are supposed to believe that this is seeking the truth, that this is seeking some kind of justice, that this is a fact-finding mission for which the legislature will then promulgate laws to make sure that mistakes made in the past never happen again.

Ladies and gentlemen, it couldn't be further from the truth.

How do I know? How do you know? Because these folks have hired the producer from ABC for this prime time show. We could be having this alleged hearing right now. I am here right now. My colleagues are here right now. Madam Speaker, you are in the chair right now, but this is being delayed until prime time with a TV producer, because it is a show. That is all it is.

These are the same folks that if you want to call it evidence, they took somebody's text message, and they changed it to say what they wanted it to say. If it is evidence, they just tampered with evidence.

Madam Speaker, this is an abomination. This is an outrage. This is an affront to our American Republic and to the order and the rule of law and to justice.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend, for some comments about what is going to happen, what you are going to see tonight.

Absolutely.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. He is absolutely right.

Look, I don't think it is a mystery that many of us on this side of the aisle have no love for the FBI Director. It would be my choice to remove him immediately and get somebody effective that would do the job and restore the dignity of the FBI. But that having been said, he said there was no insurrection. He said there was no collusion.

And as you already probably know--or maybe you don't--you won't find out tonight--the President of the United States at that time ordered 20,000 troops to be authorized to come to protect the Capitol days in advance.

And as I said the day after, on January 7, I asked: What did the Speaker know and when did she know it? But we are not going to find that out, Madam Speaker. We are never going to know watching this show trial. This is something from a Third World country, where we use the instruments of Federal power to prevail upon and against our political adversary. That is what is happening right now.

What did the Speaker know and when did she know it? And what about the 20,000 troops that were authorized by the President of the United States in advance but never asked for by the Speaker of the House--and as a matter of fact, declined by the Mayor of Washington, D.C.

Madam Speaker, this is not the Mayor's city. This is not the Mayor's capital of the United States. This is the American people's capital. She has a duty and she failed in that duty. And now this sham organization called a committee here, where the Vice President is also the ranking member--not chosen by the minority. They just made it up. They could have chosen anybody off the street and said, that is who the ranking member is. And that is what they did because the verdict is already in for them.

They already know. They already know what the outcome is for them. There is no due process here. There is no fairness here. There is no other side of the story here. There is just a prosecution where you stand there with your mouth taped shut. You can't call any witnesses. You can't have your attorney. Then they would like to convict people and send them away forever and never be heard from again. And that is what this is; the silencing of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

How many days had you been here, Representative Greene?

So you had been here three days.

If I could interject for just a moment, who is in charge of security here in the House of Representatives?

Employed by?

Right. The Speaker.

Are we going to find out if they got ordered to do that by the Speaker or by the leader in the Senate? Are we going to find that out tonight?

I am sure we will hear about Ray Epps this evening.

No, I have not.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Like I said, if you have ever seen reality TV, you know in just a couple episodes it is not really reality.

Now, I don't know how many of these you will go through this evening, and we just have a couple of minutes remaining, but I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my good friend, to conclude with some of his thoughts before we wrap up here this afternoon.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. In the remaining 40 seconds I have, I will close by saying every day Americans wake up and they think it can't get any worse, yet somehow every day there is something new that actually makes it worse. Tonight is going to be no different. We are going to push the envelope to places we have never gone, a show trial right here in the Halls of Congress as a Supreme Court Justice is under threat.

This is literally like a Third World country, and we have leaders in this government calling for Justice Kavanaugh--``You have released the whirlwind.'' That is what was said. Do not let this stand.

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

Madam Speaker, on Roll Call No. 252, I mistakenly voted ``no'' when I intended to vote ``yes''.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Barragan (Beyer)

Bass (Blunt Rochester)

Boebert (Gaetz)

Brooks (Fleischmann)

Brown (OH) (Beatty)

Bucshon (Gibbs)

Cardenas (Correa)

Crist (Wasserman Schultz)

DeFazio (Stanton)

Evans (Beyer)

Frankel, Lois (Wasserman Schultz)

Gomez (Garcia (TX))

Guest (Fleischmann)

Johnson (SD) (LaHood)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Kirkpatrick (Pallone)

Krishnamoorthi (Garcia (IL))

Lamb (Blunt Rochester)

Leger Fernandez (Neguse)

Loudermilk (Fleischmann)

Lowenthal (Beyer)

Mace (Donalds)

McEachin (Beyer)

Moore (WI) (Beyer)

Moulton (Neguse)

Neal (Beyer)

Payne (Pallone)

Price (NC) (Manning)

Ruiz (Correa)

Rush (Jeffries)

Ryan (Beyer)

Sanchez (Garcia (TX))

Sewell (Beatty)

Sherman (Beyer)

Sires (Pallone)

Spartz (Banks)

Strickland (Takano)

Suozzi (Beyer)

Swalwell (Correa)

Taylor (Fallon)

Thompson (PA) (Keller)

Torres (NY) (Blunt Rochester)

Vargas (Takano)

Walorski (Banks)

Waters (Garcia (TX))

Welch (Pallone)

Wilson (FL) (Neguse)

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 233.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the good gentleman from Texas for yielding.

I think that what most people don't understand--and some even in this body--is that when you think about operational control of the border, you are assuming that the administration wants to stop people from illegally crossing. You are thinking that they are about border security and about national security.

We actually voted in this body, as you know, to fund at higher levels, Border Patrol, ICE. And many on our side of the aisle even voted for it, either unwittingly or knowing that this administration was actually going to use that money, not to stop people from coming across the border illegally, not to uphold the law, not to stop the invasion that is guaranteed by our Constitution to the States, but to actually become more efficient at processing individuals coming across the border illegally and moving them very quickly into the interior of the country.

They used the money so that they don't have the optics of what is happening at the Del Rio bridge. That is why they wanted to be more efficient. They don't want the optics of people huddling underneath a bridge, coming from some other country or some other places illegally, and not having anywhere to go, and the squalor and the potential crime element that is associated with it.

Since they don't want that optic, what they have done is used the money that has been appropriated, the additional money--not to mention all the money that has already been appropriated--to move them more efficiently into the interior of the country.

So when the Secretary says he has operational control, sure, they are operationally controlling the influx of illegal aliens, right? That is the actual definition, right? That is the word that is used--illegal aliens into the country. And so on that charge, they are actually doing very well.

Unfortunately, the American people, and my good friend from Texas, Chip Roy, know they are suffering right now under horrific high prices that they barely can afford, whether it is for fuel in their car, whether it is for being able to buy groceries, if you can find them.

And heaven forbid you are a family that has a small child that needs formula. No extra money for that, Mr. Roy. No extra money for Americans.

Well, you know why.

Madam Speaker, into the country but without the view of the cameras, without the access of the American people in to see what is happening in their country. That is the chain-link fence around it, without the view of what is happening in every single community which is due to fentanyl overdoses.

Every single person in America now likely can say they know some family, somebody in their town that died of a fentanyl overdose. So that is coming from China, as the good gentleman from Arkansas was just talking about what is happening in China--it comes from China through Mexico across our southern border and into your town.

That is national security. That is border security. That is health security. And our country and the leadership and this administration is not providing it at this time.

I am aware of that.

Madam Speaker, right here on this floor, the President came and gave his State of the Union and said he wanted to secure the border. That is what the President said, he wanted to secure the border. Yet, the fentanyl keeps coming in. The money has been spent. In many towns they have defunded the police, right? The drugs keep coming in.

And as there is a primary election going on right now in my home State in Pennsylvania, many people from across the aisle have said they want border protection, they want national security, they want to stop the fentanyl.

But given any opportunity to vote in favor of that, to come down and sign the discharge petition, not one Democrat, not one Democrat signed the discharge petition to force that bill to the floor to say keep title 42 in place and leave us an opportunity to make sure that people and drugs and the crime element supported by the cartels don't come to America. Not one will step up.

That is exactly right.

Madam Speaker, the American people see and are feeling it every single day when they go to the gas pumps, when they have got to get their kids to soccer games and multiple activities, driving back and forth, and they can't afford to fill up their gas tanks anymore.

This is because we are at the beginning of implementing the Green New Deal, forcing it on Americans; not letting you make the choice, but letting policymakers in Washington, D.C., determine how your life is going to be.

And while the President says, in this very body, they want to have a vote on price-gouging. Meanwhile, we are not allowing the people to produce the gas and oil that we desperately need to keep our energy economy going. Our country runs on energy, right? The President is saying no more leases. Not one pipeline is being built.

No more leases. No more refining. It is not happening. They actually said that we are producing more gas and oil than ever before in history. But you just gave them the numbers, Mr. Roy. You just gave us the numbers. It is actually less. That is what happens, and you are going to pay more. For every single gallon that you buy, you are going to pay more. And this is all by design. They don't want you to have the choice. They actually want to force you to drive an electric vehicle.

As long as we are talking about energy and the lack thereof, Mr. Roy, it was just reported in your State to be prepared for blackouts and brownouts because there is going to be a lack of electricity production.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the 21st century. America knows how to produce energy. We know how to make electricity. We know how to transport it. Yet, it is happening in California, and now it is going to start cascading across the country because of the policy decisions of the Green New Deal and those who worship at the altar of this green agenda that forces us to take these things that we can't afford and are inefficient and ineffective.

And opening one a week.

And hope you can charge. And I sure hope you have the time to sit there and charge, right? It is not like filling it up at the gas station and you get back on the road and keep going and make it in a reasonable amount of time.

The gentleman from Texas is absolutely right. I mean, he talked about the fact that we are empowering China. Eighty-five percent of the critical minerals that come here to make the solar panels and windmills come from China. Now, of course, we subsidize all that. That subsidy means it is coming from your tax dollars.

Of course, I don't know whether you know this or not, Mr. Roy, but I suspect you do, those tax dollars going to pay for those raw materials in China are then--those tax dollars go to mine it, to mine it in the Congo, right?

One of the biggest mines in the world, the biggest mine in the world. Slave labor, child slave labor, right? We are talking about saving the rainforest, meanwhile they are cutting all this stuff down to mine these minerals, so we can feel good. So we can feel good about our ourselves and America. Meanwhile, it is supporting child slave labor with your taxes, supporting deforestation of the rainforest. For what? For higher prices and less availability, and it is just going to keep coming, ladies and gentlemen, as long as the agenda of the left keeps being implemented.

I had a problem with $40 billion with 5 hours, 5 hours of consideration for $40 billion. When we took the text to the staff and asked them about this line, what is this $300 million, and they said, Well, we don't know. And we are expected to vote on that. We are expected to vote for that or somehow we are aligned with Vladimir Putin.

Keep in mind, my good friend from Texas, 2 weeks prior to this we did this lend-lease without any time limit, without any funding limit, then come back, and the President asked for $33 billion, we give him $40 billion. We can't afford our diesel. Pretty soon you are not going to be able to afford your food. We won't do anything on our own border. Prices are going up for every single person.

Every American wants to help Ukraine, but we are Americans, and the Representatives in this body represent America.

You are absolutely right, Mr. Roy. The American people at least deserve the debate. Five hours, ladies and gentlemen, 5 hours for $40 billion. People around here complain about all kinds of things.

Right. That is a problem. But $40 billion, no problem.

Meanwhile, our citizens, the citizens that I represent, they are having a hard time figuring out, do they pay their insurance, do they pay their mortgage? I talk to people on a regular basis that say they put their bills on their table, and they put a date on them when they are due and when they think they will be able to pay for them. They say, I have never had to do that before. I am selling stuff to pay my bills because I can't afford what is happening in my country right now. Meanwhile, we can't talk for 15 minutes, 20 minutes, an hour about $40 billion to some other country. Meanwhile, we just gave a blank check 2 weeks before to let the President spend any amount of money for any amount of time on the same country. We didn't declare war.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for allowing me to be part of this Special Order and speak on behalf of and fight on behalf of the American people that are struggling right now.

Madam Speaker, I am joined by my friends here this evening to talk about the impending decision of the Supreme Court and, of course, the things surrounding it, including the unfortunate, unprecedented leak of the information from the Court, as well as the, I think, heretofore unprecedented protesting at the homes of the Justices that can only legitimately be described as an attempt to influence and change their decision. We are going to get into all that.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), for some comments on this subject.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and those are indeed inspiring and hopeful words as we stand ready to hear the Court's final decision, not trying to leak it, not trying to persuade it unduly, doing the work of democracy, of the representative Republic, speaking on behalf of the people that we represent, our bosses, so that they can decide, not just a few folks across the street here in robes, making decisions for the whole country.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I am being joined by some of my other colleagues here. Mr. Norman, Congressman Norman, mentioned the baby formula. We are here to talk about the stain of abortion on our country. But we are watching what is happening, talking about children that need their formula.

Mothers need to feed their babies. They can't get it at the store, yet we see the shelves are full down on the southern border, full of baby formula.

What about America's babies, ladies and gentlemen? What about America's babies?

Look, you don't have to take our word for it. We are here to talk about the stain of all the lost lives of the innocent over these 49 years. But don't take our word for it. Don't take Republicans' word for it.

How about Democrats? How about Governor Bob Casey in the Abortion Control Act of 1982, where he had to go to the Supreme Court and fight against Planned Parenthood for things like parental consent prior to a minor undergoing an abortion? What a novel concept. Oh, so striking.

How about, just yesterday, The Washington Post, not known as a bastion of conservatism, saying that yes, experts say protests at SCOTUS Justice homes appear to be illegal, appear to be illegal because title 18, section 1507 of the U.S. Code, says it is: cannot try and influence the decision of the Court.

But the left doesn't care. Every single day when you wake up, you say to yourself, I don't know how it could get much worse. I can't believe what is happening, and I don't know what else could get worse than it is. But then, every single day, something else unprecedented happens. Today, that is occurring yet again.

If you don't believe me or The Washington Post or Bob Casey, Governor Bob Casey v. Planned Parenthood--by the way, I am not sure how Governor Casey would feel about his son's actions in the U.S. Senate when they voted for the most extreme position, which would make abortion legal at any point during the pregnancy, including up until the minute of birth--voted for that. His father fought the good fight.

But what about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, celebrated leftist on the Court, celebrated believer in abortion and protector of abortion, who said that the 1973 law did too much too fast, said that ``doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped . . . may prove unstable.'' She knew this was a stain on our humanity. She knew.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, the good gentleman from Georgia reminded me, as I said, you don't have to believe us Republicans. He reminded me that President Biden said this is a child, what we have known all our lives. But don't believe us if you don't want to. Believe your President. He said it is a child. So we know, right? And we are so grateful.

As people who love life, love the protection of life guaranteed in the Constitution, we have suffered and prayed for 49 years. We didn't like the decision 49 years ago, in 1973. We didn't like it, but we didn't do the wrong thing. We used the system appropriately, as it was designed by the Founders and the Framers of our great country, to remove the stain of the loss of innocent life from our laws. We are on the edge of that.

But the point is that there is a right way to do things. Even though we disagree on occasion, we are a country of laws. If it is going to be okay to break the law just because you disagree with a decision, well, that is not a country that is going to endure very long.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Indeed, life is precious. It is a blessing. It is a gift. As a parent there is nothing like it. We have lamented these last 49 years in the loss of these innocent lives, and that our country could stand for that and support that; not only just support it, but go out and campaign for it with our tax dollars, with our rhetoric, with our policies around the globe.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the United States of America where you are guaranteed by our Creator, and ordained in the Constitution, the gift of life, the blessing of life, the first gift, the first blessing.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman and all my colleagues. Our time is almost over, but I just want to reiterate that we--these Members here and many others on this side of the aisle, in particular--stand for life.

We stand for the Constitution which guarantees that life. We stand for the rights enumerated in the Constitution that are given to us by God--granted to us by God. As my friend said: Can't be taken away--even though some will try. When God gives them to you, they can't be taken away. That is all by design.

We stand for the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution that folks that would wish to subvert the rule of law--try and color the Court's decision--they should be held accountable. All men are created equal under the law. Apparently, under this administration some are more equal than others.

Madam Speaker, that is the recipe for anarchy. We are thankful for this opportunity to speak to our bosses, our employers, the ones who rule over us, the good Lord, and our constituents this evening.

Madam Speaker, we are thankful for the time to speak on this very important issue, stand for the Constitution, stand for the law, and importantly, stand for life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am joined here this evening by some of the other members of the Freedom Caucus to talk about what everybody is talking about or one of the things everybody is talking about, which is the unmitigated disaster, the calamity, the crisis at the United States southern border.

Today, Secretary Mayorkas was here on the Hill, and I think the term he used was that the border was effectively managed. Effectively managed, Mr. Speaker. I think maybe we are asking the wrong question because effectively managed seems very different in the minds of many Americans than apparently it does to the good Secretary.

It seems to me that just looking at the numbers--and I think we oftentimes talk too much in numbers--the toll is in real human lives, but we do need to talk about the numbers a little bit just to emphasize the scale.

Effectively managed. For us, for Americans, we think we should have a sovereign country that has a border where the United States of America determines who gets to walk across the border and what the process is. Of course, that is obliterated right now. That is totally gone.

I think when the Secretary says that it is being effectively managed, I think that is in terms of the new left's version of the border of America, which is to allow it to be as open as possible, to be violated as many times as possible, and to make as efficient as possible those violations on a daily basis.

In other words, let's move across as many people as we can, legally or illegally, without regard to the safety of the country, without regard to the health of the country, without regard to the financial circumstances of the country. All of that stuff is out, quite honestly, without regard to the sentiment of the American people whom we all serve--our bosses.

In his mind, apparently, it is effectively being managed. Every time we allocate more money, the charge is it is to more effectively manage or secure our border. Ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Speaker, what that means under President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas and the left's reign across

America right now is that they are efficiently--and becoming more efficient at it--moving illegal aliens into our country, into our neighborhoods.

Maybe you say, Well, look, these are just people that are looking for a better life. Many of them are, that is true. We don't hate anybody. Every one of us wants to help. What comes with that? What comes with the wide open border?

Mr. Speaker, what comes with it is a record number of fentanyl overdoses, the leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 18 and 42 in America today. That is what comes across the border. MS-13 and the criminal element.

It is said that we need a humane policy. This is a humane policy? Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you know this or not, but, unfortunately, a young National Guardsman died while trying to help people that were trying to cross the river, they seemed like they were struggling so he jumped in to help them. He lost his life.

I don't know if it is true, but it is reported that after those people came across or got across they were arrested for drug trafficking. When they found the young servicemember's body, it was with another person who happened to be an illegal alien that was trying to cross. Of course, it is not reported, but I think there are literally hundreds and hundreds of dead illegal aliens that have tried to cross the border in the last 14 months. How humane is that?

Human trafficking. We have passed numerous bills in this House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, even since you have been here, about human trafficking. Yet, the taxpayers of our country are forced to finance the largest human trafficking operation the world has ever known. These are the same people paying the taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I went to the grocery store before I came here, I bought, I think, seven items: a loaf of bread, cheese, normal things-- two little bags. It was $50. These are the same people that are paying $50 for the groceries for two little bags that have got to pay for all of this.

I have a regular-size car, it has about 292,000 miles on it, and it was $75 to fill it up. We are telling them, under penalty of law, unless you pay for this you will go to jail, and you will lose your house if you don't pay your taxes.

Mr. Speaker, this is unconscionable. We are currently at 8,000 per day. There are 8,000 illegal crossings per day. We are here to talk about title 42, which is only going to at least double that--and that is according to this Department of Homeland Security. Double that.

There is already a crisis at 8,000 per day. I come from a town of about 2,000 people. Every day, four times that many people come across the border illegally and reside in the United States and take away and steal our opportunities. They steal the American opportunity for education, for safe streets, for a starting job--your first job out of high school. All of that is stolen.

Mr. Speaker, I would contend that Secretary Mayorkas should be arrested for violating the law because indeed he is violating the law. He is not enforcing the law. He swore an oath. It is in the law. People say we need new laws. Mr. Speaker, even members of your party are saying we need new legislation to combat this.

What is any legislation going to matter if the administration refuses to faithfully execute the laws of this land? It is listed right in the Constitution, Mr. Speaker. It is right in there. It is right in there. Faithfully execute the laws of the land. Yet, we have a President and we have a Secretary that refuse to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined here by my great colleagues. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

Mr. Hice, could you tell us how many have signed? How many Democrats have signed the discharge? The discharge brings the bill to the floor. How many have signed?

Mr. Speaker, there are Democrats out there talking about the border crisis and saying we have to fix it, yet they won't sign it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for her remarks.

Mrs. Boebert talked about the wall that is not being built; unfulfilled contracts, Mr. Speaker, costing, as Secretary Mayorkas told us today, $72 million, $72 million to not build the border wall, to not honor the contracts that the United States has made with the contractors, $72 million. Yet they are asking for more money.

Mrs. Boebert also knows that even though we have contracted for more beds to deal with the influx, we actually leave them empty while we pay NGOs--nongovernmental organizations--to put these people up in hotels. And I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the folks whom I serve--my bosses--can barely afford their groceries or their gas, but they are forced to pay for this. We will talk about national security because border security is national security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud).

Mr. Speaker, national security is community security. We are here to talk about the border in general, but certainly title 42, 8,000 a day right now but soon to be double that, maybe more than double that, 8,000 a day. So national security is community security.

I was watching a report on the television of a lady in New York--I think it was New York--she got stabbed in the neck and the face over 50 times--over 50 times--murdered. And in the press conference the press asked for the person--the perpetrator--whom they had caught his immigration status. And law enforcement said: We are not going to get into that. We are not going to get into that.

There is a Texas guardsman, a young man who would be alive right now. There is a lady who was stabbed in the neck and the face 50 some times who would be alive right now because this administration, the left, the Democratic Party, unfortunately, apparently doesn't care about border security, community security, title 42, preserving the American Dream, and safeguarding the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to lose a great Member of Congress here at the end of this session. I often affectionately refer to him as the closer because everybody is gone from Washington, D.C., but Louie is still standing there telling the country what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Louie, for his comments.

We have 2 minutes remaining by my clock here; is that right, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from the House Freedom Caucus. They are always the toughest and most courageous people in Congress who are willing to do the uncomfortable things. They are fighting to take action, not just rhetoric, but to take action.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) to close us out.

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

Madam Speaker, I'm honored to recognize Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Thomas J. Jenkins upon the auspicious occasion of his retirement upon more than twenty years of tireless service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America.

Lt Col Jenkins distinguished himself in the performance of outstanding service while assigned to the 193d Special Operations Squadron. During this period, he served as the pilot section supervisor and flight commander, managing over sixty (60) aviators' combat readiness, and recruited twenty-nine (29) rated officers, enhancing the group's longevity. Additionally, he excelled through aircraft commander, instructor, and evaluator pilot upgrades in minimum time, and actively trained and evaluated special operations pilots--ensuring the safety and effectiveness of flying operations.

Throughout his career, Colonel Jenkins compiled over four thousand total flight hours in the MC-130W, AC-130W, C-130E/H, and EC-130J airframes. He flew eight hundred (800) hours as an instructor pilot, and totaled over seven hundred (700) career combat sorties, fifteen hundred (1500) combat hours, and forty-four (44) combat support sorties. He deployed and served as an aircraft commander, director of operations, and an expeditionary squadron commander on the EC-130J Commando Solo in support of operations Inherent Resolve and Freedom's Sentinel.

Colonel Jenkins' professionalism, expertise, and dynamic leadership contributed immeasurably to the overall mission effectiveness of the 193d Special Operations Group. The singularly distinctive accomplishments of Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Jenkins culminate a distinguished career in the service of our Country and reflect great credit upon himself, the Air National Guard, and the United States Air Force. I wish him Godspeed as he embarks on his next adventure.

Madam Speaker, I'm honored to recognize Mr. George Steve Bosan upon the auspicious occasion of his 100th Birthday. A resident of Mechanicsburg, via Newark, New Jersey, where he was born on April 21, 1922, Mr. Bosan's incredible life spans decades of service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America. He and his late wife, Louise, had one child together, Steven Bosan.

Mr. Bosan's military career began as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, European theatre. He served in a combat engineer battalion in the Third Army, commanded by General George S. Patton. Mr. Bosan was stationed in France after D-Day, where he and his unit made it across the Rhine River before he was injured in combat.

Following his injuries, Mr. Bosan worked as a draftsman before returning to active service in the Korean War. He graduated from flight school and arrived in Korea as commander of a light aviation unit, flying both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. He regularly flew General Paik of the Republic of Korean Army in his Bell H-13 helicopter. Following the Korean War, he served in various posts across the United States and France before next serving in the Vietnam War, in which he served as the commander of a combat aviation maintenance battalion during the Tet Offensive.

After returning from the Vietnam War, Mr. Bosan served in multiple postings stateside before his retirement from the New Cumberland Army Depot, at which he served as the Director of Maintenance and led 1,200 civilian technicians responsible for overhauling Chinook helicopters. Mr. Bosan's civilian career ultimately ended after 17 years as the facilities manager for the Hospital Association of Pennsylvania.

After his decades of service to our Nation, I'm privileged by the opportunity to recognize this amazing member of the ``Greatest Generation'' as he celebrates his 100th Birthday. Thank you will never be enough, and I wish him continued Godspeed.

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that the gentlewoman from Colorado organized this effort tonight. We need to be speaking about it, and of course, I would call on our friends from this side of the aisle.

It is interesting that we are standing on this side of the aisle. I mean, thank goodness somebody is willing to stand over here and defend the country.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my Democrat colleagues to start answering some questions and start defending their country from this invasion.

But if the gentleman doesn't know this, if you do a quick calculation--this isn't Congressman Perry, Congresswoman Boebert, Congressman Roy, any of us up here. This is DHS. The Department of Homeland Security is bracing for 18,000 crossings a day, 18,000 people coming across the border illegally each day.

Now, I don't know, for each one of you, the size of your town where you come from, but I suspect 18,000 in any town would make a pretty big dent unless you are talking about one of the major cities like Los Angeles or something like that.

Even so, 18,000 a day, Mr. Speaker, that is over 6\1/2\ million people, if we keep that rate up, 6\1/2\ million people in 1 year illegally coming to our country.

Congressman Norman or Congresswoman Boebert, could your business sustain something like that?

Mr. Speaker, my final thoughts are that there are Democrats that are decrying this. We can do something about it, and they can do something about it right here in this House. They can walk right down there to the well and sign this discharge petition. We don't need all of them; we need eight of them.

Bring the bill up. If they don't believe we ought to continue to try and secure our border with title 42, they can vote against it, but let us have a vote.

We are just asking for a vote. Let's see what the vote count is, and then the American people will know who stands with them and who stands for a wide-open border because that is what we are going to have. Think about that.

To the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), we certainly appreciate her putting this together for us and providing the opportunity to come and talk on behalf of our constituents that are very concerned about this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, he has been the consummate crusader on this issue. If not for him, this would even be more ignored in Washington, D.C., than it is already. I just think about a scant month ago--a month and a half ago or so--the President of the United States stood right there and talked about securing the border.

It is unfathomable to me. We used to not say lie in the world of politics about your opponent or the other party, but I don't know what else that is other than a lie. I come from Pennsylvania, we are not on the border where Mr. Roy represents, where his communities and his State is being completely overrun. Pennsylvania is far from the border. We got Route 81. We got Route 83. The fentanyl comes up.

The President took an oath to faithfully discharge the laws of this country, but just abrogating them. You just wonder who is he representing? Whose citizens is he representing because the people in my community, the people all across the country are dying at record levels from drugs coming across the southern border, and nothing is happening to stop it.

It is not only people coming here illegally and taking your jobs--all these different languages that your school has to teach now. Somebody is going to pay for that. Who can afford this? Whose job is it to safeguard America? If it is not the President's job, whose job is it? Chip Roy is trying. Bob Good is trying.

We can't keep Title 42 in place. Even better yet, the question should be: Why isn't Remain in Mexico in place? Seek asylum the correct way. Stay in the first country you come to if you are indeed oppressed and you are suffering political retribution for your beliefs or religious persecution--the first country you come to.

The first country you come to when you travel through Mexico--when you fly into Mexico from one of the other 160-190 countries on the planet isn't the United States, it is Mexico. Yet, the President says the border is open. These people aren't coming to the White House, ladies and gentlemen, they are coming to your house. They are coming to your community. They are not going to Joe Biden's house in Delaware. They are not coming to Pennsylvania Avenue. They are coming to your house and your community and they are bringing the drugs with them, human trafficking.

And for goodness sakes--your taxes--75 percent of the people on this side of the aisle just supported more spending for this. You know what it does? Bob Good is right. You are not going see them all piled up under the bridge in Del Rio because we are going to hire more people to move them more efficiently into your town because they don't like that look.

They are not hired to stop them, they are hired to more efficiently have them come to your town and your community, including the people on the terrorist watch list, criminals, the fentanyl, the human trafficking coming to your town. Well, thank you, Mr. President.

That is right. And all we need is enough people to sign it. Whether you are a Democrat or you are a Republican, these folks are coming. The fentanyl is coming to your town. The overdoses are coming to your town. All you have to do, if your leadership says: We refuse to move this bill that the American people want, maintain this Title 42, all you have to do is go down and sign that piece of paper,

and we can do it. Leadership can't hold us up.

But they don't want to do it, do they?

How many Democrats?

We are firing people who were on the front lines at the beginning of the pandemic without it, where there was no vaccine present, right?

They went out. They went out and risked their lives not knowing what they were dealing with, and now unless they take the jab, now they are out of work.

There are a few Senators. I think there are a few Representatives who said so, too. They can put their money, so to speak, where their mouth is. You can say it, but you can take some action. Talk is cheap, right? Take some action and walk down there and sign the paper. And once one does, maybe a few more will because their constituents--their bosses, their citizens, and their communities--are being wrecked, too.

Would the gentleman also agree that it is not only the U.N. that your tax dollars are going for, actually in this body they voted recently to pay for attorneys to go help those folks who came across the border illegally navigate the system.

Now, you go try that. You go break the law wantonly and then appeal to your Federal Government to pay for your attorney to get around the law that you just broke wantonly.

Indeed.

What about the rape trees?

We have been to the border. We have seen the little shoes all stacked up at the border. These are little children. And Representative Roy is absolutely right, as trophies, can you imagine little girls, or somebody's--anybody's--little girls, little girl panties hanging from a tree as a trophy?

This is what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge, like it is not happening, like it has never happened. But it is happening every single day. Somebody--somebody--has got to do something about it.

This hour.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I certainly rise in support of this bill to name the new Federal courthouse in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse and Federal Building.

As the sponsor of the House companion to this bill, I am absolutely proud of our bicameral, bipartisan work with Senator Casey to bring this bill to the floor.

Judge Rambo's trailblazing career is filled with historic moments--to include opening the door for women to participate fully in our Nation's judicial system. Her legacy of service to the citizens of Pennsylvania is indeed exceptional.

Shortly after earning her Juris Doctorate from the Dickinson School of Law--also a place I am proud to represent--Judge Rambo served as a public defender for Cumberland County, rising to the position of chief public defender in 1976, at which time she became the first woman judge to serve on the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County.

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Rambo to the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania, where she became the first woman judge to serve on this court. She also became the first woman to serve as the chief judge of the court from 1992 to 1999.

As chief judge, Judge Rambo has been a tireless advocate of the decades-long pursuit of a new courthouse in Harrisburg. Since the attack on 9/11, we have been seeking this new courthouse because the current one didn't fit the parameters for security. But as you all know around this place, it is tough to get these things done. These are big projects and there are a lot of these projects to do around the country, and the resources aren't always available.

Judge Rambo never quit. Quite honestly, our delegation never quit either. It is a long time in coming, and it culminated in the groundbreaking on the building in 2018 where she was there. As her efforts on this initiative near completion, the building is almost done, it is absolutely fitting that the building be named in her honor.

As a reflection and a testament of Judge Rambo's historic legacy, her colleagues at the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania unanimously support this legislation to name the Federal Courthouse after her.

Madam Speaker, I certainly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is one of the few times that both sides finally can get together, both Chambers can get together to get something done and do something great for our community, and we should all be happy about that.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mrs. Gloria Jean Weirich Milspaw upon the occasion of her 100th Birthday, as well as her continued, tireless service to our communities.

Born and raised in Middletown, Pennsylvania, Mrs. Milspaw became the first ever female drum major for the Middletown High School band in her sophomore year. She attended West Chester State Teachers College for two years as a music major but left early in part due to the Great Depression and World War II. Though she later took the Civil Service exam and scored extremely high, she was told that women couldn't be given the higher-level jobs that were ``reserved for men with families to feed.'' As a result, she was given a typewriter and became a secretary. It was then that she met her future husband, Captain (and later Lieutenant Colonel) Lynn G. Milspaw, an engineer and Air Force pilot. They were married in 1944 and endured the stress and hardship of his military duty in both World War II and Korea, as well as his later duty as a high-level civil servant for the Air Force. Gloria sang with and directed church choirs and various music groups in all their travels and duty stations.

While in Utah, Gloria took up and excelled at the hobby of watercolor, and within a few years she became President of the Utah Watercolor Association. After moving back to

Pennsylvania, she soon became a signature member of the Pennsylvania Watercolor Association as well. She also earned a degree in Interior Design, founded a small business, and took up skiing. One of her greatest challenges, however, was her rigorous fight against lymphoma-- and--chemotherapy from which she made a full recovery at the age of 90.

Mrs. Milspaw, now 100 years young, resides in the same town in which she was born, and remains a beacon of health and wellness in our community. She exercises daily, paints and sells watercolors, serves God and her church, and is constantly learning more about the world. I am humbled and privileged to commend and thank Mrs. Gloria Milspaw on her many successes both at home and abroad, and her lifelong dedication to being an active member of our communities. I wish her a wonderful birthday celebration, and Godspeed for many more days of a life filled with good health, happiness, prosperity, and love.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please join me in protecting American workers by terminating U.S. participation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UNFCCC charges signatories to work to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

The institution's mission to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system precludes the body from investigating potential natural causes of climate variation and binds member states to act in the interest of human safety even in the face of scientific uncertainty.

Together, these provisions require treaty signers to take significant actions to curb their economic output without considering the scientific basis for such actions or the effect such actions will have on the environment.

The Paris accords present a prime example of the inefficacy of the UNFCCC framework. The accords received major domestic blowback given the deep GHG restrictions imposed on our Nation relative to the world's major polluters; namely, China. Even if our GHG emissions could be eliminated completely overnight, it would have no impact globally. None. Chinese emissions would make up the difference, and the result is the U.S. economy would be unnecessarily crippled, while the CCP's economy would grow unencumbered.

The UNFCCC further requires that industrialized nations support climate change action in developing countries on top of aid already provided to these countries. Developing countries like China; like if anybody here thinks they are still developing, well, I guess that is why you have been sending our jobs over there for 40 years. We are forced to pay for and bail them out. This amounts to the U.S. taxpayer paying for and bailing out Chinese green industries at the expense of U.S. jobs. We are tired of it. Put plainly, remaining party to a treaty requiring our Nation to fund the offshoring of manufacturing jobs, our very own jobs, should be met with contempt across this political spectrum.

Finally, the UNFCCC's leadership has made clear that the treaty has nothing to do with environmental policy. It is, quite frankly, an effort to reshape the world's economy to eliminate free and competitive markets. Former UNFCCC's Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres stated as much. This is what she said: ``This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.'' Free markets.

If the U.S. wants to impose significant economic harm on its own citizens and overturn the free market economic system, it should be done under the constitutional system in this body, not by the dictates of the international community.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Madam Speaker, I would just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, stop obfuscating, stop sending our jobs overseas. Start realizing what we have done together in this Chamber to our citizens who want to work in their jobs in their country.

This has done nothing but overseas our jobs, outsource our jobs. Let's not continue that process.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Ms. Johnson of Texas

Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mr. Thomas Foreman for his life of service to Middletown Borough. Mr. Foreman has dedicated 25 years of service as the director of the Emergency Management Agency (EMA), 55 years to the Middletown Volunteer Fire Department, and over 30 years with the Pennsylvania Lottery. Mr. Foreman has become a pillar of the community through more than five decades of service.

Mr. Foreman's work with the Liberty Fire Company in Middletown began in November of 1966, where he's served as secretary, vice president, and president. While executing countless hours as a volunteer firefighter, he also maintained his involvement with the Emergency Management Agency, helping prepare the Borough for its next emergency. In the performance of his duties, he assists residents during natural disasters--to include floods, snow, and TMI events, and myriad other situations that require his oversight and assistance. He works regularly in the EMA office, attends monthly preparedness and borough meetings, and his dedication to the residents of Middletown is tireless and unmatched.

Mr. Foreman is a lifelong resident of the Borough of Middletown. Upon his retirement from the Pennsylvania Lottery in 2004, he maintained his tireless commitment to the residents and Middletown community at large. Tom has two beautiful children--Michael, a fireman, and Kelly--and four grandchildren.

I am privileged to honor Mr. Thomas Foreman and recognize his significant contributions to our community throughout more than five decades of selfless and honorable service to Middletown Borough, Dauphin County, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On behalf of the citizens of the 10th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, I wish him Godspeed as he embarks upon his next adventure.