Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of one of my constituents, Mr. Freddie Warmack, from Newberry, Florida, a small rural community of approximately 6,000 in north central Florida.

Following a lifetime of public service, Mr. Warmack passed away on April 1, 2019, at the age of 87. Mr. Warmack dedicated his life to the betterment of his community and country.

As a young man, Mr. Warmack served his country in the Korean War. Upon his return to Newberry, Florida, he became a city commissioner and went on to be elected the first African American mayor of Newberry, where he served from 1984 to 1994. During the 10 years that Mr. Warmack served as mayor, he instituted a great change in the Newberry community. He helped start the Meals On Wheels program and served on the Central Florida Community Action Agency.

He helped institute the historic city hall still used today and renovated the first African American school in the city and the adjoining property into a park named in his honor.

Mr. Warmack's compassion and respect for others has left an impact on all those who were lucky enough to have known him, and I would like to honor the accomplishments and legacy of Mr. Warmack and the strides he has made for his community and communities across our great Nation.

Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 115.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding.

As I look at Walter here, it reminds me when I came to Congress in 2013, my first term here. Walter was one of the first people who befriended me.

We had, over the course of several Congresses, many, many good laughs. He was always quick to laugh. He was always gentle, strong in his conviction, and he wouldn't hesitate to hold you accountable.

Every time I went on a codel, he would scold me for spending the taxpayers' money. When the codel went to go to his funeral, I said, if I went on that codel, Walter would roll over in his grave and yell at me, and so I chose not to go just to honor him on that.

He would give you the shirt off of his back and help you in any way he could. There was a Christmas ball, and I had to have a date for my daughter because she came up here. I took my wife, and I called Walter. He said: ``I don't want to do that, but for you, I will do that.'' That is the kind of friend he was. And he walked my daughter in there so that she got to go.

He cared about God, country, his family, the people who serve this great Nation, and the people in his district.

He was held in high esteem, as was evidenced the day when Thomas Massie and Louie Gohmert gave the eulogy here in the talk about Walter. That was the quietest this Chamber had ever been without the Speaker having to interrupt.

He was always fun to have a joke with or laugh, and we had many. His team is back here, faithfully to the end. Next time we are at a reception, we will have a red wine and a cigar in Walter's favor.

I thank the gentlewoman for doing this, and I thank you, buddy, Walter Jones, for the things you did for us.

God bless.

Today, I would like to recognize the kindness and generosity of one of my constituents, High Springs firefighter Doug Hope.

Last week, Doug responded to a Life Alert emergency call for an elderly woman who lives alone.

Thankfully, the alert was a false alarm, but while assessing the woman, Doug noticed that her microwave wasn't working, so she was unable to heat up the Meals on Wheels food that she relies on to get by. When he realized how long it had been since she had eaten a warm meal, Doug decided to go out and buy her a new microwave.

The High Springs Fire Department shared the story on Facebook, and it has since been viewed by more than a million people.

Despite this attention, Doug has remained humble. He says he just hopes people who hear about this story are inspired to pay attention to one another and do something for someone else.

Well done, Doug. Your compassion and selflessness are an inspiration to all. And, Doug, thanks for being a great example of passing it forward.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Biggs from Arizona, for yielding. This is such an important topic that we are talking about, national debt.

I remember when I came to Congress in 2013, Admiral Mullen said that the biggest threat to America is our national debt. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State at the time, said she agreed with that. One of the few times I have agreed with Mrs. Clinton.

But national debt today is $22 trillion. When I came into Congress, it was $14.5 trillion. When President Reagan left office, it was about $2.5 trillion. It doesn't matter who is in the White House. Our debt is going up until this body, Congress, addresses our debt.

If you do a pie chart of our debt, 71 percent of our debt is mandatory spending, 29 percent is discretionary. Discretionary was described to me as the money we have left over at the end of the month after we pay all of our bills. That is discretionary.

The interesting thing is, in 1964, those numbers were reversed. Mandatory spending was 29 percent, discretionary was 71 percent. So we were a cash-rich Nation. We could do things. We could do a space program. We could do the infrastructure bills that we did that this Nation needed.

Today, that is flipped around to where 71 percent of every dollar this government takes in is already spent. We don't vote on that in Congress. Those are things that happen without us. The only things we vote and we shut the government down on is that 29 percent.

If we do not address our mandatory spending, mandatory spending will address us as a Nation.

I was on an interview, and they said, well, President Obama doesn't want to mess with mandatory spending, which is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on our debt, retirement programs for our Federal employees. And I reminded the interviewer, and they said this about President Trump: He doesn't want to deal with mandatory spending.

I said: I understand that. But either this President or the next President deals with mandatory spending or mandatory spending will dictate to this Nation what we have to cut, and those are called austerity measures.

All you have to do is look at Puerto Rico, Spain, Portugal, Greece, where they had mandatory austerity measures where programs were cut, and they were cut by other governments that controlled their debt.

Today, about 30 percent of our debt is controlled by foreign nations, the other 70 percent, the American taxpayer owns, but it would be tragic to allow us in this body to allow another nation to say: You have got to get rid of that program.

That is unconscionable. It is irresponsible of us. And if we do not deal with that debt, that debt will deal with us.

Madam Speaker, this is something I appreciate Mr. Biggs standing up and having this Special Order on. This is something we talk about repeatedly in our district. We have town halls on this.

When you look at the discretionary spending, that is the stuff that runs all of government outside of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the retirement programs. That means the Department of Defense. That means the Department of Education, Justice, the Department of Homeland Security. All the research money that goes into our research universities comes out of the discretionary funding of government.

I am telling you, as a Nation, if we do not address this, this Nation will not survive, and history will repeat itself from great countries that have lasted for a period of time. They have always come to a demise, and it was because they haven't paid attention to the things that are the very basic.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague for bringing this up. This is something that repeatedly--if you look at this Congress, the Democrats have been in charge of the House since January 2 or 3. We don't have a budget. We haven't addressed anything dealing with debt. But they have spent a lot of time dealing with President Trump and trying to remove him from office and finding out reasons why he shouldn't be the President. Madam Speaker, we as Americans need to come together and deal with the debt, and I appreciate the gentleman's efforts.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because I came here and they said: Well, don't worry about this, because this will balance in 5 years or this will balance in 10 years.

And I laugh, but I shouldn't be laughing. We should be crying, because here I am, 7 years, and guess what: It will balance in 10 years.

It will not balance. And, again, it is up to us, the Members of the House and the Senate, because we control the purse strings. But we have done a terrible job at it, and it goes back to leadership on both sides.

This is something that should not be a partisan issue. This is something that should be an American issue, because America is at stake here. It is not a Republican Party or a Democratic Party. We don't serve a party is what I tell people in my district, and I am sure you do the same thing. I serve a Nation, and that Nation is the greatest Nation on Earth. If we don't get our

fiscal house in order, this Nation will not be the Nation it is.

So, again, I don't think it will balance in 10 years. It won't balance in 20 years unless we change the dynamics, and they need to change now.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I rise today in opposition of H.R. 1. This bill is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on the American voting system designed to allow Democrats to keep the majority in the House of Representatives, and I will explain and illustrate.

As a Member of Congress, we have a responsibility to ensure that every American vote is counted and protected, especially because our democratic society relies on participation in the democratic process through free and fair elections. While I support efforts to involve all Americans in our electoral process, I cannot support this unconstitutional legislation.

Madam Speaker, let me lay out for you some of the most absurd provisions in this legislation.

H.R. 1 creates Federal Government subsidized elections. For the people watching on C-SPAN, if they don't have insomnia, I want them to hear that again. H.R. 1 creates Federal Government subsidized elections through a 6-1 ratio for government matches to small donor contributions for congressional or Presidential campaigns.

For the government to give matches--subsidized elections--that means they are taking money from you to go to candidates, hopefully of your choice, but not necessarily. So the donor contributions for congressional or Presidential campaigns, which means for every $200 an individual donates, the Federal Government will take $1,200 of the American taxpayers' money and distribute it.

Additionally, H.R. 1 removes the checks our current voting system has in place to ensure eligible voters are casting ballots by forcing States to accept online and same-day voter registration. I don't think that has ever happened before, where H.R. 1 removes the checks our current voting system has in place to ensure only eligible voters are casting vote ballots by forcing States to accept online and same-day voter registration with no penalties for ineligible voters.

That means somebody could show up, an individual, and cast multiple ballots or votes, or vote without meeting the current requirements, and they will not be reprimanded. There is no recourse. Who is going to go after somebody after they have already cast their vote and they weren't an eligible

voter? Nobody will go after these people, so it can sway elections. That is what H.R. 1 does.

By removing the consequences of illegal voting, this bill is, in turn, encouraging it. It should be doing the opposite. The right and privilege of us as American citizens to vote is something we should all garner and protect as American citizens. And, again, this is not a partisan issue, it is not Democrats or Republicans, this is an American issue, and I think people would be incensed on all parties.

Additionally, this bill allows Federal employees to take 6 days of paid leave to be poll workers. So the American taxpayers are going to pay Federal workers to be poll watchers. This is something that has always been done voluntarily by our precinct captains, both Republican and Democrat, in our districts, where politics is always best locally.

But the Federal Government wants to intervene here and say: No, we are going to give you guys 6 days off. How many people do you think, that are Federal employees, will take 6 days off of paid leave? Probably a lot, wouldn't you expect?

Madam Speaker, we pay our Federal employees to do the job they were hired to do, not to be poll workers for our districts. That is something that the American voting process has done for over 200 years by volunteers that are passionate and care about this country.

In fact, Federal employees already receive paid leave that they can take for any purpose they choose, including being poll workers. Why should the Federal Government pay? And I want to reword that, because it is not the Federal Government paying them. It is the American taxpayers paying money out of their paycheck that goes to the Federal Government that the Federal Government thinks they know better how to spend that money than they do. So why should the Federal Government pay to give them additional leave that can only be used for this purpose?

Madam Speaker, there are just three provisions outlined in this almost 600-page bill, and I would venture most people will not read this when it comes up for a vote. And while I can further elaborate, I will let my colleagues share their thoughts with you.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Biggs. I appreciate his help.

I have got a top 10 list here--actually, it has turned into a top 11 list--of the 10 most egregious provisions of H.R. 1.

Again, I want to remind you that the Democrats took over at the beginning of the year. We are $22 trillion in debt. And they will say: Well, it is President Trump's fault. Well, we can say: It is President Obama's fault. And they will say: Well, it is President Bush's fault. And it can go all the way back to George Washington, I expect.

But the fact is it is a bipartisan issue that needs to be dealt with. So the top 11 most egregious provisions of H.R. 1: It creates, again, a 6-1 government match to any small donor contribution of $200 or less in a congressional or Presidential campaign, meaning for every $200 the government will match $1,200.

So let's look at the facts. Where does that $1,200 come from? You go to work, you get a paycheck at the end of the week, at the end of the week you notice that you don't get paid your gross pay, you get paid your net pay. The rest of the money comes to the government and the government is going to use that money, when we are $22 trillion in debt, and give out subsidies to support, hopefully, your candidate. This has never happened before in our government, and we are at $22 trillion in debt. It does nothing to solve our national debt.

Number two on the list: Creates a new voucher pilot program--a pilot program.

And I have to hand it to the Dems. They love programs that give out moneys and grants, this voucher pilot program that grants eligible voters a $25 voucher of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to donate to any campaign of their choosing.

The Federal Government has no need to do this. Again, they are taking money from people and using it for that which the government is not mandated by our Constitution to do.

Number three: Authorizes an inappropriate use of Federal workers and taxpayer dollars by granting Federal employees 6 days of paid vacation to serve as poll watchers.

I would venture that come election day, the largest majority of Federal employees for 6 days will be poll watchers and not running the government. This is just bad policy.

Number four: Weakens the voting system of the American people by increasing the election system's vulnerability and failing to implement the necessary checks and balances regarding who is registering to vote. H.R. 1 will force States to allow online voter registration, automatic voter registration, and, I think the most dangerous and egregious, same-day voter registration.

So that means I can show up in Florida, my home State, and I can register to vote that day. I can drive to Georgia

and register to vote that day. I can go to Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and I can possibly vote in every one of those States, because the driving distance, I could make that.

So I could vote in possibly seven or eight States as a single person on the day of voting. Nobody could validate that. Yet the election gets calculated and determined on those kinds of voting, and I don't think that is what anybody wants.

I would hope, regardless of your political affiliation, you would stand up to say this is wrong. We need to make sure these safeguards are in place to protect that one very, I think, sacred, precious right of all voters, of all American citizens, the right to vote.

Number five: Diminishes the process of election day voting by expanding ``no excuse'' absentee voting and allowing for eligible voters to be able to cast their ballot by mail with no additional safeguards to this process.

That means provisional ballots that get sent in, their signature can't be questioned. It doesn't need to be questioned. It doesn't have to be the correct signature, but it will be counted as a vote.

I would think a party that put that in place would be afraid of that, because it really weakens the democratic process we go through as a constitutional republic.

Number six: Disregards State voter identification laws by allowing sworn statements to be used in place of identification and allowing for signature verification, which can be submitted through a photo if the voter registers online.

Let me read that again.

Disregards State voter identification laws by allowing sworn statements to be used in place of identification and allowing for signature verification, which can be submitted through a photo if the voter registers online.

Now, think about that. I can't get on an airplane without a picture ID. I can't purchase medication, over-the-counter cold medication with phenylephrine in it, without a picture ID, but we are going to allow people to vote without a picture ID just by signing an affidavit saying I am who I say I am. And, again, that won't be verified until after the election.

It has fraud written all over it, and I think it is unconscionable that the Democrats would even consider such a thing on something that we hold so sacred in this Nation, that we brag about and we boast about in the world as being the longest serving democracy in the world using a democratic process in a constitutional republic, that we are going to allow such shoddy type of verification.

Again, it is unconscionable that they would even consider bringing this up.

Number seven: Fails to criminalize fraudulent registrations.

Fails to criminalize fraudulent registrations. We have people going to jail because they have lied to the FBI. We have George Papadopoulos who lied to the FBI, and he went to prison for 14 days. But I can lie and not be who I say I am, and I can vote on this Democratic bill, H.R. 1, and I have no recourse against me. There is no consequence for me being a liar.

And I just think a party that wants to have those kinds of policies in place as a whole needs to look in the mirror and say: What are we trying to do?

Number eight: Impedes States' ability to determine their registration and voting practices as protected under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution and violates separation of powers by Congress mandating ethics standards for the Supreme Court. H.R. 1 is a constitutional overreach.

Number eight: Impedes States' ability to determine their registration voting practices as protected, as I said, under Article I, Section 4.

Number nine: Violates constitutional rights under the First Amendment by prohibiting any false statements relating to Federal elections, including time, manner, place, qualifications of candidates, or endorsements of candidates enforced by a partisan FEC, which is the Federal Elections Committee.

Number 10: Empowers trial attorneys by establishing private rights of action by allowing candidates to litigate their way to victory.

We saw this in the last Presidential election. We saw this in the last gubernatorial election in my State of Florida. We saw this in the senatorial race in Florida, where people were going to sue, and they didn't have the legality of doing that, but this bill would allow that.

And I think one of the largest grievances for H.R. 1 that all people ought to be upset with is that it mandates voter registration--mandates voter registration. What that means is the Federal Government says you must register to vote.

I agree, we should all register to vote, but can the government mandate you?

We tried this with the Affordable Care Act that the Democrats ran through in a partisan manner in this Chamber, no Republican support, mandated that people had to buy a product even if they didn't want that.

Madam Speaker, that is wrong, and that is why that part got struck down, the individual mandate got struck down, as it should have, because the Federal Government was saying: If you don't do what we say, we are going to fine you.

You know, that sounds like China. China does that. They have their good citizen score, the Orwellian good citizen score that they monitor what you do, and if you don't do it, you don't get the prizes of the Chinese Government. Are we turning into that, mandating voters to register?

Last Congress, I chaired the Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs. And it was amazing because I got to travel to countries around the world that have just started free and open elections in a Western, democratic style. It pains me to see these countries with a new democracy where 95 percent to 98 percent of the people show up.

If you look at Iraq or Afghanistan, they are walking around with the purple finger at risk of their lives, because for once in their life they had an opportunity to vote, to vote for somebody that they wanted in power--a foreign concept to them. Yet in this country, we want to take that away from people.

As we continue on, there are some myths on H.R. 1.

It has been designed to fund, elect, and maintain Democratic majority, and I want the American people to know that. The Democrats introduced this 571-page package of Democratic priorities without allowing for input from Republican Members or going through the standard House Committee.

This is something that they railed against us. All the 6 years I have been in Congress, they have railed against us about no open process, yet they come out with a 571-page package of Democratic priorities without allowing for input from one Republican Member.

H.R. 1 will waste taxpayers' money, federalize the election system, weaken safeguards surrounding voter registration, and violate Americans' constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment.

The estimated cost of this that we got for H.R. 1, because of all the subsidies and the other garbage that is in this, is over $10 billion to the American taxpayers--$10 billion--when we are already at $22 trillion in debt.

I would like to go through a few myths.

Democrats are empowering citizens. That is the myth. The facts are Democrats are using citizens' hard-earned taxpayer dollars to fund their candidates:

Voucher from the government to the campaign: Through this bill, eligible voters would receive a $25 voucher from the Federal Government that they can use to donate to the campaign of their choice, meaning hard-earned taxpayer dollars are going to be going to the government, to their campaign of choice;

Government matching campaign donations in congressional races: Under H.R. 1, the Federal Government will be required to match small contributions under $200 at 6 to 1. Taxpayer dollars will be going to the government to fund candidates;

Government matching campaign donations in Presidential races: Also, under H.R. 1, there is a 6-to-1 government match of small contributions in a Presidential campaign, up to $250 million. A quarter of $1 billion would be going towards the Presidential campaign, and there is no limit to contributions.

Another Democrat myth: Democrats are promoting integrity. The facts are Democrats are promoting the interests of Washington, D.C., swamp, not yours:

Federal paid vacations: Federal workers would get a 6-day paid vacation to serve as poll watchers;

16-year-old voters: H.R. 1 will open the door to 16-year-old voters by requiring States to allow them to register and vote;

Free speech violation: Prohibits any false statements related to Federal elections, including time, manner, place, qualifications, candidates, or endorsement.

And I want to go back over this one other myth. Democrats are creating vulnerabilities in the voting system:

Automatic voter registration--automatic voter registration, mandates from the Federal Government, boy, how the Dems like that--requires all States to adopt an automatic voter registration system that would be relying on the Federal Government for records. There would be no criminal punishment for an ineligible voter who is registered in error.

Madam Speaker, as you have heard, my colleagues and I have severe concerns about H.R. 1. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are marketing it as a fix to the American voting system, what it really does is degrade the standards we have had in place for over 200 years to protect American voters and the voting process.

As Members in Congress, we have the responsibility to ensure that every American has the right to vote and the access to vote and that that vote is guaranteed and protected. H.R. 1 does not do this, and I encourage my colleagues to consider this implication and not support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in sadness, but also to honor a commissioner, Commissioner Marcus Hardy, who was a highly respected leader in his community.

Marcus served as a city commissioner in the town of Crescent City, Florida, which is located in the district which I am proud to represent. I was fortunate enough to work alongside Mr. Hardy in efforts to improve Crescent City and the greater community.

Beyond being a devoted public servant, a coach, and a role model, Marcus was a family man and a friend to many. Anyone who knew him knew his heart and his passion for serving others. He often spent his free time serving as a mentor for the Boys II Men organization in Crescent City or working to revitalize Putnam County for the benefit of the whole community.

Marcus will be remembered for his compassion, his leadership, his friendship, his large, firm hand grip and contagious smile.

Thank you for your service, Marcus. You will be missed by many.

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to honor the memory of a friend, a man from Ocala, Florida, a man I consider a friend of mine, Mr. Al Dunlap.

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Dunlap at a charity event in my district, where he and his wife of 50 years, Judy, were providing scholarships for local schoolchildren. A self-described ``nothing kid from the slums of Hoboken, New Jersey,'' he was a tough guy, a shrewd businessman known around the world, but a man with a big heart.

Mr. Dunlap earned a degree in engineering at the United States Military Academy, West Point, and served our Nation in the U.S. Army. He went on to lead many successful businesses around the world and had dined with kings and queens and just wealthy people around the world.

He moved his work down to the Ocala, Florida, area, where I live. But it is not his work in the business world that he will be most remembered for. Mr. Dunlap was an important part of his community and was always there to lend a helping hand to his friends, his neighbors, and his community.

He supported my rival university in our State, Florida State University, to the tune of over $40 million, and we always had fun ribbing each other about the Gators and the Seminoles.

During his lifetime, the kindness and selflessness of Mr. Dunlap and his wife, Judy, touched many lives, and he will be greatly missed.

Honoring the Life of Murrel Hines

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who was a pillar in our community and in the agricultural community, Mr. Murrel Hines. I have known Mr. Hines, Murrel, for more than 35 years. In fact, I knew him before I became a veterinarian and was able to work on their family farm.

He and the rest of the Hines family had a profound impact on my professional career as a large animal veterinarian but also as a person. The Hines family farm is a generational farm that goes back to the 1850s. Today, the Hines family is the cornerstone of the Gilchrest community.

When you look at farm families in America, they are the salt of the Earth. Mr. Hines and his family were those people. They were the salt of the Earth. They would do anything for you at anytime, anywhere, any day, and ask nothing from you in return.

Some of my earliest memories as a young veterinarian, not even out of vet school yet, included working with the Hines family on their farm. I can recall working cows in their pens in the morning and joining the family for lunch, where there was no shortage of homemade biscuits by his wife, Ms. Betty Jo. Jokes and stories ran wild, and we always had a great time. He was the pillar of the family, the patriarch.

One thing about Mr. Murrel, there was never a shortage of work ethic in the man. I saw him working cattle up into his 80s every day, from morning until night. In fact, he said he had retired, but he would show up at 7:30 and work until 9 at night.

Despite quitting school at the age of 13, Mr. Murrel had more common sense and business acumen than most who go all the way through college. He successfully grew watermelons, tobacco, peanuts, hay, grass, and cattle. He also grew his father's cattle operation beyond what others said could be done.

Mr. Murrel knew, according to the Scriptures in the Psalms, that the Lord had no need for a bull or a goat, for every beast of the forest was His, as were all the cattle on a thousand hills. Murrel himself sure knew what it was like to have that many cows. But seriously, he was a proud caretaker of the Lord's land and a man of conviction and faith.

Just last year, he was presented the Conservation Stewardship Award for his work in best farming practices. To him, recognition and awards weren't necessary. He just always did what was right.

He was, in every sense of the word, a true cowboy. A vise-like grip, an easy smile, a man of great faith but of few words, he was a family man. Married to his wife, Betty Jo, for over 70 years, he was an example to us all when it came to family, work, common sense, giving back, and, ultimately, life.

It is my honor to have known him and worked beside him and to have shared so many memories with him and the rest of the Hines family over the years.

Mr. Speaker, in honor of my friend and mentor, Mr. Murrel Hines, I would like to close with ``The Cowboy's Prayer.''

``Heavenly Father, I pause, mindful of the many blessings You have bestowed upon me. I ask that You will guide me in my life. Help me, Lord, to live my life in such a manner that when I make that last ride to the country up there, where the grass grows lush and the water runs cool, that You will take me by the hand and say, `Welcome home, cowboy.' Amen.''

Mr. Chair, I think the chairman for yielding. I appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, this is something that we do need to get resolved, but I cannot support H.J. Res. 37.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this resolution, which I could not support as it was pushed through the Foreign Affairs Committee over strong objection from me and my 16 colleagues.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has a proud tradition of bipartisanship, but that was thrown out the window with this bill.

Among my objections to this bill is the basic premise of the bill, which is flawed. U.S. Forces are not engaged in hostilities between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthi forces in Yemen.

This bill distorts the definition of hostilities to cover non-U.S. military operations by third countries. It then reinterprets U.S. activities in support of those countries as U.S. engagement in those hostilities.

I have been well documented throughout my time in Congress as opposing the misuse of the War Powers Act. That is really what needs to be addressed: the misapplication of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.

While I wholeheartedly believe that the U.S. Forces put into combat roles must be approved by Congress, I cannot stand by as those firm beliefs in the Constitution are twisted around to make a political messaging point.

Keep in mind, my colleagues from the other side talk about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, yet they fail to mention the Houthi rebel fighters overthrew the legitimate government of President Hadi, and this overthrow was sponsored by Iran, which Iran is the largest sponsor of state terrorism. That is really where the problem is in this. We are there in a different capacity.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues not to vote for this partisan bill because, if we break this agreement, we have got over 100 other agreements that we would have to negotiate with our allies, and this would be bad for America's foreign policy.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for sponsoring this.

Mr. Speaker, after the conclusion of the last shutdown, I was hopeful that we would work together in good faith to find a commonsense approach to secure our border. However, it appears that the Democrats are more concerned with releasing illegal aliens than addressing border security.

Recently, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested that we reduce the adult detention beds for illegal detainees in exchange for border security. This is unacceptable. As we in this body are all aware, adult detention beds are an essential aspect of enforcing our immigration laws. Reducing the amount of beds would further exacerbate our problems with interior enforcement, thus relying on an ineffective catch and release policy. Only 4 percent of those released ever show up for their court date. That means that they have a 96 percent chance of staying in this country.

Our primary role of government is security. Border security is national security, and our national security should not be a bargaining chip for the Democrats' political games. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to take this issue seriously.

Please stop playing political games with our Nation's security and the brave men and women of our Coast Guard, TSA, CBP, and ICE agents. We must work together as Americans and fix our broken immigration system which starts with a secure border.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding and putting this together. It is such an important issue.

I just left another meeting, and we were talking about border security. There shouldn't even be a fight, because what we are talking about is what we are charged with in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, and the President. We have all taken that oath, and that oath talks about protecting our country and upholding our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

When you look at border security, that should not be a partisan issue if you focus on border security and take politics out of it--not Donald Trump's fence, not a party's fence; this is security for the American people.

Just last week, there was a bust of drugs coming in from Mexico in a load of bell peppers that had over 1,000 pounds of methamphetamines. It was valued at $1.2 billion, coming from our southern border. That came through a legal border checkpoint. That is border security that we are not doing that we should do that erodes the very social fabric of this Nation.

Two weeks before that, there was a bust of a legal truck coming in carrying cucumbers from the southern border through Mexico that had over 200 pounds of fentanyl. In fact, it had enough fentanyl to kill an estimated 55 million Americans--55 million Americans. Again, it came through a legal checkpoint.

So when we talk about border security, take the narrative and the argument off of Donald Trump's border wall

and put it on Americans' border security. If we as Republicans and Democrats come together as Americans, we will have border security.

It is not racist. It is not trying to keep anybody out who wants to come here legally, which there are ample places for people to come legally. This is about securing the people in our country, the men and women who get exposed to these drugs.

In addition to that--and I don't understand why the Mexican Government hasn't done more about this. They are growing over 22 hectares of poppy fields. Poppy is used for heroin production. There is not a medicinal use in that quantity that needs to come into this country. The only way that is coming in is illegally, through either illegal checkpoints or no checkpoints, or it is coming through legal checkpoints where we are not emphasizing border security with the new technologies we have.

So it pains me to think of this country going through another shutdown that it doesn't need to because people want to play party politics.

You think of the young men and women in DHS, with border security, our TSA employees, our Coast Guard, Customs and Border Patrol, and ICE agents. They show up for work, and we here in this body can't come to an agreement about America's border security. It is shameful for us. It is embarrassing.

But when you try to tell the people who are in those situations--I know people very well who are in the Coast Guard, and when you say, ``Well, you just don't understand. They are holding up. They don't want Trump to have a wall,'' they say, ``I don't care whose problem it is. Fix the problem.'' In fact, one of them said, ``You know where you need to build a wall around first is around Washington, D.C. so you guys can't leave until you solve this problem.''

It is just a shame that we, together, as Republicans and Democrats, can't solve this problem. But, unfortunately, politics gets put into this.

If I may talk about the other issue the gentleman was talking about, being a veterinarian, I have come to believe, and my Christian values say, that life begins at conception. There is no doubt in my mind. The good Lord put it there, and I am blessed that I have had the experiences I have had.

In fact, I have been able to do embryo transfers in the equine, in the horse world, and I can withdraw an embryo from a female horse between 5 and 7 days of pregnancy. Even at that size--when you look at it under a microscope, it looks like a golf ball--it is a baby horse developing.

I think it is ironic and it is sad that in this country we have laws on the books that will protect the unborn turtle in an egg or the eagle within an egg, in a nest, and we have laws that say that it is a Federal offense and you will go to prison for it, that we will protect species, but yet when it comes to our own kind, the human species--that if you believe like you and I do and the majority of Americans that we are created in the image of God--I have seen an erosion of our society, and it pains me.

I know, every 100 years they say there is a breakdown of our society; but I can only think that this time around, when you are saying it is okay to kill a baby, full term, that is a breathing, living, creature of God, it is okay, that something is wrong in our society.

I think of that verse in the Bible--the gentleman will know the number and all that--that says:

If my people will turn away from their wicked ways and

humble themselves and get down on their knees, I will forgive

them.

And He says:

If they do that, then I will continue to bless them.

So, I appreciate the gentleman doing this. I have got some more facts and figures if he has time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, as I was talking earlier about the drugs coming in, the methamphetamine and the fentanyl that is coming in, these aren't coming in by the honest farmer or ranch hand or farmworker in Mexico. These are orchestrated by drug cartels.

Keep in mind, the methamphetamine and the fentanyl coming into this country primarily comes via China, so you have nation-states that are sending products into this country. China is trying to re-create the Opium Wars of the 1800s with our youth in this country.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Walker brought up the deaths, and I feel really bad for his family to have his brother-in-law go through that. I can't imagine the pain and the horror.

There are 300 opioid deaths a week in this country alone, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

A good friend of mine, he is a heart surgeon in Gainesville, Florida. He said: Ted, that is just the tip of it. I have a young lady in, and it is her fourth heart valve replacement. At 25 years of age, the fourth heart valve replacement, because as they use the drugs, they don't use sterile techniques. They get infected. Their immune system goes down, and the bacteria will grow on the heart valve. Her fourth one.

I said: Tom, what is the cost of that?

He said: The average heart valve is close to $100,000.

$400,000, and if she dies, she doesn't die from a drug overdose. In the records, it is from heart failure.

So the 300 a week who we know are dying from drug overdoses, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

We talk about the cost. You can put a monetary cost on the deaths and the EMTs and all the emergency support staff and the ERs that we as taxpayers are funding, because, as he said, guess who paid for that? I said the hospital. He said: Absolutely. No insurance.

We can put a price on that, a monetary price, but you can't put a price on the disruption and the loss of a family member, as Mr. Walker's family went through. The price of that goes on forever.

If we look at just numbers, from a typical number standpoint, we get 2,000 inadmissible migrants arriving at our southern border daily. That means, since January 2, when the Democrats took over, 41 days approximately, that means there were 82,000 inadmissible migrants who came into this country or were trying to.

Of the family units--that is a spouse, a husband and wife, or just a mother and father with their children--in the last 41 days, that equates to 36,395 family units.

If you look at the illegal aliens arrested for homicide charges just in the last 41 days, it is more than 228 arrests.

Let's take politics out of this argument, and let's do what is right by the American people: fund our government, fund DHS, secure our borders with any means from above.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his passion about this.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize one of my constituents, Armand Kuykendall, who was named Putnam County's 50th Annual Spelling Bee winner on January 18, 2019.

Armand is currently in the fifth grade at the Middleton-Burney Elementary School, where he is a straight-A student. During his young life, he has faced many obstacles. Armand has excelled at school with the support of his teachers and family.

In order to compete in Putnam County's spelling bee, Armand spent his free time studying and memorizing over 450 words. His winning word was ``apricot.''

His family, friends--as I am--are extremely proud of Armand for competing and winning the spelling bee. I would like to congratulate him for his outstanding accomplishment.

Armand now moves on to participate in the First Coast Spelling Bee at Jacksonville University on February 19, 2019. Best of L-U-C-K, Armand.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of a great man who had a profound impact on our local community. Mr. Donald Louis Crutch was a father, husband, Rotarian, and dedicated member of the community.

His wife, Lisa, was his high school sweetheart and together they raised four great children: Tiara, Dontai, Taniyah, and DaVontai, and he leaves behind a large and loving family of cousins, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, and friends. His contributions will be forever remembered.

He was the founder of two nonprofit organizations: the National Pink Tie Organization, and the Honor Guards of America. You could always find Don wearing a hot pink shirt in support of those battling cancer, and he would never accept less than six lemons in his ice tea.

It was these little things like his megawatt smile and warm handshake that made him a pillar of our community.

While we miss Don greatly, his legacy will live on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 353, my bill that directs the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to regain observer status for Taiwan in the World Health Organization.

I would first like to thank Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul for working with my team to bring this great legislation to the floor. From 2009 to 2016, Taiwan attended the World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization's annual summit, under the status of an observer. However, following the election of Taiwan's current President Tsai Ing- wen, the People's Republic of China has stepped up its campaign to marginalize Taiwan's participation in the international community. In 2017 and 2018, due to increased political pressure from the People's Republic of China, Taiwan did not receive an invitation to the World Health Assembly.

Taiwan's exclusion from the World Health Assembly, serves no purpose other than to placate Beijing's insecurity. The World Health Organization exists to address shared transnational health challenges, and Taiwan has proven time and again that it is a model contributor to world health. Since 1996, Taiwan has invested over $6 billion in international medical and humanitarian aid efforts impacting over 80 countries.

The United States and the U.S. Congress have long supported Taiwan's participation in international organizations, and this legislation will continue this important work. My bill will help ensure that the U.S. diplomatic strategy to advocate for Taiwan's presence at the World Health Assembly adapts to Beijing's increased efforts to box out Taiwan. A similar

bill, which I introduced in the 115th Congress, passed the House with unanimous support.

Taiwan is a benevolent actor on the international stage, and it deserves to keep the place it has earned. The next World Health Assembly will take place in May of this year. Passage of my bill will be a timely opportunity for the House to recommit to longstanding U.S. policy, and take a firm stand in the face of Beijing's increasingly oppressive tactics. I urge my colleagues to support Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization as an observer by supporting this legislation.