Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Mrs. Ellen Greaney Jacobs, a resident of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, who is celebrating 100 years young on Monday, April 1, 2019.

Mrs. Jacobs was born in Bound Brook, New Jersey, and moved to New Bloomfield, Pennsylvania with her mother, brother and two sisters after her father died. Ellen graduated from New Bloomfield High School and the Carlisle Commercial College. She married her husband of 69 years, Cyrus D. Jacobs, in Westminster, Maryland on September 24, 1938. Ellen has three sons, six grandchildren, and twelve great grandchildren.

Ellen is an active member of the Order of the Eastern Star (Capitol City Chapter), Dauphin Middle Paxton Historical Society, Dauphin Middle Paxton Area Senior Citizens, and still delivers Meals on Wheels on a regular basis. She is a longtime member of Hope United Presbyterian Church in Dauphin, where she enjoys Christian fellowship, Bible study, and making Easter and Christmas candy. She enjoys playing pinochle with her card club, reading, gardening (especially her beloved roses), watching the leaves change in the fall and flowers bloom in the spring, and bird watching.

I join Ellen's friends and family in extending my best and warmest wishes to her on this special day, and in celebrating her life and contributions to our great Commonwealth and Country.

On behalf of Pennsylvania's Tenth Congressional District, I extend God's blessings and my heartfelt congratulations to Mrs. Ellen Greaney Jacobs on her 100th Birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to condemn the senseless, cowardly, and horrific terrorist attack in India, the deadliest in three decades.

On February 14 of this year, a suicide bomber rammed an explosive- packed vehicle into a convoy, claiming the lives of 40 Indian paramilitary forces and wounding at least 44 others. The Pakistan-based militant group, Jaish-e-Muhammad, later claimed responsibility for the attack.

We mourn the victims of this act of terror and call for continued action against any nation, to include Pakistan, that harbors terrorists and promotes violent extremism.

India has announced its plans to diplomatically isolate Pakistan and cancel its preferential trade status. We support these efforts, Mr. Speaker. This attack only further strengthens our U.S.-India counterterrorism cooperation.

To the nation of India, we mourn with you, we pray for you, and we stand in solidarity with you during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, this is bad policy following bad process--an 1100-plus- page bill dropped at midnight last night, and we are acting like we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. We are acting like we can't keep our Federal Government open and fix our border situation.

Let's talk about what is happening because that is the problem. At least, if nothing else, we should do no harm. Let's not make the situation worse.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides amnesty for anyone in a household of an unaccompanied minor, and it protects the people who have smuggled those children into the United States and encourages them to do that even more.

And even more than that, once they are here, we cut $700 million out of ICE, and we reduced their bed space. So there are less people looking for those people who are here illegally.

Then when we find the criminals, when they have committed some crime and we find them, we can't even keep them. We have to release them back into our communities. Mr. Speaker, city councils are now deciding where we secure our border.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

I am opposed to H.J. Res. 37, Mr. Chair. This resolution is poor policy and will not achieve the aims of those who support it. That is really the crux of the issue here.

My colleagues are using this resolution to express their concerns with the actions of Saudi Arabia and the status of the war in Yemen, disregarding the dangerous precedent this resolution will send.

The joint resolution improperly expands the definition of hostilities to include non-U.S. military operations by third countries. This bill then reinterprets the U.S. activities in support of those countries as U.S. engagements in said hostilities.

The Department of Defense and the White House have both correctly stated that, under the longstanding definition of hostilities, the United States is not engaged in such in Yemen.

In order to force a privileged measure in the Senate, my colleagues had to expand and distort the definitions in the War Powers Resolution to achieve their goals. This is absolutely poor policy, and we cannot support such a measure.

The misuse of this privileged tool endangers U.S. security cooperation with over 100 partners around the world, to include Israel, NATO, and many antiterror allies.

Now, I understand my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are unhappy with the actions taken by Saudi Arabia. Frankly, I am as well. Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, Mr. Chairman, with imperfect actors. We must deal with the reality of geopolitics in the way that they are and not the way that we wish they would be.

We and I find many of the things the Saudis to be doing horrific, including the murder of Muslim Brotherhood member Khashoggi. I was one of the first people to go on the record demanding the declassification of the 9/11 report concerning Saudi Arabia, but this will not be the first action Saudi Arabia takes that is counter to our beliefs here in the United States. During the first 4 months of 2017, Saudi Arabia beheaded 48 people.

Mr. Chair, according to the reports, half of those deaths were for nonviolent drug charges. The Saudi Kingdom executes its citizens for blasphemy and crimes against the state, actions that are protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I understand that we are dissatisfied--I am, too--but using poor policy to terminate U.S. assistance will not improve conditions in Yemen. Iran's own IRGC commander openly admitted that Iran provides military assistance to the Houthis in Yemen.

In this body, we can choose to stand with Iran or the Houthis or, as I suggest, to stand with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Chair, this resolution is not the right step. It is poor policy. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, today I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Mrs. Michelle Crowley, a resident of Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania, who is receiving the Exchange Club of Carlisle's prestigious Molly Pitcher Award.

Chartered by the National Exchange Club in 1949, the Exchange Club of Carlisle gives individuals the opportunity to use their time and talents to benefit their local communities and the country as a whole. The Molly Pitcher Award, which has annually honored citizens for their outstanding service to the Carlisle community since 1969, is named after the revolutionary war heroine who risked her life to bring water to artillerymen under fire. As evidenced by receiving this honor, Mrs. Crowley's charitable endeavors have made a significant impact and improved the lives of many in central Pennsylvania.

Throughout her successful career in business, Mrs. Crowley has served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania Association of Chamber Professionals, the Cumberland Area Economic Development Corporation, and the United Way of Carlisle & Cumberland County, as well as serving as president of the nearly 700-member Carlisle Area Chamber of Commerce. Mrs. Crowley' s

devotion to bettering her community is also underscored by her participation in education and workforce development efforts, such as working with Dickinson College and area school districts on student internships, job shadowing, and placement.

On behalf of Pennsylvania's Tenth Congressional District, I express my sincere gratitude to Mrs. Crowley for all she has done and continues to do for the Carlisle community, and congratulate her on receiving the Molly Pitcher Award.

Madam Speaker, I am here today to talk about something that is completely unimaginable to me. I can't imagine I am here to talk about it on the floor of the House of Representatives. I can't imagine that it occurs in the world. I can't imagine that it occurs on this very day in this world. I can't imagine that it occurs in our country, but it does.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with all who condemn a horrific practice on this, the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.

Today, I introduced a bipartisan resolution with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida, Congresswoman Lois Frankel, which calls for a coordinated response from the United States and the international community to end this horrific and cruel practice.

The numbers surrounding FGM are shocking. They are staggering. Two hundred million women and girls alive today are survivors of FGM. Of those 200 million, 44 million are girls at or under the age of 14.

Madam Speaker, these are children. These are the little girls who you see going to elementary school in your community.

This year alone, an estimated 3 million girls are at risk of being genitally mutilated. In 25 countries where FGM is routinely practiced, between the years 2015 and 2030, an estimated 68 million girls will be cut, unless we take concerted and accelerated action.

This is an urgent situation when you imagine what happens, and I am going to go through it with you.

People ask, what exactly is FGM? Until just a few years ago, until I read about it and met some of the ladies who have had to endure it, I didn't know and I wasn't aware. But FGM comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for nonmedical reasons.

There is no medical necessity whatsoever to do this. It is most commonly performed on girls from infancy to age 15.

Now, just think about that: no anesthesia, no forewarning, no approval.

Madam Speaker, I am joined by the gentlewoman. Wonderful.

FGM is classified into four major types, ranging from pricking, nicking, scraping, and cauterization, to total excision and infibulation.

FGM is widely recognized by the international community as a violation of women's and girls' basic human rights, the right to their own body, their very own body and no one else's, and what happens to it.

Organizations that condemn FGM include the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The World Health Organization says this practice has no health benefit for women and girls and, instead, can have severe short- and long-term impacts on the physical, psychological, sexual, and reproductive health of these innocent, helpless girls.

The immediate physical complications of FGM include, obviously, severe pain, excessive bleeding, fever, urinary issues, shock, and death. That is just the beginning.

In the long term, a girl may experience cysts, infections, septicemia, painful and difficult urination and menstruation, and increased risk of death during childbirth for both the mother and the unborn child.

The pain inflicted by FGM doesn't stop with the initial procedure. It often serves as an ongoing torture throughout the woman's life, for her whole life.

Who practices FGM? FGM is a deeply rooted cultural practice. Different communities give different explanations for why they insist upon FGM, which usually involves nonfactual, misleading, and, frankly, insulting arguments about cleanliness and womanhood.

FGM communities often consider the practice a necessary part of raising a girl and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage. It is literally unbelievable. It is viewed as a way to ensure premarital virginity and marital fidelity. It is more likely to be carried out by communities that believe that this mutilation increases marriageability.

In other communities, FGM is practiced under the notion that girls are more clean and beautiful after removal of body parts that are considered unclean, unfeminine, or male.

As an international community, we must work with these communities to provide accurate information about the harm of this practice, about the long-term harm of this practice to women and girls, and change the narrative that somehow FGM is okay or tolerable for any reason whatsoever.

It is not okay. It is not tolerable for any reason under the Sun.

People ask where FGM is practiced. FGM is primarily concentrated in 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Currently, for girls 11 and younger, FGM has the highest prevalence in Gambia at 56 percent, Mauritania at 54 percent, and Indonesia at 50 percent.

It is most common in Somalia, Guinea, and Djibouti, where more than 90 percent of women and girls ages 15 to 49 are mutilated on a regular and systematic basis.

Make no mistake, however: FGM is a global problem. The World Health Organization warns that growing migration has increased the number of girls and women living outside their country of origin who have undergone FGM or who are at risk in Europe, Australia, Latin America, and North America.

Just last Friday, February 1, the United Kingdom handed down its first-ever guilty verdict of a woman who committed FGM on her 3-year- old daughter.

I have daughters. It is just unimaginable to me.

The largest health network in Belfast saw 17 cases of FGM in just 9 months between April 2017 and January 2018.

Unfortunately, unbelievably, FGM has also made headlines in the United States. In April 2017, Federal prosecutors for the first time used a 1996 Federal statute criminalizing the practice of FGM to bring charges in Livonia, Michigan, against Drs. Fakhruddin Attar and Jumana Nagarwala.

These doctors are accused of performing FGM on at least nine underage girls, from 8 to 13 years old, from at least three States. This is happening right here in our communities.

I have an excerpt from the 10 criminal complaint pages against Dr. Nagarwala. This is what happened, according to investigators and the victims themselves. These are direct excerpts.

On April 10, 2017, victim 1 was interviewed by a child

forensic interviewer employed by the FBI. She is 7 years old.

She stated that she was brought to Detroit, Michigan, with

victim 2 for a ``special'' girls' trip. After they arrived at

the hotel, victim 1 advised that she and victim 2 had to go

to the doctor because ``our tummies hurt.'' While at the

doctor's office, a procedure ``to get the germs out'' of her

was performed.

Victim 1 identified an unmarked photograph of Nagarwala and

said that she was the person who performed the procedure.

Victim 1 said she took off her pants and underwear and laid

on an examining table with her knees near her chest and her

legs spread apart. She said that Nagarwala ``pinched'' her on

the ``place where she goes pee,'' and that she was given a

pad to wear in her underwear as she left. She said that she

was told not to talk about the procedure.

On April 11, 2017, a medical doctor in Minnesota performed

a complete medical examination of victim 1 pursuant to a

search warrant. Your affiant has spoken with the medical

doctor who performed the exam, and the doctor's preliminary

findings are that her genitals are not normal in appearance.

Her labia minora has been altered or removed, and her

clitoral hood is also abnormal in appearance. Finally, the

doctor observed some scar tissue and small healing

lacerations.

On April 10, 2017, victim 2 was interviewed by a child

forensic interviewer employed by the FBI. Victim 2 is also 7

years old. She said that she came to Detroit with victim 1

and that she went to a doctor's office. She identified a

photograph of Nagarwala as the doctor who she saw in Detroit.

Victim 2 said that, in the examination room, Nagarwala took

off her pants and underwear and put her on the table. She

said that she ``got a shot,'' and that it hurt really badly

and she screamed. She said the ``shot'' was on her upper

right thigh.

She drew a picture of the room, and she drew an X to

indicate blood on the examining table. She said her parents

told her that the procedure is a secret and that she is not

supposed to talk about it.

She said that, after the procedure, she could barely walk

and that she felt pain all the way down to her ankle. She

said Nagarwala told her that she was fine.

Victim 2 said that she left one of her winter gloves in the

medical office.

This is a little 7-year-old girl.

On April 10, 2017, a search warrant was executed at the

medical clinic. During the search, agents found a child's

winter glove in the medical clinic. The glove had victim 2's

first name written on it.

Nineteen months later, in November 2018, a Federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Michigan ruled the 1996 Federal statute unconstitutional and actually dismissed several charges against these so-called doctors and their co-conspirators.

In the Michigan case, Judge Friedman of the Eastern District Court of Michigan wrote that ``Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM. . . . `Local criminal activity' . . . is for the States to regulate, not Congress.''

Because of that, because of that disappointing and horrific news, the good gentlewoman from Florida and I are offering a bill today that works within the Federal Government's jurisdiction to combat this reprehensible practice.

On Monday, I introduced two bills. The first was the bipartisan Protect Our Girls Act, H.R. 959, in which we expressly criminalized the transport of a minor across State lines for the purpose of female genital mutilation. The

majority of these girls involved in the recent case were from Minnesota and Illinois, while the mutilation was performed in a clinic in Michigan.

My second proposal, the Empower Our Girls Act, H.R. 960, adds female genital mutilation to seven grant programs within the Violence Against Woman Act, or what is commonly known as VAWA. The grants will focus on providing assistance in the criminal justice system and support from social service organizations to these ladies and little girls.

This is the first time that VAWA programs will address FGM and will allow victims of this unspeakable, unimaginable act to have the same opportunity to receive assistance as victims of other violent crimes.

The bill also adds female genital mutilation as a separate crime under the FBI's uniform criminal reporting system.

By codifying the existence of this crime, the bill lays the foundation for collecting information as it occurs across States. Reporting will assist in identifying other measures to bolster prevention and prosecution.

Before I yield to my good friend from Florida (Ms. Frankel), I just want to tell folks who might be listening or watching that one of the things that we hear when we go to the States--because law enforcement typically happens at the State level--and we say, ``Would you please consider a law for this so that this doesn't happen, so that this is illegal, so that people aren't encouraged to practice it but are discouraged from practicing?'' they will say, ``Well, it doesn't happen here. We don't have any cases of it being reported.''

It is not going to be reported, folks. The people who are doing this are doing it in secret. And once it has happened to a young girl or a lady, imagine the shame or the fear of going to a doctor and talking about something like that.

It is not reported for a reason. And because it is not reported, it is becoming more prevalent. We just can't allow that to happen.

At this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Well, I thank the gentlewoman so much, and I know this is a sensitive, uncomfortable topic, but it must be discussed. We can't just close our eyes and turn our head from uncomfortable things.

I am so proud and thankful that the gentlewoman has been willing to step up and stand up for these young ladies all around the world and in the United States as well, in our communities. Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen, this is violence. This is violent.

Now, a friend showed me a picture, and it is one of those things where you sometimes wish you hadn't seen something that you had seen, and you can't unsee it but it has such an impact on you. I have that picture now, so I am just going to continue to talk about that a little bit.

This is a picture from a National Geographic magazine. And when I and the gentlewoman from Florida talk about the cultural aspects of this-- this poor little girl. You can see the grimace on her face.

There is no sanitation, so to speak. This is not necessarily performed in a doctor's office. It looks almost like a school with a bunch of people around, right? No anesthesia.

They are holding her down, three of them holding her down. She doesn't want this to happen. This lady is smiling in her face. I can't imagine this little girl--wherever she is from, whoever she is, I can't imagine that this, somehow, is acceptable anywhere.

I feel compelled--I feel it is my duty, it is our duty--to speak out and say something about this to make sure it doesn't happen anywhere-- it doesn't happen in our homes; it doesn't happen to one more little girl. I stand before you today to call for an end to this horrific, barbaric practice internationally.

Only 28 of our United States have statutes criminalizing FGM to any varying degree. And again, I have gone to my State, and I have said: ``Please, will you do something?''

``Well, this isn't happening. We don't have any reports of it.''

We don't have any reports because it is legal. If people knew it was illegal, they would report it when they saw it. When this little girl goes to the doctor some day, they would report it.

I ask that the 22 States that currently have no law banning FGM, to include my home State of Pennsylvania, to pass legislation immediately. I am asking them right here, right now, today, on this day of international condemnation of this barbaric practice.

This is the day, the International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM, female genital mutilation. Now is the time to stand up for the voiceless.

These are little girls. These are little girls whose mothers and fathers take them to do this to them. Sometimes they do it to them, as you have heard, themselves. Little girls who trust their parents, who trust their mother would never hurt them, right? Voiceless.

This must be criminalized, this horrific practice of FGM. FGM has absolutely no place in America or anywhere else in the world. Again, there is no medical reason to do this whatsoever--none. It is unconscionable.

FGM is unconscionable. It is a systematic form of abuse and female subjugation perpetrated against the youngest and most vulnerable among us.

And it doesn't just end right there. When she is done with this, it doesn't

end there. She has got to heal, which may take weeks and months, or longer, physically. But the scars of what happens to this little girl and millions around the world and in our country, as well, lasts the rest of their lifetime. For what?

As our society becomes more transient and diverse, we must strengthen our efforts to stop this practice. It simply must end immediately. Those who perpetrate it must be brought to swift justice in the United States. We can no longer have somebody report and put themselves out there and peril themselves, make themselves vulnerable to retribution or what have you for the judge to throw it out.

I am not here to criticize the judge who looked at the Constitution and said: Look, this isn't the place for it.

I get that. That is the judge's job. But it is our job in Congress to get this right, to make sure that the law says one way or the other: This is a problem in our country. We don't accept this. We reject this, and there is going to be a penalty for doing this.

Those little girls can't protect themselves. They have no protection whatsoever. They are counting on their parents and the adults in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle and across the political spectrum for their support of bipartisan solutions to condemn and stop this atrocity. We have great support, and we think we are going to get even more support, bipartisan support.

There are not many things that Democrats and Republicans, that conservatives and liberals across the country can agree upon, but we can all agree that, if that were our little girl, there is no way in hell we would let that happen. There is no way.

So not only us, as different people on different sides of the aisle here in this United States Congress, but the international community is also weighing in on this as well, as you have already heard. They have said enough is enough.

It is bad enough that it is happening in other parts of the world, but in the 21st century, in 2019, this is happening right here in the United States of America. And Americans need to be aware. They need to be informed. The medical practitioners need to be informed.

Law enforcement needs a tool. They need something to ensure that the people who are contemplating doing this will contemplate not doing it; that people who think somehow it is culturally acceptable figure out and are informed that it is not; that people who somehow feel that they must do this to their little girl so that they can then force her into some marriage and that she will be acceptable to the partner that she is forced to be with, that that is no longer acceptable either.

It never was acceptable. It is not acceptable in the United States, and it is our job to make sure it is not acceptable anywhere. And it starts right here, and it starts right now. We have waited too long.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to speak up on this issue.

It is sensitive, and that is why people don't want to speak up on it, because it is embarrassing to talk about, and I guess they are afraid of the embarrassment. But I am not. Somebody has to speak up for these little girls that have no one else, that, after the fact, can do nothing about this for the rest of their lives.

They only have us here, people who don't know them, people who will probably never ever know them. They have us, and it is our job. It is our duty to stick up for them and put ourselves out here. And if it takes being uncomfortable, well, that is what it takes.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be here today to offer this. I would ask that if my colleagues who are listening haven't heard about this, please take a look at these two pieces of legislation. I appreciate their input. If they have got ways to improve them or if they are concerned about what we are trying to do here and think it is overreaching or something like that, I would appreciate your input.

We want to make sure that we are doing the best job that we can, and that we are doing the best job that we can for little girls like this who are being held down against their will and having their body parts cut off of them because of some culture and some ideas that they will somehow be more worthy in their community once they are mutilated for the rest of their life. That is our job here.

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

Mr. Speaker, people at home think they are watching C- SPAN, but this is more like ``Masterpiece Theatre.'' I mean, this is actually like a documentary where we record what happened in history, but here we see that we are going to change and revise history. We are going to remind everybody who is watching and everybody in this House that, under this minority leader, who was the majority leader at the time, we passed a bill in this House to keep the government open.

We didn't want to shut down the government. We wanted to keep the government open and fund border security. We passed it in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I know everybody is smiling over there because you voted against it, but we passed it in this House, and we sent it to the Senate. It was the Senate Democrats who said, ``Oh, no. Oh, no, we are not going to do any of that border security stuff. We want you to go ahead and have the shutdown, and then we will blame it all on you.''

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to revise history. We would like to get to the task at hand, which is solving this issue of border security.

We ask the other side, instead of engaging in this blame game, of which they are wholly part of, obviously--they didn't want to keep the government open. The Senate Democrats didn't want to do anything to keep the government open. Forget this charade, this theater, and let's get to negotiating on border security and making sure that the American people are safe.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk a little bit about what we just saw, which is what the gentleman from Texas is talking about, this vote that we just had with the condemnation of shutdown.

Let's just be clear. Nobody--nobody--in this House, whether it be Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, anywhere in between, or in the Senate, nobody votes for shutdown. There is no bill that says: Are you voting ``yea'' to shut down the Federal Government or are you voting ``nay''? That is not how this goes.

What happens is we are trying to fund. It is an appropriations bill. And ``appropriation'' is a fancy way of just saying: We are taking your tax dollars, and this what we are spending. This is our priority. This is how we are spending it.

There is a disagreement, and we can't come to an agreement. Nothing happens. That is the problem: nothing happens. So the Federal Government shuts down.

Now, we had a discussion earlier on when I said: Look, we are having this vote today to condemn this horrible thing. That doesn't fix anything. It doesn't solve a thing. It is just theater. And the American people and our country have big issues at stake that we need to get to solving. This doesn't solve anything.

This is just: Let's make sure we place blame where we think blame is so we can pound our chest and feel good and we can--oh, by the way-- cover for some of our Members who voted ``no'' on paying Federal employees who were working. That is what this was all about.

It is in the past. It is in the past. But right now we should be talking about the negotiation which caused this whole thing in the first place.

Quite honestly, you should be able to talk and chew gum at the same time, which is: Let's have a discussion about what is appropriate at the border and keep all of the Federal Government open at the same time. But, no, we can't do that because we are not interested in securing our border.

That is really what this is all about. This is the Homeland Security appropriations bill. And if you are not talking about securing the border in the Homeland Security appropriations bill, I don't know where you are going to talk about it.

So, again, no one wants a shutdown. No one voted for a shutdown.

But I reminded the majority party that, in December, this House, under Republican leadership, voted for a bill that would have kept the government open and, in walking and chewing gum at the same time, provided for border security that the President would have signed.

The majority leader said: You guys voted on a bill after waiting for a year that you knew couldn't pass.

Well, during that period of a year, the reason it couldn't pass is the reason it didn't pass in the Senate: because Senate Democrats refused to fund border security.

Now, I believe they are for border security, but if it says ``the wall,'' well, that is President Trump, and we certainly can't have any of that. I would say we have got to get past that.

Look, you can dislike the President all you want. That is your prerogative. But don't translate your dislike for the President into not caring for the security of the American people. And that is what has happened here.

We are now in January, at the end of January. We don't know what the numbers for January are. We don't know the numbers for December yet. But Homeland Security reported in November, between the ports of entry, between the points of entry, 51,000 people were apprehended coming across our border. We don't know how many weren't apprehended. We just know we got 51,000.

My friends on the other side of the aisle say: We are for border security, so we want some drones and more technology and beef up the points of entry.

We are not opposed to that, but we are saying, generally, that is status quo, right? We are talking about fixing the status quo. We are not talking about doing anything in between the points of entry, which is what the discussion really is all about.

And the President is willing to do things at the points of entry and in between, but some folks are not, and that is where we are having a problem.

In 1 month.

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what else to call it.

We are a generous people, and I, myself, am the product of legal immigration through Ellis Island. We want to remain that way. The United States is the most generous nation on the planet in that regard, I think last year admitting, legally, about 1.7 million people into our country.

All we are saying is: Listen, please just knock on the door. We have a process here. We have got to do it the right way. Don't just barge in. Just ring the doorbell.

But these folks are saying: Well, we don't want to ring the doorbell.

You can clearly see why, if you are trafficking in little girls or young men, if you are trafficking in the 90-plus percent of heroin coming across the border and into every single town, laced with fentanyl.

If you are trafficking in MS-13, you are not going to go to the point of entry and say: ``Hey, Mr. Border Patrolman, I have got this stash of drugs here. You don't mind if I bring this into your country.'' No, you are going to go where they are not.

The President is saying this is where we need to secure our border as well, as well as the points of entry.

Again, I don't understand why we are in this mutually exclusive position. I don't think that Democrats don't want to secure the border, but securing the border has to be more, something more than putting a drone up in the sky so that we can see them coming.

The point is that they don't get across the border, not just to see them coming, but that they don't get onto our side of the border with whatever they are bringing and that we interdict them. That is the issue here.

So I think we should be closer than we are, and I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to just appeal to their better angels.

We don't have to side with the cartels. Republicans and Democrats can be together and siding with the American people and securing America and its people from this unsafe circumstance, whether it is gang members and gang-related violence, whether it is drugs coming into our community, or whether it is low-skilled labor that puts our low-skilled labor--there are people in America, believe it or not, who don't graduate high school, and they have a hard time finding a job because they don't have an education.

Not only are they competing against the things that they have in their own circumstance--right?--of not having an education in their own country, but now they are competing against other people who don't have a high school education from another country, who are willing to work for less than they are.

If we don't stand up for the least of those in our community who have the least, who have the worst disadvantage against them, our constituents, who is going to?

I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: It is really time to stop with the theater here and the blame game. It is what it is now. Nobody votes for a shutdown. Nobody votes for a shutdown. But stop with all that, and let's get to real, live negotiations.

You don't have to side with the cartels. You can side with the American citizens. You don't even have to consider it siding with the President of the United States if you find that unpalatable. You can side with the citizens in your community who don't want MS-13, who don't want heroin, who don't want fentanyl, who don't want people stealing their wages from the citizens in their community.

So I would just appeal to them. I know their heart is good, so we just ask them to negotiate in good faith.

The good gentleman from Texas and I will be here when they come up with their plan. We have asked--right?--for 30-some days: What is your plan? We know you don't like the President. We got that. But what is your plan? Have we seen it? I haven't seen anything yet, right? I haven't seen their proposal yet.

Madam Speaker, I can't speak to what happened in the past, and I don't know where the money went either, but I know where we are today.

I know that our communities are in peril for these issues that we have discussed already. I am sure, coming from Texas, you can name people's names. I can name people who have been murdered, who have died of overdoses. Even if you are just an average taxpaying citizen in Pennsylvania--I don't know about other States--but in Pennsylvania, we pay at least $1.3 billion annually just for illegal immigration in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that doesn't include healthcare and social services. That is education and incarceration. And we are 2,000 miles from the border.

If you are a senior citizen in Pennsylvania, where our property taxes are high, you have paid your mortgage, you are no longer working, you are on a fixed income, you are counting on your retirement and maybe your Social Security and your savings, and the price tag keeps going up because people keep coming into your community illegally. You are in peril of losing your home, you are looking to your representatives and saying: Sir, ma'am, what are you doing about this problem? We cannot accept this. We don't want to lose our home to pay for this problem that shouldn't be happening.

Regardless of what happened in the past, I can't fix that. But what we are saying in this House, as Republicans, is the status quo of 51,000 people in 1 month getting caught between the entry points cannot continue. It is too much. It must be stopped. We must do something.

If the other side has a better plan, God bless them. I am ready to sit down and look at it, but we have been waiting for it since December 20-something. It is now the end of January. We are prepared. The gentleman from Texas, the Representative from Texas, and I are willing to consider whatever they have, but we don't have anything so far.

This President has offered, I think, four or five times things that they

have wanted and said: Let's come to the table.

We can't fix it on our own. We need their involvement. We need their input.

We just beseech them: Let's get past all this theater. Let's get down to brass tacks here and start saving our community.

Madam Speaker, today I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Master Sergeant Edward K. Slavin, a resident of York, Pennsylvania, on his retirement following 22 years of dedicated service to our Country in the United States Air Force.

MSgt Slavin currently serves as the Aircraft Mechanic Supervisor at the 193rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron in Middletown, Pennsylvania. He entered the USAF in 1997, and served in numerous assignments and deployments throughout his distinguished career.

MSgt Slavin has shown not only outstanding leadership, but uncommon technical skill. His nine deployments in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom demonstrate tireless devotion and self- sacrifice on behalf of the American people. He was a vital part of joint exercises with allies around the world, and volunteered to train members of the Canadian Air Force and Indian Air Force in the operation and maintenance of their newly assigned C-130J aircraft. MSgt Slavin also quickly volunteered to support disaster relief efforts following Hurricane Katrina and the 2007 Peru Earthquake.

His numerous commendations and awards, include the Air Force Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (w/2 Oak Leaf Clusters), among several others, and are a testament to his steadfast courage, personal integrity, unwavering work ethic, and impeccable character. His enduring legacy of service to our Nation is exceptional and sets the standard for all to follow.

On behalf of Pennsylvania's Tenth Congressional District, I commend and congratulate my fellow brother-in-arms, Master Sergeant Edward K. Slavin, upon his retirement and for his devoted service to the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and not able to be present on the floor at the time of the vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 46 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 47.

``But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

``The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

``No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

``In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice

President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the outstanding men and women of the Harrisburg Police Department on earning the National Association of Town Watch ``Rookie of the Year'' Award.

On August 7, 2018, 16,780 law enforcement agencies across the Country held local National Night Out events, aimed at promoting police- community partnerships through neighborhood block parties and cookouts with officers. Out of nearly 800 nationwide law enforcement groups who held a National Night Out for the first time, the Harrisburg Police Department was one of only three agencies in Pennsylvania selected for recognition.

Law enforcement officers are heroes, and we must not take their service for granted. They put their lives on the line to keep our neighborhoods, homes, businesses and schools safe and secure. The National Night Out in August was just one more example of the Harrisburg Police Department's cherished charge to protect and defend the people they serve.

I've long appreciated the commitment and self-sacrifice of our law enforcement professionals. On behalf of Pennsylvania's Tenth Congressional District, I commend, congratulate and extend my heartfelt thanks to the Harrisburg Police Department on this great accomplishment, and wish them Godspeed as they continue serving and safeguarding our communities.

Madam Speaker, folks in the audience, and folks that are watching this on TV, this is all theater. This is all just political theater.

Everybody knows. I know. My good friends on the other side of the aisle know that this isn't going to solve anything. This is not a solution.

If we were serious about solving this, we wouldn't be voting on another bill here that doesn't fix anything, that is never going to be moved through the Senate, that is never going to be signed by the President.

If we were interested in opening the Federal Government, we would be negotiating. We would be talking about what our differences are about border security.

Remember, this is a bill that includes the funding for border security. That is why we have this partial shutdown, because we have a disagreement about border security. And we are trying to work it out, but we can't work it out just by running the same bills that don't do anything and that are never going to move through the Senate and aren't going to be signed by the President.

It is time to get serious.

Last year, this government was shut down for a few days over amnesty. Now it is shut down because the other side doesn't want to talk about border security. You put amnesty and the lack of border security together, and that is open borders. That is completely open borders.

Just on the news, if you were watching the last couple days, more caravans heading north out of Central America through Mexico to the United States border. That is what is happening right now while our Border Patrol agents are out there working but not being paid.

Here come these folks. We don't know what their circumstances are. I am sure there are a lot of fine people in there. I am sure there are children in there, and the horrors that they are going to suffer on this trek north up through the desert in these points between the points of entry.

Madam Speaker, the most recent numbers out of Homeland Security in November, 51,000 people--that is the ones we caught--51,000 people came across the border between the ports of entry.

If they were coming to the ports of entry, this wouldn't be half of a problem, but the problem is they are coming between the ports of entry. That is one month, 51,000. And those are the ones we caught. We don't have any idea how many other ones made it through.

And yet some folks are saying: Well, we are going to give you an extra billion dollars to fix this problem.

It is not an extra billion. It is the same billion, and it is to fix problems at the ports of entry.

Madam Speaker, the problem is between the ports of entry and the ports of entry. But we are not going to do anything about the ports of entry. The billion dollars we are talking about is to muddle around and maintain things at the ports of entry but do nothing between the ports of entry, nothing at all. That is the status quo.

That is why we are in this argument, because we are saying we cannot withstand, we cannot maintain the status quo of 51,000 people a month coming illegally across our border and do nothing.

We are pleading with the other side: Please, let's do something. Let's do something different than the status quo, because the status quo gives us 51,000 people coming illegally across the border.

And they are saying: Well, we are just going to run the same bill to open the government and do nothing.

We cannot abide that. The American people cannot abide that.

People are working, Madam Speaker, without being paid while people pour across our border, and we are expecting them to stop them. They don't have the resources because we are not providing them.

It is time to end this needless show of work. We are here working, right? We are all here working. We are not doing anything to solve the problem.

What it is going to take is somebody to sit down at the table and say, ``Look. See here. This is what I think the issue is,'' and find some solution somewhere in the middle. But you can't do that if you are not willing to have a discussion.

We are asking to have a discussion so we can get past this, so people can get paid and the American people can be assured that their government is securing their border, their property, their country, and stopping all these illegal immigrants from coming in; and making sure that, if they are going to come in--and we are a country of immigrants.

My grandmother, my great-grandmother came here from Colombia, South America, with the shirts on their backs. They came through Ellis Island because we had a process. We are all immigrants, and we welcome immigrants more than any other country on the planet, but we want you to come legally.

We have a process. We don't want you to just pour across the border into our country with gang-related violence, with fentanyl, with opioids that are killing people in our own communities, all these drugs and crimes and violence. We are asking you to come to the ports of entry and quit pouring in between the ports of entry. But our laws now invite them to do that, which is why they are coming.

So I just beseech you, Madam Speaker--and I thank you for your indulgence and for your time--let's quit this show. Let's quit this charade. Let's quit this theater. Let's get serious for the people who are working, for the American people who expect more, and get down to negotiation, come to a solution, and move on with things, the important things that plague our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of the tens of thousands who will march in support of life tomorrow in Washington,

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about the crisis at the border, what is happening now, and what we can expect if we don't resolve this issue.

I can't help but comment on a few things that my good friend, the gentleman from California, said. And just in case he wasn't paying attention, we are talking about 234 miles of border security fencing or wall or barrier of some sort as enumerated by the Secretary of Homeland Security--not the President; the Secretary of Homeland Security.

So when he says it is unspecified where it will be and what it will be, it is very closely and very particularly specified by the Secretary, not by the President, and it is the 10 worst sites along the border where there is no barrier now.

Let's get on with the other business of the afternoon.

Madam Speaker, I am here this afternoon with nearly a dozen of my colleagues in the House Freedom Caucus who will lay out the case, with specifics, for the President's policies on border security, which are aimed at keeping America safe and enforcing our laws. These are for America's policies.

The government has been shut down for the longest period in modern history. It is shut down over the topic of border security and whether to fund the construction of a border wall on points along our southern border.

Right now, our immigration is our single greatest policy failure, a failure that is a manufactured one. It was created from political cowardice, short-termism, and self-interest, but it is a moral, legal, and human catastrophe of epic proportions.

The President is fighting to fix it, and the Freedom Caucus is fighting to fix it right alongside him. Squarely in our way is a party gripped by denial, their political equivalent of hear no evil and see no evil.

We learned as children that putting your head in the sand doesn't change the reality of the situation, the facts are facts. They don't have a political position. It is not about how we feel or what we wish the facts are. They are what they are.

Let me quote a recent Vox article, a publication, mind you, that is no friend to conservatives or the Trump Administration:

Hundreds, or even thousands, of migrant families are set to

be released from government detention along the U.S.-Mexico

border over the next several days. But while the mass release

of families may cheer critics of the Trump administration's

treatment of immigrant families, the government's new plan

will probably lead to hundreds of families getting dropped

off en masse at bus stations--literally out in the cold.

Now the U.S. Border Patrol is so jammed that it had to release these illegal aliens at a Greyhound station on Christmas Eve. And that is not the Border Patrol's fault; it is an activist judge in California who said that Customs and Border Protection must release these individuals. But there is nowhere for these families to go. Charities at the border are full. Detention facilities at the border are full.

Some more quotes from the same article:

But over the summer and fall of 2018, it has become clear

that there really is a crisis at the border--because more

families are coming to more places than U.S. officials have

ever been capable of dealing with.

During the peak of unauthorized migration into the U.S.

circa 2000, the overwhelming majority of migrants were single

men; only 10 percent of Border Patrol apprehensions were

families or unaccompanied children.

In November 2018, 57 percent were families or children.

More families crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without

documentation in November of 2018 than in many months since

Department of Homeland Security started tracking family

apprehension separately. More children and families crossed

in November 2018 than crossed during the peak of the ``border

crisis'' in June of 2014.

This is Vox, mind you. This is analysis from a liberal publication. Let me repeat the line.

But over the summer and fall of 2018, it has become clear

that there really is a crisis at the border.

Again, this is from Vox.

Now, let me quote the Washington Post, as you know, another great fan of our President. This is an article from January 5:

In recent weeks, so many parents with children have been

among the 2,000 unauthorized migrants who are being taken

into Federal custody each day that authorities have resorted

to mass releases of families onto the streets of El Paso and

other border cities. U.S. agents are bringing dozens of

migrants, coughing and feverish, each day to clinics and

hospitals after stays in jam-packed holding cells where

children sleep on concrete floors and huddle in plastic

sheets for warmth.

If this isn't a crisis, can someone tell me what is?

To all reporters hyperventilating in TV studios who fact-check the Freedom Caucus and the President, I am sure it is not a crisis; but to these print reporters at Vox and The Washington Post who did their jobs and reported the news, this is a crisis.

The agency tasked with basic Federal responsibility in this situation, Customs and Border Protection, lacks the resources to do its job humanely and effectively. They lack the legal resources. They lack the financial resources.

This is the current status quo. This is why we are here. This is why nothing is happening in Washington, D.C., about ending this shutdown, because some folks on the other side of the aisle, in both this body and the one across the Capitol, refuse to deal with the lack of resources.

I ask my Democratic colleagues: Is this what you support, this status quo? Do you support leaving illegal foreign nationals, human beings, on the streets of the United States at bus stations and by the side of the road?

Do you support incentivizing them to journey through one of the highest intensity drug trafficking zones in the world, where all manner of horrific things occur? Do you believe this is moral? I don't. Neither does the President, who requested another $5 billion for detention beds so we can protect our borders and the illegal aliens who violate them. It is in writing in this letter from Director Vought at OMB, which I will include in the Record.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, January 6, 2019.

Hon. Richard Shelby,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The President continues to stress the

need to pass legislation that will both reopen the Federal

Government and address the security and humanitarian crisis

at our Nation's Southwest border. The Administration has

previously transmitted budget proposals that would support

his ongoing commitment to dramatically reduce the entry of

illegal immigrants, criminals, and drugs; keep out

terrorists, public safety threats, and those otherwise

inadmissible under U.S. law; and ensure that those who do

enter without legal permission can be promptly and safely

returned home.

Appropriations bills for fiscal year (FY) 2019 that have

already been considered by the current and previous

Congresses are inadequate to fully address these critical

issues. Any agreement for the current year should satisfy the

following priorities:

Border Wall, Customs and Border Protection (CBP): The

President requests $5.7 billion for construction of a steel

barrier for the Southwest border. Central to any strategy to

achieve operational control along the southern border is

physical infrastructure to provide requisite impedance and

denial. In short, a physical barrier--wall--creates an

enduring capability that helps field personnel stop, slow

down and/or contain illegal entries. In concert with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, CBP has increased its capacity to

execute these funds. The Administration's full request would

fund construction of a total of approximately 234 miles of

new physical barrier and fully fund the top 10 priorities in

CBP's Border Security Improvement Plan. This would require an

increase of $4.1 billion over the FY 2019 funding level in

the Senate version of the bill.

Immigration Judge Teams--Executive Office for Immigration

Review (EOIR): The President requests at least $563 million

for 75 additional Immigration Judges and support staff to

reduce the backlog of pending immigration cases. The

Administration appreciates that the Senate's FY 2019 bill

provides this level of funding, and looks forward to working

with the Congress on further increases in this area to

facilitate an expansion of in-country processing of asylum

claims.

Law Enforcement Personnel, Border Patrol Agent Hiring, CBP:

The President requests $211 million to hire 750 additional

Border Patrol Agents in support of his promise to keep our

borders safe and secure. While the Senate's FY 2019 bill

supports some Border Patrol Agent hiring, fulfilling this

request requires an increase of $100 million over the FY 2019

funding level in the Senate version of the bill.

Law Enforcement Personnel, Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE): The President requests $571 million for

2,000 additional law enforcement personnel, as well as

support staff, who enforce our U.S. immigration laws and help

address gang violence, smuggling and trafficking, and the

spread of drugs in our communities. This would require an

increase of $571 million over the FY 2019 funding level in

the Senate version of the bill.

Detention Beds, ICE: The President requests $4.2 billion to

support 52,000 detention beds. Given that in recent months,

the number of people attempting to cross the border illegally

has risen to 2,000 per day, providing additional resources

for detention and transportation is essential. This would

require an increase of $798 million over the FY 2019 funding

level in the Senate version of the bill.

Humanitarian Needs: The President requests an additional

$800 million to address urgent humanitarian needs. This

includes additional funding for enhanced medical support,

transportation, consumable supplies appropriate for the

population, and additional temporary facilities for

processing and short-term custody of this vulnerable

population, which are necessary to ensure the well-being of

those taken into custody.

Counter-narcotics/weapons Technology: Beyond these specific

budgetary requests, the Administration looks forward to

working with Congress to provide resources in other areas to

address the unprecedented challenges we face along the

Southwest border. Specifically, $675 million would provide

Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology at inbound lanes at

U.S. Southwest Border Land Ports of Entry (LPOE) would allow

CBP to deter and detect more contraband, including narcotics,

weapons, and other materials that pose nuclear and

radiological threats. This would require an increase of $631

million over the FY 2019 funding level in the Senate version

of the bill.

In addition, to address the humanitarian crisis of

unaccompanied alien children (UACs), Democrats have proposed

in-country asylum processing for Central American Minors.

This would require a statutory change, along with

reallocation of State Department funds to establish in-

country processing capacities at Northern Triangle consulates

and embassies. Furthermore, for the new procedure to achieve

the desired humanitarian result, a further corresponding

statutory change would be required to ensure that those who

circumvent the process and come to the United States without

authorization can be promptly returned home. Without the

latter change, in-country processing will not reduce the

unauthorized flow or successfully mitigate the humanitarian

crisis.''

These upfront investments in physical barriers and

technology, as well as legislation to close loopholes in our

immigration system, will reduce illegal immigration, the flow

of illicit drugs entering our country and reduce the long

term costs for border and immigration enforcement activities.

The Administration looks forward to advancing these

critical priorities as part of legislation to reopen the

Government.

Sincerely,

Russell T. Vought,

Acting Director.

The President has asked for $800 million for things like medical care for these migrants, for transportation, for meals, and for short-term custody facilities to deal with the inflow of illegal aliens our laws have caused.

He has asked for 57 new immigration judge teams to process these people, hear claims with merit, and deal with claims that do not.

And, yes, he asked for the wall to cover the 10 worst sites, as described by the Department of Homeland Security, to prevent entrants from pouring across the border, especially in the dead of winter and the extreme heat of summer.

These are rational measures, and they are humanitarian measures.

The cheap and disingenuous moralism of the Democrats in Congress has brought us to this point. They have opposed every one of these proposals to improve this system, not only in this Congress, but in every Congress before. This is the same posturing that is worsening this crisis, and I will say it again: This is a crisis.

Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a clear choice to make. They can bow to the demands of their radical base that believes there is no difference or distinction between citizen and noncitizen, or they can come to the table to work with the President, which is our job; to protect the vulnerable, including the 30 percent of women who are sexually assaulted on the trek to the U.S.-Mexican border, the children who are preyed upon by human trafficking rings, and the innocent who are trying to make a better life for themselves but live in fear of the drug cartels and many others; to protect our borders; and to protect American citizens.

They can provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement the tools, legal and financial, to do its job.

What is not up for debate is whether the children shivering on the floor because we can't house them is a crisis. That is the bottom line here.

Even worse, American families are losing loved ones at the hands of illegal foreign nationals under preventable circumstances--preventable, completely preventable.

Earlier today, we heard from Angel Moms, a sister and a brother, American citizens who lost loved ones because we aren't enforcing our immigration laws. This is completely and wholly unacceptable.

We are a compassionate nation and a nation of laws, but the same laws apply to all of us. It is not this law for some and this law for others. We cannot allow ideology to prevent us from addressing the crisis. The situation is too dire for these people at risk, and the situation for America is critical.

Tonight, the House Freedom Caucus stands with the President, and I am proud to stand with my colleagues to make the case to the American people.

Madam Speaker, we will next hear from Mr. Chip Roy on the effectiveness of walls, and then we will hear from Mr. Brooks from Alabama on the danger of these uncontrolled border policies to Americans, followed by Mr. Biggs from Arizona on what it is like to live in an unsecured border because he lives in Arizona.

We will hear from Mr. Hice on opioids and the way our porous borders contribute to that crisis that is affecting every single town in the country.

We will hear from Mr. Griffith. We will also hear from Mr. Yoho; Mr. Meadows, our great chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina; as well as Mr. Cloud from Texas.

This evening, we are going to get beyond the talking points and specifically lay out our case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), the chairman of the Freedom Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama and yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for being part of this discussion

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for sharing his thoughts on this topic.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

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