Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary South Carolinian, Officer Adam Tack of the Horry County Police Department.

Last night, Officer Tack was awarded the Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Award. Officer Tack puts his life at risk daily while upholding his oath to protect his community. He is a true hero.

September 17, 2020, Officer Tack saved the lives of Liam and Levi Cannon trapped in a car sinking in the floodwaters of Hurricane Sally. He dove in the water and using his baton broke the window to pull the two children from the car. Tack only had minor injuries and all five Cannon family members survived.

Madam Speaker, I join the people of Horry County in recognizing Officer Adam Tack. We thank him for his service and commitment to our community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary South Carolinian, Ms. Treva Green of Conway and wish her a happy 100th birthday.

Ms. Green was 18 years old when she volunteered to become a nurse with the U.S Army. She served our nation in England, France, and Germany during World War II. Following the war, Treva and her husband moved to Conway and served the Grand Strand community as a nurse for over four decades. Wow.

Her commitment to her nation and community are truly admirable. She is a shining example of the best of our country. Ms. Green is now enjoying retirement in Conway. Treva recently said ``I've done everything the Lord wants me to do, or at least I tried to and asked for forgiveness for everything I couldn't

get by. I'm happy to be alive and I'm happy to be able to tell my story.'' We should all live by this sentiment.

Madam Speaker, I join her family and friends in wishing Treva Green happy 100th birthday! I am sure they are excited to see her reach this incredible milestone.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary South Carolinian, Brent Groome.

Mr. Groome has served Horry Telephone Cooperative and the region's telecommunications industry over the last three decades. He currently serves as Chief Executive of Corporate Communications and Government Relations but will be retiring this month. Throughout his tenure, Brent has served as a strong advocate for telephone and broadband advancements in South Carolina.

Brent has certainly achieved many accomplishments over his career. He has demonstrated consistent engagement and a commitment to excellence while serving on numerous industry boards during his career in telecommunications. Brent's commitment to the community goes beyond his career. He has been a tireless ambassador for many local non-profit and philanthropic organizations.

Madam Speaker, I join his family and the people of Horry Telephone Cooperative in recognizing Brent Groome. We thank him for his service and commitment to our community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of First Lieutenant James B. Miller of Marion, South Carolina.

First Lieutenant Miller honorably served his country in the Army during the Korean War. He was awarded the Purple Heart twice while serving with the 179th Infantry Regiment, 45th Infantry Division in Korea. He was seriously wounded by enemy fire in North Korea on March 6, 1953. First Lieutenant Miller returned to duty only a week later. On July 26, 1953, First Lieutenant Miller was tragically killed in action while fighting the enemy in North Korea.

Madam Speaker, I join his family and friends in recognizing the life of First Lieutenant James B. Miller of Marion, South Carolina. We honor him and thank him for his service and sacrifice for our nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Leigha Peterson, the first student to earn a doctoral degree from Coastal Carolina University in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. She graduated this weekend with a Doctor of Philosophy in Marine Science.

This is just Leigha's most recent landmark accomplishment during her impressive tenure at Coastal Carolina University. She is the first to earn all three levels of undergraduate and postgraduate education from Coastal Carolina. While earning her Ph.D., she was Coastal Carolina's first doctoral student representative and helped other students successfully interact with their professors. In addition to coauthoring 25 research papers, she also participated in research trips to Antarctica, Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, Jamaica, and Canada to further her studies.

Leigha's graduation is not only a huge personal achievement, but a major success for Coastal Carolina University. I know Leigha will be the first of many innovators and entrepreneurs that earn prestigious degrees from Coastal Carolina University before making their mark on the world. We are all very proud of Leigha, and wish her success in her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, as a former tax lawyer and CPA, I have seen too often the detrimental effect of substandard technology at the IRS and substandard customer service.

I stand in support today of the Taxpayer First Act. Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act became the law of the land, our economic potential has been unleashed, and America is, once again, the land of opportunity. When we passed the tax reform package, our message was clear: We won't wait another 30 years to take up tax legislation. We will consistently work to improve the system for American taxpayers.

In order for any company to be successful, it needs modern technology that supports its customer service mission. The IRS, whose customers are 140 million Americans, should be no exception.

Filing taxes should be straightforward and simple, and taxpayers should be treated fairly and with respect by the IRS. However, that is not how the majority of Americans describe their experience with the agency. This legislation will require the

IRS to modernize their ancient technology and will address many of the issues American taxpayers face when dealing with our Nation's tax collector.

Included in this package is my bill, the Electronic Signature Standards Act, which requires the IRS to implement uniform standards to accept electronic signatures. This is a simple, free way for small businesses and individual taxpayers to comply with system requirements. Providing uniform guidance for e-signatures will simplify the filing process for taxpayers who depend on this commonly used technology and enable the IRS to move forward with a secure filing option they already support.

In conjunction with other legislation in this reform package, the Electronic Signature Standards Act will bring the IRS into the 21st century so that it can serve hardworking American taxpayers better.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation and take this opportunity to return the IRS to its taxpayer first mission.

Mr. Speaker, Fritz Hollings dedicated his life to service. Whether it was serving in World War II, as Governor of South Carolina, or as a United States Senator, the legacy he leaves behind is simply amazing. He embodied what it meant to be a part of the Greatest Generation. He truly had a servant's heart.

During his Governorship, he was a champion of the civil rights movement and helped ensure the peaceful integration of South Carolina schools. He is also credited with creating the State's technical college system which, to this day, helps people connect with jobs and opportunities. He also helped develop the Charleston Port, which has turned South Carolina into a world-class exporter and one of the most competitive places to do business in the country.

An absolute titan in the United States Senate, he spent nearly 40 years advocating for policies that would benefit South Carolinians and Americans.

Though I never had the pleasure of serving with him, I know that he brought South Carolina spirit to Washington with his sharp tongue and quick wit.

He will be missed, but we can find comfort that he is reunited in Heaven with his beloved wife, Peatsy.

I am honored to join my colleagues and all South Carolinians in celebrating his remarkable life.

Madam Speaker, we stand here today with another in a series of weekly messaging bills. I wonder what, next week, we will deal with. I am sure it will be another whipsaw response to the headlines of the day.

If you truly want to protect people with preexisting conditions, as Republicans do, bring forth Mr. Walden's

bill. It has teeth. In the event that this lawsuit is upheld and the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, it will protect people with preexisting conditions.

The Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, a minute ago said that the Republicans' position on healthcare was a joke. Well, I will tell you what is a joke, and that is to call the Affordable Care Act successful.

The promises on which the Affordable Care Act were based were that we would cover all Americans; that the premiums would go down; that if you like your doctor, you could keep your doctor; and that if you like your insurance policy, you could keep it.

Clearly, almost every existing insurance policy was declared invalid. You could only keep your doctor if he is in your plan and your hospital. Premiums have gone from an average of $225 in 2013, just before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, to $475, average cost for an individual policy today, almost a 250 percent increase.

What did we get for that?

Before the Affordable Care Act, 85 percent of Americans were covered. Before the Affordable Care Act, 85 percent of Americans were covered. At the peak, after the Affordable Care Act, last year, 91 percent of the Americans were covered. We covered 6 percent more people, mostly because we gave them insurance policies with the Medicare expansion. We covered 6 percent more people.

But what was the cost of that? The 85 percent that were already covered had to pay 250 percent more for their health insurance. That is completely absurd.

And don't lecture me about people with preexisting conditions. I have a son who had a congenital heart defect. I had a son who, as a 7-month- old child, was in a car wreck and had a brain injury, both preexisting conditions.

Throughout their life, they were covered. For a brief period of time, South Carolina, like almost every other State in the country, had protections for preexisting conditions before the Affordable Care Act. Under the health insurance pool in South Carolina, they had to pay 30 percent more.

It irritated me as a father that my children had to pay 30 percent more for their health insurance, but guess what? Under the Affordable Care Act, instead of having to pay 30 percent more, they have to pay 250 percent more and their deductibles have tripled.

You call that a success? In what world is that a success?

Republicans want to protect people with preexisting conditions. We have voted repeatedly to do it. We have bills out there that will do it.

Stop with the messaging, stop with the lies, and let's move forward and do something that actually works. Let's move forward and protect people with preexisting conditions in the event that this law is declared unconstitutional.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, Dylann Roof is a monster. Dylann Roof should never have been able to buy a gun. Dylann Roof walked into a church in my hometown of Charleston, South Carolina, my birthplace of Charleston, South Carolina, and he slaughtered nine people in a Bible study. I can't imagine a more horrific crime. We all, naturally, look for a response.

My friend, Mr. Clyburn, and the majority have noted that thousands of people have wrongfully acquired guns because of the failure of our background check system under what has become known as the Charleston loophole.

The stated purpose of this underlying legislation, Mr. Clyburn's legislation, is certainly noble: to close the Charleston loophole. The only problem is that it does not carry out that purpose.

Too often here, we take up noble causes; we create legislation with noble names; we pass this legislation to feel better; but the legislation fails to solve the problem in the title.

After these horrific murders, the families of the victims sued the Federal Government for allowing this monster to buy a gun.

Charleston Federal District Court Judge Gergen wrote a lengthy opinion in which he laid bare the Federal background check process and its failures in this case, the case of Dylann Roof. His opinion is available for anybody to read.

And in his 22-page opinion, he lays out the various structural flaws in the background check system. Most notably, that the FBI maintains four criminal databases. And under the background check system, the background checker is allowed to check only three of those.

Why? I assume because those are the three that existed in the nineties when the background check came into place.

There is a fourth one. It is more extensive and it is more detailed. It is called N-DEx. In this file was all the information that Dylann Roof's background checker needed to know to deny him the right to buy the gun. This N-DEx system contained that information, and it is maintained by the FBI. All they had to do was allow this background checker to look at that. The FBI has admitted had they been able to do that, this man--this monster--would never have been able to buy a gun.

My amendment would actually fix the Charleston loophole. The problem is that I cannot support the underlying legislation. Why? Because it creates an undue amount of time to be able to buy a gun.

And number two, the thing that bothers me the most, is that it shifts a part of the burden to the American citizen trying to exercise his Second Amendment rights. It requires him, in the event that you don't hear back from the government, to file a petition with the Federal court. I think this is an undue interference with his Second Amendment right; therefore, I cannot accept this underlying legislation.

The Senate has indicated it will not be taken up in the Senate; and the President has indicated that, if it passed, he would veto it. Therefore, I plan to withdraw my amendment.

I plan to offer it separately as a new piece of legislation, which will, in fact, close the Charleston loophole. It will allow the FBI background checkers to search the most current N-DEx file that has all this detailed information that was created after 9/11, well after the background check law came into effect.

The FBI has admitted, it would have prevented Dylann Roof from buying a gun and, I suspect, many of the other people who have carried out these horrific shootings in recent years.

It will hopefully garner the bipartisan support necessary to actually become law and fix the underlying problem.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I hail from the Seventh District of South Carolina, and for 3 days in September the Nation was rapt as Hurricane Florence stalled directly on top of my district.

I have eight counties in my district. All eight counties were declared disaster areas. The inland counties were inundated, as North Carolina was, and all the rain that fell in North Carolina and those inland counties comes through five river systems out Georgetown County, South Carolina.

My district was overcome by a slow-motion, rolling disaster. And if that wasn't bad enough, that was the third storm in 4 years. Hurricane Matthew hit us 3 years ago.

With Hurricane Matthew, the Federal Government awarded us $95 million to rebuild 1,350 houses for indigent families. And, at the speed the Federal Government moves, as of now, 2\1/2\ years after the storm, about 400 of those 1,300 homes have been rebuilt, so we have got about 1,000 indigent South Carolinians either gone or living in substandard housing.

Now, in this storm, 12,163 homes were ``moderately damaged.'' I asked the definition of ``moderate damage.'' They said that means that there was water inside the house but it was less than 2 feet deep.

My friends, we also incurred $200 million of agricultural damage. In these last two storms, our agricultural department didn't even ask for help from the Federal Government, but the farmers are at their wits' end.

A farmer told me that 3 years ago they used their cash, the last storm they used their equity, and now they are at the end of their rope. We will be losing South Carolina farmers if we don't help these people.

So, I was prepared to support this, and House Republicans passed this disaster bill as part of the supplemental in December.

Now the Democrats bring it back up, and it is subject to opening the government up with no wall funding, and they know full well that the President wouldn't sign it, even if we did pass it.

This is a political game, and they are playing to win. But what they are playing with, the pieces that they are playing with, are hurting people in South Carolina. There are damaged people in South Carolina. They are suffering people who are on their knees.

Three of the counties that were hit the hardest--Marion, Dillon, and Marlboro counties--are some of the poorest counties in South Carolina. Overwhelmingly African American, these people had nothing before the storm, and what little they had has been taken away. And we are using these people as pawns in this fight over the government shutdown.

My friends, enough is enough. It is time to stop playing politics. As my friend across the aisle said earlier: Leaders don't hold people hostage; they find solutions.

And it is time to find a solution. They know full well that, by attaching this continuing resolution to this disaster bill, it will not pass this House, it won't get a hearing in the Senate, and the President won't sign it.

All this is for show. Enough show. Let's deliver this relief to the people who need it.

The storm hit my area September the 14th, 4 months ago. Enough show. Stop using these indigent people as pawns. Enough

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, a commonsense fix that gives HUD the flexibility to waive redundant and unnecessary environmental requirements that slow down the disaster recovery process.

Anyone from a district that has endured one of these devastating hurricanes, wildfires, or floods can attest to the fact that Congress should do everything in our power to quickly give these communities relief.

Madam Chair, 3 years ago, South Carolina was struck by Hurricane Matthew. As a result of that storm, South Carolina was awarded $95 million, which was to be used to repair the households of 1,300 indigent families.

The three counties that were most affected were three of the very poorest counties in South Carolina, Marion, Dillon, and Marlboro, and 2 years and 6 months later, about $25 million of that $95 million has been spent, about 400 of those houses have been repaired, which leaves about 1,000 South Carolina families, indigent families, people who had nothing to begin with, either out of their homes or living in substandard, mold-infested housing that could burn down from electrical problems, or the flooring is buckled and so forth. We have to do better.

Why does it take so long? Why does it take two-and-a-half years to get these people back in their homes?

What I want to do, what my amendment does, is remove some of the burdensome Federal requirements that stand in the way of delivering the relief that the Federal Government has offered up money to pay for.

Now we come to Hurricane Florence. Hurricane Florence parked on top of my district and the southern part of North Carolina for 3 days in September and dumped over 40 inches of rain in places. And then when the storm finally did leave, for the next 2 weeks, the rivers rose and people were driven from their homes.

16,000 houses in my district were damaged. 12,000 of those houses had what they call moderate damage, which in their definition means that the house had water inside of the house but it was less than 2 feet deep.

Since the first major hurricane hit my district, I have been in constant contact with all Federal and State agencies involved in the recovery and rebuilding process. I frequently visit homes that are under construction and check with my constituents to ensure the process is going smoothly.

With respect to Matthew from two-and-a-half years ago, almost 1,000 of my constituents are still not in their homes.

My top question is, Why is this taking so long? And what can we do to fix it?

Part of their answer is reforming the long, expensive, and redundant environmental review process.

Currently, before a home is rebuilt with HUD funds, the South Carolina Disaster Recovery Office must conduct two environmental assessments. After completing a countywide assessment, every single home that is eligible to be repaired with HUD funds must undergo a second assessment, no matter the size or type of repair that they are using the HUD dollars to complete.

For example, if someone is using FEMA funds to repair a hole in the roof, the contractor can repair the hole without the homeowner having to complete an environmental study. However, if a home is being repaired using HUD funding, a costly and time-consuming environmental assessment must be completed before even the most minor of repairs can be made to the home.

This onerous regulatory requirement is just one more roadblock that my constituents face in the recovery process.

And I tell you again, the counties that were affected by this storm most severely are the poorest counties in South Carolina; majority African American, these people never had anything to begin with, and whatever they had has been taken away from them, and they need relief and they don't need Federal regulatory roadblocks.

Bringing the regulations that apply to HUD in line with other Federal agencies will create a more streamlined process and ensure the Federal dollars are put to use in a more prompt fashion.

We need to cut down the time and the costs that are preventing people in my district from getting back in their homes, back to normal, and on with their lives, and this practical amendment will do just exactly that.

Madam Chair, I have to reiterate that the House Republicans passed this disaster package in December, and here we come, the Democratic majority has put it back up, but has subjected it to reopening the government, and has made that a poison pill to make it impossible to be passed in this House.

Certainly it will not pass in the Senate, and the President will not sign it even if we pass it in this House.

Madam Chair, I urge Members to vote for this amendment and I urge the Democratic majority to stop playing politics with disaster recovery funds.

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

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

Madam Speaker, Americans pay the price for our failure to secure our southern border in many, many ways. Our failure to control our southern border is a national disgrace.

Some of the ways Americans pay for our failure is through illegal immigration, reduced wages from illegal immigration, drugs, violent crime, human trafficking, gangs, abuse of our welfare system, and potential terrorism.

There are too many to explore here, but I want to focus on just a few of the larger problems. One is illegal immigration.

First, I want to say I am not anti-immigration. I am anti-illegal immigration.

You have to understand that, as a sovereign country, we have the right to decide who and how many people are allowed to become citizens of our country. And we are a very, very generous nation. Don't let anybody tell you that, because we are against illegal immigration, we are not a generous nation.

We accept 1.1 million legal immigrants per year. That is almost twice as much as the next highest country--1.1 million legal immigrants per year. Now, we can talk about that number--is it too high, too low--but that is what the law allows.

Most countries use their immigration system to make themselves more competitive, and that is what I am all about: make America great again, make the United States competitive again. You see, a competitive economy makes America the land of opportunity, and I am all about opportunity for my children and grandchildren and your children and grandchildren.

Most countries use the immigration system to make themselves more competitive by using high-skilled immigration. In other words, if you have a skill set or an educational background that that country needs, you go to the front of the line.

Our immigration system, on the other hand, is based on chain migration. Only 12 percent is skill based. That is less than half of what the average developed country provides. Canada and Mexico base much more of their immigration on skill set than we do here in America.

The result of our chain immigration-based system is that primarily low-skilled, uneducated people are admitted through our legal immigration system. In fact, over half of our legal immigrants--legal immigrants. I haven't even gotten to illegal immigration yet. Over half of our legal immigrants end up relying on our welfare system, and this clearly makes us less, not more, competitive.

President Trump and I agree that we should shift to a skill-based immigration system like Canada and Mexico have to grow our economy and create more opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

So all that is bad enough, that we base our immigration on chain migration, that 65 percent of the folks coming in here have a low skill set and over half of them end up on welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and the like, but now let's talk about illegal immigration.

On top of that 1.1 million primarily unskilled legal immigrant workforce that we bring in every year, we have a flood of illegal immigrants. Nobody knows exactly how many, but it is hundreds of thousands of folks. The low end of the estimates is 300,000 to 400,000 people per year on top of the 1.1 million that we admit legally.

In a 2015 study, Harvard Professor George Borjas found that legal immigration, that 1.1 million legal per year, added 25 percent to the low-skilled workforce over the last 20 years.

Then you add illegals on top of that. Professor Borjas said, for every 10 percent you add in competition, you reduce wages by at least 3 percent.

Folks, if you add 25 percent more competitors, wages will go down. That is Economics 101.

If you look at this chart, this is a chart of wage increases in the United States from 2000 until now. You can see those folks at the upper end of the scale. They are not really affected by low-skilled illegal immigration, and their wages went up and went up substantially.

If you look at the 75th percentile, they are not affected either. Their wages went up and went up substantially.

But the median income, they are flat. They haven't had a raise in 20 years. The people at the 25th percentile and the 10th percentile, they haven't moved at all. They are the people who are the most hurt by illegal immigration, by competition from low-skilled illegal immigrants who work for nothing and who cheat hardworking Americans out of jobs and out of wages, and this chart proves it.

Let me tell you, not only does it cheat the people on the low end of the scale, but it actually helps the people on the higher end of the scale.

People like your children and your grandchildren with a high school education, people who are trying to get their heads above water but they can't because they are drowned by a flood of illegal aliens who work for practically nothing, this primarily affects those on the lower end of the income scale, as I just showed you, who just can't seem to get ahead.

Friends, Democrats used to say they are for the working man, and they love to talk about income inequality. The people on the high end have gone up; the people on the low end haven't. Well, guess what? Here is why. Illegal immigration plays a huge part in that.

So let's stop complaining about income inequality, and let's actually doing something about it. Let's secure our southern border, stop the flow of illegal immigrants who work for practically nothing and cheat the folks on the low end of the scale out of jobs and wages, and let's watch wages rise.

It is not that hard to understand. It is common sense. It is Economics 101. The American middle class has suffered for decades as a result of our uncompetitive economy, and illegal immigration is one of the primary reasons.

Now, let's talk about what illegal immigration does to our social safety net. In addition to drowning our middle class, illegal immigration strains our social safety net and costs taxpayers billions of dollars.

These figures are from the Center for Immigration Studies, and the chart represents the percentage of immigrant-led households in blue and native-born households in red.

The percentage of immigrant households that get food aid in America is 45 percent; native-born households, 21 percent. So illegal immigrants get twice as much food aid as native-born citizens.

Medicaid, 50 percent of illegal immigrants get some type of Medicaid benefit; only 23 percent of native-born Americans.

Cash benefits, when you include the earned income tax credit, 31 percent of illegal immigrants get some form of cash subsidy from the United States Government; only 10 percent of native-born Americans.

If you take all that in total, 63 percent of illegal immigrants get some type of government benefit, as compared to 35 percent of native- born folks.

The last column represents the percentage of uninsured. Twenty-four percent of the illegal immigrants have no insurance as compared to 7.5 percent of native-born households.

When you think about people showing up at the emergency room and hospitals, and the government and taxpayers having to cover the bill, 25 percent of the illegal immigrant families are one of the main sources of that problem.

Last year, in my home county, Horry County, South Carolina--now, Horry County is a long way from the southern border, over 1,500 miles. But there was a claim brought against the school system in Horry County, South Carolina, by the U.S. Department of Justice. It seems that the Department determined that Horry County wasn't doing enough to accommodate students who couldn't speak English.

Well, you wouldn't think that would be that much of a problem in South Carolina, being that we are such a long way from the southern border. As it turns out, 5,511 out of 44,700 students in Horry County were English as a second language. That is 13 percent of the student body in Horry County, South Carolina. So the school board agreed to settle that claim by paying $600,000 more to provide more accommodation for those students who couldn't speak English.

Let's get off of illegal immigration and talk about one of the other great scourges that Americans endure as a result of our failure to secure our southern border.

In 2017, 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses. That is up 100 percent in a decade. For most diseases and sicknesses, the cures are getting better and deaths are leveling off. It is the opposite for the drug scourge.

That 72,000 Americans who died in 2017--think about this, guys; listen to this--is more than traffic deaths, which was 37,000, and homicides at 17,000, combined. Traffic deaths and homicides killed 54,000 Americans in 2017. Drug overdoses killed 72,000 people. It is exploding.

Last year, there was a 38 percent increase in meth, 22 percent increase in heroin, and 73 percent increase in fentanyl seized at our southern border, and that is only what we seized. If that is not a crisis, I don't know what a crisis is.

The DEA reports that 300 Americans die every week from heroin, 90 percent of which comes across our southern border. Madam Speaker, 95 percent of the cocaine comes across our southern border, and much of the fentanyl comes across our southern border.

The opioid epidemic is ravaging communities across the country, including my home State and district. In the past 3 years, 2014 to 2017, the number of opioid-involved overdose deaths in South Carolina increased by 47 percent--47 percent--from 508 to 748.

In 2017, 134 opioid deaths were in my little congressional district that I represent, the Seventh District of South Carolina. I asked Sheriff Thompson in Horry County, and I asked Sheriff Boone in Florence County, where these drugs are coming from. They looked at me and said 80-plus percent comes from the southern border. That mirrors the reports from the DEA.

As the President has stated, the status quo response to the crisis at our southern border is no longer effective.

Nancy Pelosi said a wall as a part of the President's border security plan is amoral. I don't think so. But 72,000 Americans dead last year, I know that is amoral. 750 South Carolinians dead last year primarily from drugs coming across the southern border that we refuse to control, I know that is amoral. 132 residents of my district dead last year primarily from drugs coming across our southern border, I know that is amoral.

The scourge of drugs caused by our failure to control our southern border doesn't just affect us. It affects our southern neighbors as well.

Did you know there were more than 30,000 murders in Mexico last year? That is almost twice as many murders as we had, and they have a third of our population, so their murder rate is six times ours. Why is that?

Well, large portions of Mexico are controlled by drug cartels. You see, our failure to control our southern border has given these people unimaginable power and wealth. They outrank the government in more than half of Mexico, and they will fight to protect that power and that wealth.

Madam Speaker, 30,000 murders, six times the rate of murder in the United States, and it is largely our fault, because we haven't controlled our southern border. When a gang comes knocking on your door in Mexico or Guatemala and says they are going to take your son and he is going to be a part of their cartel, when they come and say, hey, your daughter is looking good, and they are going to grab her and sell her into human trafficking, what are you going to do? Are you going to sit there and take it?

I can tell you what a lot of them are doing. They are picking up everything they have, and where are they heading? They are heading to the southern border of the United States.

So the refugee crisis--think about this--because we have failed to control our southern border, because we have enriched and emboldened these drug cartels and drug lords, and we have allowed them to take over governing large parts of Central and South America, we have created the very refugee crisis that is creating a crisis at our southern border right now, because we have failed to control the flow of drugs. We have failed to stop these criminal organizations.

The Democrats claim they are for border security, but they refuse to take any action or even participate in good-faith negotiations. Just last week, Nancy Pelosi offered $1 toward additional border security. Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Barack Obama, when they were Senators, all voted in favor of funding a border wall in 2006. Why are they against it now?

I will tell you why. It is their hatred for President Trump stopping them from doing what is best for their constituents. They see this as a political game, and they want to win, no matter what the cost.

Let me tell you what the cost was last year: 72,000 dead Americans, 750 in South Carolina, 130 in my district, and I promise you there were at least that many in Nancy Pelosi's district.

Democrats try to make this argument solely about a wall. President Trump has repeatedly said we do not need a wall for the entire length of the 2,000-mile border, but physical barriers in selected areas are both effective and necessary.

The Yuma border sector had the highest number of illegal crossings in the country before a barrier was built, resulting in a 95 percent decrease in apprehensions and a 91 percent decrease in crime. San Diego, once ground zero for illegal immigration, has seen a 92 percent decrease in apprehensions since the fence was constructed.

The $5.7 billion passed by the House Republicans in December would have enhanced border security, not just a wall. Any meaningful plan to deal with illegal immigration must also require employers to verify the employment status of workers they hire and penalize employers if they break the rules.

This system is called E-Verify, and it is already in place. It is managed by the Federal Government, but, amazingly, employers are not required to participate. So in addition to border security, we have to have E-Verify.

It is time to stop the politics and secure our border.

Democrats are terribly worried about who gets blamed for the shutdown. Frankly, I don't care who gets the blame. This is a fight, and it is a fight to keep drugs off our streets and out of the hands of our children. It is a fight to keep our communities safe. It is a fight for higher wages for hardworking Americans, for more jobs, and for our economy. And, friends, it is a fight worth having.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 44 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 16, 2019, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7227) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7227, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan, commonsense measure that I am proud to have worked on alongside Mr. Lewis and many members of the Ways and Means Committee for the past 2 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the tax and oversight package before us today.

I appreciate the concern about the deficits from my colleague across the aisle, but I would remind my colleague that President Obama added $2 trillion in deficits in only 1 year.

Mr. Speaker, this bill adds to the successes, the amazing successes of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which became law last year, and our economic potential in America has, once again, been unleashed and America is, once again, the land of opportunity.

Unemployment is at a record low, Mr. Speaker. Consumer confidence and small business confidence are at historic highs, and wages are growing at their fastest pace in nearly a decade.

Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle can say that this bill benefited only the wealthy, but I can tell you, I represent three of the poorest counties in South Carolina, Marion County, Dillon County, and Marlboro County, and all three of those counties, in 2016, were at or about 10 percent unemployment. Today, each one of those counties, largely as a result of this tax bill, are below 6 percent. For the first time in 30 years they are below 6 percent unemployment.

When we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our message was clear: We will not wait another 30 years to take up tax legislation. We will consistently work to improve the Tax Code.

The legislation before us is an opportunity to build on the economic momentum that is creating opportunities and lifting people up in South Carolina and across the country.

Two years ago, Hurricane Matthew made landfall in South Carolina, and just a few days before a tax filing deadline, people were ignoring evacuation orders from disaster officials to ensure they could meet their IRS filing deadlines. Can you imagine having to choose between boarding up your house or filing a tax return? That is what my constituents had to do.

Ambiguity under the current law results in the IRS waiting to grant a deadline extension for weeks after a natural disaster. My bill, the Disaster Certainty Act, would create an automatic 60-day extension following a Presidential Disaster Declaration, and it is included in this bill.

Additionally, this package includes the Hurricane Florence Tax Relief Act, which I introduced with Congressman Holding. This legislation gives disaster victims the flexibility to access emergency funds, encourages charitable giving, and enhances the deduction for personal casualty losses.

Immediately following a disaster, families are faced with the cost of home repairs and temporary housing, but most do not have these funds at their disposal.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this package.

Mr. Speaker, opioids and illegal immigration are two cancers of a porous southern border, and my constituents have had enough.

Illegal immigration holds down wages and diminishes our middle class. The Democrats say they are for border security; they just don't want to pay for it--empty words.

It is funny, Mr. Schumer voted for a border wall in 2006, but he is against it now. Why? Because our President wants it? Empty words.

In 2017, 150 people in my district in 2017 were killed by opioid overdoses. My law enforcement agencies tell me that 85 percent of those drugs come across our porous southern border.

You say you are for border security, but you don't want to pay for it--empty words, playing politics.

There were 150 people killed in my district. They are in your districts, too. It is a cancer. It doesn't just affect my district. It is across this entire country. You say you are for border security, and you won't take any action to stop it.

Mr. Speaker, it has gone on long enough. Illegal immigration holds down wages, stretches our social safety net, holds down our middle class. The opioids kill people across our country. It is a cancer and it is growing. It is not even leveling off. It is growing, killing people in my district and yours, too.

Empty words, shame on you.