Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Protecting women and girls from violence and abuse and keeping them safe is deeply important to me and Members on both sides of the aisle.

Shortly before I was first elected to Congress back in 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Violence Against Women Act. It was the first iteration of a very good bill, which, if you can believe it, passed the House then by a voice vote. It was supported by all but four in the Senate.

When it was reauthorized in the year 2000, I supported it and voted for it, and in 2006, VAWA again had my full support. In fact, since I have been in Congress, I have voted nearly a dozen times, both in the Judiciary Committee or here on the floor, to renew or strengthen the provisions of VAWA in an effort to do what we all can do to protect women who have been or will in the future be subjects of domestic violence, abuse, or other forms of harassment.

Historically, this legislation has been a truly bipartisan effort. Sadly, the effort put forth today by the majority is anything but bipartisan.

What has happened between then and now? It seems to me that many on the left decided that they could use this critical legislation that is intended to protect women and girls from violence as a vehicle to promote their far-left political agenda. To me, this is a disturbing development, as the safety and well-being of all women and girls in this country is far too important to jeopardize with callous political calculations that could further divide the American people.

In fact, it is possible that passing this so-called VAWA reauthorization offered by the majority could result in some faith- based institutions shutting their shelter doors so that many women and girls who relied on their help, support, and protection wouldn't have that protection.

This legislation could force women seeking protection in shelters or incarcerated in prison to be housed alongside biological males, potentially subjecting those women to further psychological, mental, or physical harm. To me, it is unconscionable to be aware of these and other shortcomings of this legislation and simply ignore it.

What should we do? We should continue to improve VAWA as we did prior to 2013. We should continue to protect those vulnerable individuals in our society who rely on our help to protect them. And we should accomplish it in a bipartisan, bicameral manner, Republicans and Democrats actually working together as we are capable of doing.

It is time we put politics and political agendas aside and reauthorize a Violence Against Women Act that continues to provide real protection for women and girls.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I have been a committed defender of the Second Amendment since being elected to Congress back in 1994. For me, that means that I will do everything that I possibly can to ensure that the rights of Americans, as they relate to the Second Amendment, are protected, while at the same time

working to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable individuals.

H.R. 8, unfortunately, doesn't accomplish either of those goals. It is overburdensome, unreasonable, and, if passed, would instead keep firearms out of the hands of some hardworking and law-abiding citizens.

Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment which would allow for the transfer of a firearm to museums or historical displays without going through the burdensome requirements of this measure, but that eminently reasonable amendment and others offered by my colleagues were flatly rejected by the majority.

During this afternoon's debate, we have again expressed several concerns which will not be addressed or considered by the majority. Instead of focusing on improving the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System, or NICS, providing resources to assist those with mental illnesses or hardening soft targets like schools and places of worship, the majority will pass this legislation and attempt to further infringe on the Second Amendment rights of our constituents. That is very, very unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I stand in opposition to this deeply flawed legislation.

Madam Speaker, America is at a crossroads. As the violent riots at the Capitol last week so painfully and shockingly reminded us, the unhinged partisan rhetoric that too often consumes the political dialogue in this country has become toxic and is tearing us apart. If we continue down this path, there is no telling how much damage to our Union there may be.

Sadly, that is what is happening here today. The majority is rushing through yet a second impeachment of President Trump, who has but 7 days remaining in office. As prominent constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley has cautioned: Today a dangerous precedent is being set that could lead to the normalization of snap impeachments without any hearings or any meaningful discussion or debate.

The majority is ramming through this House the most potent tool at our disposal without a single hearing, turning a process that usually takes months into a few short hours.

We haven't heard testimony from a single witness. We haven't heard from any experts on the nature of these charges, nor the damage this effort could inflict on our Republic. We didn't know even how this debate would unfold until 9 a.m. this morning.

This is truly an unprecedented situation and one which could cause irrevocable harm to our Nation.

Madam Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way. We don't have to continue down this misguided path. We could instead follow the wisdom provided by none other than Abraham Lincoln during another divisive time in our Nation's history and listen to the better angels of our nature. We could choose a more positive, constructive path and vote down this ill-conceived effort.

We should tone down the political rhetoric. We should work together to solve the problems that face our Nation. We should put aside our differences and find common ground.

We should bring Americans back together because there is no crisis we can't overcome if we stand united.

Mr. Speaker, what happened last Wednesday at the Capitol never should have happened. The actions of those who attempted to breach the Capitol Building, and then ultimately did, are inexcusable. Lawlessness and violence are never acceptable, whichever side of the political divide one may fall. Those who broke the law should be and will be identified and prosecuted.

In the aftermath of last week's tragic events, most Americans continue to be saddened, angry, and wanting answers, and they are looking to us to provide a positive example of how to bring our Nation back together. Unfortunately, if what we are doing this evening is any indication, Congress might not be up to the task.

The Democrats' attempt to invoke the 25th Amendment and to once again impeach President Trump a week before he will be leaving office anyway are, in my opinion, misguided. The push to encourage the Vice President to invoke the 25th Amendment is especially ill advised.

The Constitution is clear that the role for Congress to play under the 25th Amendment is to decide if the powers provided thereunder have been properly invoked in the event of a dispute between the President and Vice President or the majority of the Cabinet. In other words, we are to serve as judges under the 25th Amendment, not instigators.

By encouraging the Vice President to take action, supporters of this resolution are abandoning our constitutional role, which could have a significant legal consequence down the road. And even more importantly, rather than help to heal a divided nation, the Democrats' effort will likely drive us even further apart.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, we should be turning our attention toward uniting the American people. It is time for us to tone down the political rhetoric, to work together, to solve the problems that face our Nation. It is time for us to put aside our differences and find common ground. After all, we are all Americans.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise this evening to offer a commonsense amendment to H.R. 3494.

My amendment simply strikes Section 401, which creates the Climate Security Advisory Council. And I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) for his leadership, and also cosponsoring this particular amendment.

This council is not the most responsible use of the valuable manpower and funding of the intelligence community, especially since the Director of National Intelligence did not even request that we create such an organization. The Federal Government already has vast resources devoted to the climate issue.

Any climate security intelligence work should be in the context of larger intelligence matters affecting major regions around the world and the U.S. national security infrastructure.

Additionally, many of the existing intelligence organizations already do much of this work on their own, including the CIA. Section 401 would just create unneeded redundancy across the intelligence community.

If the goal is to ensure that we allocate our resources efficiently, we should instead require a report to Congress from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence outlining the necessity for the Climate Security Council before Congress establishes the organization or appropriates any funding.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I want to quote a great American President, Ronald Reagan.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be granted 5 minutes in opposition, but I have a little time left.

Madam Chair, I have no objection to the gentleman offering his opposition to this.

There is 2\1/2\ minutes left. Is that correct?

Madam Chair, I still have 2\1/2\ minutes, is that correct, because I reserved my time?

Madam Chair, I would like to make a unanimous consent request that there be an opposition that gets 5 minutes and that I can close with my 2\1/2\ minutes.

We are trying to be fair here, and we are happy to give our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 5 minutes to offer their opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck). I will just take 1 minute to wrap up.

Madam Chair, I have 2\1/2\ minutes. Is that right?

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

Madam Chair, 2 minutes in opposition.

Madam Chair, I have 2\1/2\ minutes. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck). So I have 1 minute left.

Madam Chair, I think I have 1 minute left.

I thought perhaps the gentleman wanted to support my amendment, but he called it wrongheaded. I am just shocked.

Madam Chair, in closing, this council is a redundant, unnecessary use of manpower funding. We need our intelligence community focused on the most critical threats facing our Nation, specifically, counterterrorism, Iran, China, Russia, North Korea.

If this council is something that the Director of National Intelligence believes is critical to our country, he should come to Congress and make such a request, and to my knowledge, that has not occurred. Madam Chair, until he does, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove this provision from the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Cambodia Democracy Act introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), and I would note that I happen to be the co-chair of the Congressional Cambodian Caucus, along with the gentleman from California, Alan Lowenthal. He and I, a Republican and a Democrat, have worked on this particular issue for many years now.

So, I certainly thank the committee for moving forward with this very good and helpful piece of legislation.

The people of Cambodia have been living under the iron-fisted rule of Hun Sen, as the chairman mentioned, for, literally, decades. Under his reign, he has denied Cambodians almost all of their political rights and prevented free and fair elections from taking place.

In recent years, Hun Sen has resorted to violence and attacked peaceful protesters many times. He has undermined any sense of democracy by dismantling the country's only viable opposition party.

The work of NGOs has also been dramatically limited, and critical media outlets have been virtually shut down.

Like many other dictators, he fears the day when he will no longer be in power.

As the beacon of hope and freedom to the rest of the world, a key pillar of our foreign policy must be to support the expansion of democracy in other countries. That is why I am very, very proud to support and cosponsor the Cambodian Democracy Act.

This bill pushes back on Hun Sen's regime by applying asset-blocking sanctions on any government officials or security forces who undermine the democratic process or take part in human rights abuses. This legislation also codifies visa restrictions for these individuals.

This is a strong, bipartisan bill that will allow us to show our support for the people of Cambodia and their desire for democratic governance. Members of both parties should support this important piece of legislation. I would fully expect them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman Yoho; I want to thank Mr. Engel and Mr. McCaul as well, for introducing this bill, and for all of their work on behalf of the Cambodian people. I certainly appreciate their support on this.

Supporting democracy abroad is very important, really a critical endeavor. The world will be a more peaceful and prosperous place with the expansion of free markets and free people.

I would urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am glad that we were there Friday night and not Saturday night. I know you had some electrical difficulties in the city the following evening. I am glad we weren't there then.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 277, the Access to Sufficient Capital for Everyone in Natural Disaster Areas Act of 2019, as also known as the ASCEND Act.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York, as well as the chairwoman of the committee, Ms. Velazquez, for their bipartisan cooperation on the committee. It is probably one of the most, if not the most, bipartisan committee in Congress. We really do work together on behalf of small business; so I would like to thank the gentleman and, as always, Ms. Velazquez.

When natural disasters strike the Nation, the U.S. SBA, the Small Business Administration, leads the government's long-term recovery efforts through its Disaster Loan Program. This program, which offers low-interest and fixed-rate financing to individuals and businesses, helps communities and neighborhoods as they recover and rebuild.

To assist disaster victims quickly and efficiently, the SBA offers an initial unsecured loan disbursement of $25,000 to qualified victims. However, after November, that was going to drop to 14,000, and this reduced loan level would conflict with the disbursement levels attributed to all other declared disasters.

Immediately after a catastrophe, and when victims need help the most, loan levels across the SBA's Disaster Loan Program should be clear and consistent. So H.R. 277, this bill, codifies the $25,000 unsecured loan limit for Physical Damage Loans under an SBA Agency disaster declaration.

I would, again, like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their cooperation in attaining this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support the ASCEND Act.

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

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

This commonsense legislation passed out of our committee unanimously and will allow the SBA to be nimbler and more responsive to survivors of a natura disaster, so I would urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 2142. This legislation offered by committee members Mr. Delgado of New York and Dr. Joyce of Pennsylvania make important changes to the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman that will make it easier for small businesses to comply with Federal regulations.

Congress established the Office of the National Ombudsman in 1996 to assist small businesses, small government entities, and small nonprofits when they are subject to excessive enforcement by a Federal agency. Excessive enforcement may include repetitive audits or investigations, excessive fines, penalties, threats, retaliation, or other unfair enforcement action.

This simple and commonsense bill would require the ombudsman to create a public website to provide the compliance guides required by section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, or SBREFA. Mr. Speaker, these compliance guides help small firms better understand how to comply with the most onerous Federal regulations. Housing them at one spot on the ombudsman's website is an easy way to save a small business a significant amount of time.

It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), the ranking member of our Rural Development, Agriculture, Trade, and Entrepreneurship Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of how our committee continues to work across the aisle for the benefit of America's small businesses. We do it in a bipartisan manner, and I want to thank Mr. Delgado and the doctor, as well, for their leadership on this.

I urge the bill's adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2331, the SBA Cyber Awareness Act.

In June 2015, the Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, discovered that background investigation records of current, former, and prospective Federal employees and contractors had been stolen from their system. That data breach affected 21.5 million individuals. Earlier in 2015, OPM discovered that the personal data of 4.2 million current and former Federal Government employees had also been stolen. This is absolutely unacceptable, and we must hold agencies accountable to secure their networks.

While a much smaller agency, the SBA maintains important and sensitive data about loan recipients, government contractor information, and various other forms of personally identifiable information that hackers covet. That is why I am happy to support Mr. Crow's and Mr. Balderson's legislation, H.R. 2331, the SBA Cyber Awareness Act. This legislation mirrors legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senators Rubio and Cardin.

The bill directs the SBA to issue reports that assess its cybersecurity infrastructure, including determining the country of origin of its IT components, and report cyber threats, breaches, and cyberattacks.

This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to thank Mr. Balderson and Mr. Crow for working together in a bipartisan manner on this very important legislation.

I know Mr. Balderson wanted to be here today to speak on this. Unfortunately, I believe he had some airline issues, but I believe he will be submitting a statement for the Record.

But again, we appreciate both Mr. Balderson and Mr. Crow's leadership on this.

We have seen a large increase in cybersecurity threats against not only the private sector, but also the public sector. We must remain vigilant to ensure the public's data does not end up in the wrong hands.

This bipartisan legislation ensures that the SBA is better equipped to protect American citizens' data.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1649, the Small Business Development Center Cyber Training Act of 2019.

Information technology is a necessity for small businesses, because it arms them with the tools they need to be competitive in the global economy.

Unfortunately, small businesses are increasingly popular targets for cybercriminals. The average cost of a cyberattack on a small business is over $30,000, which can destroy, literally, a small business.

That is exactly why Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Evans, and I introduced H.R. 1649, the Small Business Development Center Cyber Training Act of 2019.

This bipartisan legislation establishes a cyber counseling certification program in lead SBDCs to better assist small businesses with planning and implementing cybersecurity measures to defend against cyberattacks.

The cyber assistance offered by trained staff at SBDCs would be provided at no or low cost to small businesses.

Cyber planning assistance will encourage small businesses to take a more proactive approach to defending themselves from cyberattacks by leveraging the expertise from SBDCs and their partner agencies and institutions. This bill utilizes existing Federal resources to cover the reimbursement costs.

We recognize cyber threats are ever-evolving and will continue to work with industry to ensure that appropriate staffing needs are met.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, so I would be happy to close at this time if it is acceptable to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from small business owners, cybersecurity experts, and government officials, and there is no question that improving cybersecurity for America's small businesses should be an urgent priority for small firms.

Over the past few years, the Federal Government has stepped up its efforts to both prevent and mitigate cyberattacks by coordinating and distributing cybersecurity resources directly to small businesses.

This commonsense legislation would continue our efforts to ensure small firms can access needed information from SBDCs to help prevent and respond to cyberattacks.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this bill's adoption. I want to again thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans) for his leadership on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2345, the Clarifying the Small Business Runway Extension Act.

This important bipartisan legislation holds the SBA accountable for implementing the will of Congress.

In the previous Congress, this committee undertook a deep-dive examination of the effects of entering the middle market on small contractors, and the Runway Extension Act of 2018 was the direct result of these actions.

It was clear, under no uncertain terms, that the intent of the bill was to apply to the SBA's own calculation of its receipts-based size standards to small firms. However, the SBA took an opposing view, which resulted in a conflict between law and regulation.

H.R. 2345 is critical in that it mitigates this confusion and restates the original intent of the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018 to make clear that the law does, in fact, apply to the Small Business Administration.

Additionally, H.R. 2345 responds to concerns raised by small businesses and stakeholders after the bill's passage, such as its effect on declining-revenue businesses and the need to provide the executive branch and small businesses time to adjust to the new rule. The transition plan offered by this bill will make significant strides in easing the path for small businesses and Federal agencies alike.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden) for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Contracting and Infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that H.R. 2345 is important not only to help small contractors once they graduate, but it also holds the SBA accountable to the will of the people through an act of Congress.

Small businesses have told us they need a runway to grow and they need that runway now. We need to ensure that this is done, that the SBA takes swift action. H.R. 2345 gets us there.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of a Cincinnati legend and civil rights icon, Marian Spencer.

Ms. Spencer passed away Tuesday at the age of 99. She dedicated her life to shaping the community that she loved, Cincinnati, for the better.

Among her many accomplishments, in 1961, she successfully led the effort to integrate Coney Island, Cincinnati's premier amusement park at the time. She was also a pioneer in Cincinnati politics, becoming the first woman to lead the local NAACP and the first African American woman elected to the Cincinnati City Council.

Over the years, I had the good fortune to get to know Marian Spencer and learn from her experiences. We both served on the city council back in the 1980s, and she was never shy about sharing her opinions with me. I grew to respect her toughness, her honesty, and her conviction.

Madam Speaker, Cincinnati lost an exceptional leader on Tuesday, but Marian Spencer's legacy will endure for generations to come.

Mr. Chair, I believe that additional Congressional emphasis on demining efforts in Nagorno-Karabakh is unnecessary at this time since demining will be complete next year, according to the Halo Trust.

Moving forward, we all hope that peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia is on the horizon. And it very well may be. In a few weeks, senior U.S. negotiators will meet with the Foreign Ministers of both Azerbaijan and Armenia to advance the prospect of peace in Nagorno-Karabakh under the Minsk Process. As we watch this process which is clearly working, Congress should let negotiations play out.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and I rise in opposition to this resolution.

It seems to allow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to go to essentially whatever court they want to get a court order to get whatever documents they want--even grand jury documents and those that relate to our national security--all because they don't want, or are afraid to, really, hold Attorney General Barr or former White House Counsel Don McGahn in contempt of Congress, just as they are afraid to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump or accept the fact that the Mueller investigation found that there was no collusion and Attorney General Barr found no obstruction.

They just can't get it through their heads that that is the case, and they don't want to focus on the real issue threatening our democracy which is that Russia actually attempted to interfere in our national elections back in 2016 while Barack Obama--not Donald Trump--was President, and the Obama administration did absolutely nothing about that.

They really don't seem too concerned that the Russians or another foreign entity might attempt to do so again in 2020. That is what they ought to be using their oversight powers--very powerful things the power that the majority has--they ought to be using it about that, not this charade.

How many documents have the Democrats requested that relate to Russian interference in our elections? None. How many hearings? Zip. How many Obama-administration officials and others connected to Russia's efforts have they subpoenaed to testify before the Judiciary Committee? Zero.

By continuing with this fake impeachment, the Democrats are doing the American public a disservice. My Democratic colleagues ought to be embarrassed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I claim the time in opposition to this very flawed piece of legislation here this afternoon. It is flawed in many ways.

First of all, it doesn't do anything to get more control at our southern border. We have thousands of people streaming across that border in various places on the border. It does nothing about that.

It does nothing to improve on our asylum system, which is very flawed right now.

The drug cartels make huge amounts of money by the people who are coming in illegally. They are told the magic words, which are basically to say that they fear if they return to their country, so they are let into our country.

They are put on a bus or they are put on a plane and shipped somewhere around the country, to some city. They are given a court date 2 years out, 3 years out, 5 years out. Very seldom do they show up for that court date, so they basically disappear into the population.

This legislation does nothing to reform our asylum laws or to protect the American people. It does nothing to basically protect folks around the world who are trying to come here the right way.

The DACA amnesty program which is being created here will allow people to cut in front of the line for people who are trying to do it the right way.

Not only does it not do things to improve the existing law--and it certainly doesn't do it in a bipartisan manner--but it is dangerous, and I will tell you why.

In the Judiciary Committee--I have been on that committee for many years now--I offered an amendment. I think we all know that far too many people are killed or injured in this country by drunk drivers, by people who have, in some States they call it a DUI, in some States they call it a DWI, driving, basically, impaired, either drugs or alcohol.

I offered a commonsense amendment which said, basically, that you would not be eligible for this if you were convicted--not just that you have driven, but you were convicted--of drunk driving and you either killed a person or the person was seriously injured. Serious bodily harm could be loss of an eye or a limb. Or, if you had multiple DUIs, two or more DUIs, you wouldn't be eligible for these.

All the Republicans on the committee voted for it; all the Democrats voted against it.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, indicates that there are over 10,000 people killed every year in America by drunk drivers. Over 300,000 every year are injured by drunk drivers.

In my amendment, we are talking about people convicted of it. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers indicates, for every time a person is convicted, on average, they think they have probably driven drunk 80 times.

So we are allowing folks to be eligible for this program. All the Democrats on the committee voted against this amendment that would have basically made us safer in this country against drunk drivers. But they refused to go along with that, so I think it is really dangerous to pass it. It could have been much safer.

The people who are injured are our sons. They are our daughters, wives, spouses, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. But this bill doesn't make them safer. It had an opportunity to do so, but all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against it.

That is just one reason why I think this is a very flawed bill, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

We could, in a bipartisan manner, actually do something for these Dreamers, these DACA folks, but Democrats said: No, we are not going to do this bipartisan. We are going to ram this thing through.

It is really unfortunate because we could have done something good for the country, but that is not what this bill does.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.