[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 29, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H1272-H1279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE PEOPLE'S NIGHT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
introduce extraneous material into the Record on the topic of this 
Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, tonight is a reminder of exactly whose 
House this belongs to. We hear much in the political circles as far as 
who makes the call and who gets to speak when. Today, customarily, is a 
very unique and special day had our President not been disinvited.
  Well, tonight we will have a few Members speaking on the importance 
of hearing from the Members that Americans have elected to talk about 
the issues of the past 2 years, and some of the things that we need to 
accomplish over the next couple of years.
  We have some wonderful speakers this afternoon and this evening, to 
be able to share some of the topics that are important to our 
constituents as well as to all Americans.
  The first speaker I would like to introduce to you is Mr.   Mike 
Johnson, who represents the Fourth District of Louisiana, and is 
currently leading the largest caucus in all of Congress as chairman of 
the Republican Study Committee.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the 
great State of North Carolina for inviting me to speak on this topic.
  I stand before you in disbelief and in sorrow tonight. It has been 
mentioned that the State of the Union Address was originally scheduled 
to take place today, and it has been rescheduled for next week.
  I think it is appropriate for us then to bring attention to what is 
happening here in the people's House. I think the American people 
deserve to know that. As we speak, I think the American people need to 
know that partisan tactics are underway by certain House Democrats to 
undermine American values and traditions that have been cherished and 
practiced here since the time of our founding.

  As we finally begin our committee work in the 116th Congress, I am 
proud to serve again on the Judiciary Committee and the House Natural 
Resources Committee. We have just begun the process of adopting our 
committee rules there, and today, we were issued a list of proposed 
rule changes that the Democrat majority and the Natural Resources 
Committee will apparently push through at our hearing tomorrow.
  Among the radical new changes to the rules is a stunning action to 
remove the phrase, ``So help me God'' from the oath taken by witnesses 
before they testify to Congress. Did you hear that? Let me repeat it. 
Among the radical new changes in our committee is a stunning action to 
remove the phrase ``So help me God'' from the oath taken by witnesses 
before they testify to Congress.
  This latest example of the aggressive surge to the far left that we 
are seeing

[[Page H1273]]

has to be stopped. This new agenda is threatening the very fabric of 
our Nation. Throughout America's history, our Presidents and elected 
officials have taken a solemn oath of office including the words, ``So 
help me God.''
  This goes back to our founding. Since the Judiciary Act of 1789, 
every justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and all lower-court judges have 
taken an oath of office which concludes with the same phrase and, of 
course, every court of law across this land, in every one of them, all 
witnesses have always been sworn in for testimony with those same 
concluding words.
  For more than two centuries, immigrants from all around the world 
have come here and taken America's oath of allegiance to become 
naturalized citizens which also concludes with the phrase, ``So help me 
God.''
  Madam Speaker, some of our Democrat colleagues need to be reminded of 
our history. Why did the Founders institute this practice? Well, let's 
remember what they said. Our first President, George Washington, was 
the Father of our country. And in his famous farewell address, he gave 
his advice that echoes down through the generations to you and to me as 
the elected Representatives of the people. He said, famously: ``Of all 
the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, 
religion and morality are indispensable supports.''
  John Adams was our second President. He came next. What did he say? 
He said: ``Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious 
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''
  In other words, what these two Founders and their fellow patriots all 
understood from our history, was that there are many important rules 
and practices that can help sustain and build a healthy republic, but 
the key they said, the essential foundation of a republic has to be a 
common commitment among the citizenry to the principles of religion and 
morality and accountability to God himself.
  The Founders acknowledged this self-evident truth that all men are 
created equal and that God gives all men the same inalienable rights. 
However, they knew, that in order to maintain a government ``of the 
people, by the people, for the people,'' as Lincoln later said, those 
inalienable rights must be exercised in a responsible manner.
  They, thus, believed in liberty that is legitimately constrained by a 
common sense of morality, and a healthy fear of the God who granted all 
men our rights.
  The Founders understood that all men are fallen and that power 
corrupts. They also knew that no amount of institutional checks and 
balances or decentralization of power and civil authorities would be 
sufficient to maintain a just government if the men in charge had no 
fear of eternal judgment by a power higher than their temporal 
institutions.
  That is just a quick review of our history, but that is the reason we 
conclude our oaths in this country with the phrase ``So help me God.'' 
Heaven help us if we ever forget that obligation.
  Inscribed on the third panel of the Jefferson Memorial right here in 
Washington, D.C., just a few blocks from here, is his sobering reminder 
to every single one of us as American citizens. He said this, it is 
right there on the wall: ``God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can 
the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction 
that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my 
country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep 
forever.''
  Madam Speaker, I just want you to know and I want the American people 
to know back home here on the night that should have been the State of 
the Union Address, as we talk about the State of our union, I want you 
to know that we are going to fight this radical rules change tomorrow 
in our committee because it matters. And we will continue to raise the 
alarm about the dangerous leftist agenda that is taking hold here in 
this Congress.
  While I am at it, I would be remiss if I did not note, Madam Speaker, 
that this is not the end. The radical agenda is advancing in State 
legislatures now as well.
  Last week, New York's Governor signed the infamous Reproductive 
Health Act, the RHA, into law. This bill's extreme provisions eliminate 
protections for the unborn, endangering the health of mothers, and 
eliminate New York's few remaining safeguards for developing human 
life.

                              {time}  1545

  As enacted, the RHA establishes the fundamental right to abortion. It 
permits nonphysicians to perform abortions; it repeals State 
protections for children born during an abortion; and it eliminates all 
fetal homicide provisions. The bill's broad health exception allows for 
an abortion at, literally, any point in their pregnancy.
  Look, this measure is unconscionable. It is disturbing. And we expect 
our friends and all people of good conscience--even on the other side 
of the aisle--to condemn this outrageous attack on the vulnerable.
  Madam Speaker, we are forgetting our history. We have to remember why 
we as Americans believe in the sanctity of human life.
  I will conclude with this, by just reminding us, again, that our 
Founders openly acknowledged, they broadly proclaimed what has been 
called the American Creed. It is listed in the second paragraph of the 
Declaration that ``we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all 
men are created equal,'' and that God is the one that gives us our 
rights, and our rights are unalienable. The first listed is the right 
to life.
  Have we thought about why the Founders said that? Because they 
understood that every single person is made in the image of God. And 
because every person is made in the image of God, every single person 
has inestimable dignity and value. Your value is not related in any way 
to where you grew up or the color of your skin or how intelligent you 
may be, what your talents are, what you make for a living. Those are 
irrelevant. Your value is inherent because it is given to you by your 
creator.
  Madam Speaker, I conclude with this: As we reflect upon the State of 
the Union, the state of the Union is strong in so many ways, but we 
have our challenges. Among the challenges is an assault, an aggressive 
agenda to remove and erase these critical and important foundations.
  So here on the People's Night, here in the people's House, we want to 
remind the people of what is happening on our watch. We will stand 
against these things. We will continue to defend what is best about our 
American traditions, and we are honored to have that opportunity.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his wonderful 
words of wisdom and inspiration.
  A lot of times in the House, we hear politicians say, even throughout 
our State, that we are doing things for the people. And I guess, to 
some degree, some of that is okay. But for us to be successful, I think 
we have to get back to the place that we are doing things with the 
people. No one embodies that more in the House than past chairman and 
ranking member of Ways and Means, Mr. Kevin Brady.
  In taking a moment of personal privilege here, I get a chance to meet 
lots of figures: lots of politicians, lots of Presidents, kings, and 
queens throughout this country--and throughout this world, actually--
but few people I have ever met who carried the servant spirit and the 
servant heart more than our top Republican on Ways and Means.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), 
proudly representing Texas' Eighth District.
  Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon, first, to thank the 
gentleman, my friend from the Sixth District of North Carolina, 
Congressman Mark Walker, for his leadership in our Republican House 
Conference, for his leadership in helping improve the lives of not just 
North Carolinians, but every American, and, tonight, for organizing 
today's Special Order, ``The People's Night,'' #witthepeople, on a 
night we had hoped our President would be here, as tradition requires, 
to give the State of the Union.
  I want to thank those who are here tonight. We heard from Mr. Johnson 
and my colleagues who are speaking tonight on the issues that are so 
important to the American people. Whether it is jobs, better wages, a 
stronger economy, more affordable and accessible healthcare, supporting 
resources for our troops and veterans, securing our border, standing 
with Israel,

[[Page H1274]]

or, as Mr. Johnson pointed out, protecting the lives of the innocent 
unborn, I am proud to join you in this fight.
  Let's talk about the economy and jobs. We have seen such dramatic 
difference the last 2 years. Remember, before that, the economy had 
struggled for more than a decade. Every expert in Washington was 
telling the American people: Just get used to that. Get used to your 
paychecks being flat. Get used to jobs moving overseas. Get used to 
your kids coming out of school with fair to low opportunities. That is 
the new normal.
  Well, Republicans and President Trump believed there was a better 
future, a brighter future for America, so we went to work. As a result, 
because of our commitment to lifting red tape off of our local small 
businesses and delivering the first overhaul of our Tax Code in more 
than 30 years, America is back, and the American people are doing 
better because of it: wages are rising the fastest in a decade; 
America's economy is growing the fastest in more than a decade; and 
unemployment is at one of the lowest levels in decades.
  We did this by working with President Trump to lift more than $33 
billion in red tape off our local businesses so they can hire again, so 
they can grow again.
  Then we tackled this terrible Tax Code that had been placed, and put 
in place one that lowers taxes for all Americans, that helps small 
businesses grow and invest, that doubles the child tax credit, that 
doubles the standard deductions and changes the dynamics so that jobs 
investment comes back to America rather than just being stranded 
overseas. And, boy, what a difference it is making.
  Due to the Republican pro-growth policies and President Trump's tax 
cuts, our economy exceeded 3 percent growth over the past year. That 
never happened under our previous President. So much for that new 
normal of slow growth.
  More than 5 million jobs have been created since President Trump was 
elected, including more than 2.5 million since the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act was signed into law. Last week, our unemployment jobless claims 
were at a 50-year low. That is a 50-year best for that.
  The unemployment rate for African Americans fell to the lowest rate 
ever on record. For Asian and Hispanic Americans, their unemployment 
rates are the best we have seen in decades.
  For those who are disabled, for those coming out of prison, for those 
without high school educations, for those who are teenagers, the job 
opportunities are the best they have seen in decades. The unemployment 
rate, in some cases, is the best since we have started recording it.
  And the group I watched the most, sort of the underdogs in every 
community, are those who didn't even get a chance to finish high school 
or get a GED, that are always the first to be laid off, always the last 
to be rehired. Well, under this new economy, the unemployment for those 
without a high school degree is the best since America started 
recording it.
  So our brothers and sisters in our communities and neighborhoods have 
more job opportunities than they have seen in a long time, and their 
paychecks are going up as well, the fastest in more than a decade.
  It had been stuck flat for so many Americans for so long, it just was 
hard for families to make ends meet. But now, with higher paychecks and 
a tax cut for over 90 percent of American workers, families now have a 
budget that goes a little farther each week, where they can invest in 
themselves and their American Dream rather than in Washington's dream.
  Consumer confidence has soared. American manufacturing is back. In 
fact, the National Association of Manufacturers, their index has the 
highest annual growth in jobs in history, over the past year. In fact, 
last year, manufacturing in America added almost 290,000 new jobs.
  Finally, small business optimism is through the roof. They are 
investing and hiring and growing again on Main Streets all across 
America.
  This didn't happen by accident. Republicans working closely with 
President Trump decided there was a brighter future for America. We 
could get out of the doldrums. We could give people opportunities. We 
could boost their paycheck, and we could bring jobs back from overseas. 
That is the difference the last 2 years has made for America.
  And when the State of the Union is held, President Trump, from the 
dais behind me, can talk about the huge difference he has made in the 
American economy and what it means for working families and small 
businesses along Main Street.
  Madam Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Walker) for his leadership and for organizing the People's Night, and I 
am proud to be part of it.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking Republican on our Ways 
and Means Committee, Kevin Brady, for the wonderful service that he 
continues to display not just to the good people of the Lone Star 
State, but to all Americans.
  We had a lot of retirements this past election, but not all the 
adults left the building. We have a wonderful veteran and former Korean 
veteran--actually, OB/GYN doctor, who delivered nearly 5,000 babies--
the ranking member, past chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I 
ask Phil Roe from Tennessee to share a few things on his heart; because 
there are few people who have had his experience level, and I believe 
it would behoove us all to listen to the words of wisdom from Mr. Phil 
Roe.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. 
Roe).
  Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Walker) for the work he has done as our past 
chairman of the Republican Study Committee and now in leadership and 
our Conference, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight.
  I remember, about 2 years ago, I was up late at night watching the 
election returns, and then-President-elect Trump announced his 
acceptance speech. He was not 3 minutes into his speech when he said 
that he wanted to help our Nation's veterans.
  It was very near and dear to my heart because I am a generation of 
veterans. That was during the Vietnam war, and we were not so much 
appreciated and treated rather shabbily by our country.
  So I knew what was in President Trump's heart, and I wish he were 
here tonight to be able to express that. Because every time I have been 
in the room with him, he has appreciated the service of our Nation's 21 
million living veterans.
  Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, we had an opportunity to do something 
about it, and, in a bipartisan way--and I do want to give thanks to 
both sides of the aisle. This would not have happened without their 
help. We started on a mission to really reform the way the VA provides 
healthcare.
  For those out there who don't know about our VA system, there are 
over 150 VA medical centers, over 800 outpatient clinics that we have.
  The VA is divided into, actually, three parts: It is healthcare, and 
it is benefits, and it is cemeteries.
  If you haven't visited a VA cemetery, you should, because it will 
really make your heart feel good to see how we treat our Nation's 
heroes.
  We started, 2 years ago, with the idea that not all employees at work 
at the VA are good employees and should be there. When I got to 
Congress in 2010--I have been here, now, 10 years--there were 250,000 
employees at the VA.
  Now, the VA employs almost 370,000 people. But there were some 
egregious acts that some of these folks had carried out, and they could 
not be fired.
  We passed a bill in a bipartisan way that allows us to terminate 
poorly performing employees while maintaining the rights of those 
employees who are there, 99.9 percent of whom are doing a great job for 
our Nation's heroes.
  The second thing most of us Congressmen hear about is disability 
claims. When I got to Congress in 2009, there were a million backlogged 
disability claims, veterans sometimes waiting until they died to get 
their disability claim adjudicated. That number now is down to around 
350,000--far too many.

  We passed a bill at that point, about 18 months ago, the appeals 
reform bill, and it has been piloted--called the RAMP program--which 
has sped up.
  Last Friday, I was in Nashville, Tennessee, going to our regional 
office to

[[Page H1275]]

see how they were doing, and I ran into a gentleman who was using the 
VA--just happened to be there, a veteran, about my age. He said: ``I 
have been trying for 7 years to get my claim adjudicated, get taken 
care of.'' In 90 days, with the new RAMP program--he had waited 7 
years. In 90 days, it was solved.
  That program goes live next month. The Secretary has approved it, 
and, hopefully, now we can speed the claims and appeals process up.
  A third bill that we passed, that I used in 1975 when I got out of 
the Army and came back stateside from the Southeast Asia, is called the 
GI bill. For those out there, it is an education bill, and it was 
written, initially, by a World War II vet Harry G. Colmery. Mr. Colmery 
wrote a bill and thought that we could really change our Nation by 
educating veterans who were getting out of the military; and we did 
just that, and it changed our Nation.
  I am still appreciative, to this day, of the $300 a month that my 
country invested in me when I had a young family, when I went back to 
finish my education at the University of Tennessee, College of 
Medicine. I was able to use that money to help me finish my training 
and my education. But that terminated at 10 years. If I didn't use it 
within 10 years, it went away.
  Today, we passed a bill, fully paid for, that allows a veteran to use 
their GI bill the rest of their life. And we know if someone is 23 when 
they get out, when they are 40, maybe they might need retraining. Well, 
now, they can get that.
  The second thing we did in that bill--again, very personal to me--is 
some veterans hadn't served long enough. If they earned a Purple Heart, 
they didn't get the full benefit because they hadn't served enough 
time. Now, if you shed blood for this Nation, you get the full GI bill, 
and it should be that.
  We also improved payment for our Gold Star families and others, and 
we have added time for technical training. We know those courses 
sometimes take longer.
  We also funded, what is called the Veterans Choice Program three 
times during the last Congress, and that is how veterans get care 
outside the VA. We know that most VA hospitals can't provide everything 
to everybody, and many veterans have to travel long, long distances to 
see a doctor, to see a specialist.

                              {time}  1600

  I was visiting Oregon a couple years ago and found out that one 
congressional district in Oregon had more square miles than the State 
of Tennessee did. We had to develop a bill that allowed veterans in 
rural areas to see a doctor and veterans in urban areas to do so.
  We passed the VA MISSION Act, which was signed into law, 
appropriately, on June the 6th of 2018, 74 years after D-day.
  What this bill will do is the following. It will revise how veterans 
get their care outside the VA. It has a second very important part 
called the VA caregiver bill. Catastrophically injured, post-9/11 GIs 
who were injured in battle now can have a caregiver given a stipend to 
stay home so that they can stay out of the hospital.
  But that did not apply to pre-9/11 veterans, Vietnam-era veterans 
like I am, Korea, and World War II. We now provide that benefit for 
those veterans.
  Thirdly, we are looking at what is called an asset review of the VA. 
This is something that really surprised me when I looked at the data. 
The actual number of patients in hospital beds peaked in 1981. The 
population has grown 40 percent, and we actually have 10 percent fewer 
people in hospital beds than we did almost 40 years ago.
  So medicine is changing, and the VA needs to change. It needs to go 
through a self-evaluation, get right-sized, and get the VA healthcare 
out where the patients live, where the veterans are.
  We know that patients are moving, veterans are moving, from the 
Northeast to the South and West, so we need to put those assets there. 
That is what the VA bill will do.
  There are a few other small things, Madam Speaker, that we did that 
might not be big to some people but were huge to me, because my 
Scoutmaster was killed in 1965 in Vietnam. His name was Thomas E. 
Thayer. He was a first sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division, a great 
man with four children.
  When we have Gold Star families that sign a lease, let's say--and we 
had this happen where they signed a lease. One was in North Carolina, 
and the person would not release that woman from her lease, and she had 
to pay that.
  Now, if you lose your husband or your wife in combat, you can get out 
of those. We also did the same thing for cable TV, for internet, and 
for cell phones. If you are deployed, you can't use those things, so 
you can get out of those long-term contracts.
  The Veterans' Affairs Committee passed over 80 bills. Almost 50 of 
them were signed into law to help our Nation's veterans.
  We did have one very disappointing failure to me, and I have already 
dropped a bill this term. It is called the blue water Navy bill. Just 
to let our audience out there, the folks viewing this, know what it is, 
there are veterans who served on surface ships in the territorial 
waters just off Vietnam, off the coast. Actually, Agent Orange was used 
in Korea, where I was. If you put your boots on the ground, then you 
are given the presumption for certain diseases for disability benefits. 
That does not occur for those men and women who served on surface 
ships.
  We passed it 382-0 in the House and could not get it moved in the 
Senate. We are going to give them an opportunity to do the right thing 
this next Congress.
  Madam Speaker, it has been a privilege for me to serve for 10 years 
on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and we are committed in that 
committee to continuing to serve our Nation's heroes and to give them 
the benefits they have earned that allow us to be free.
  I thank Mr. Walker for allowing me a few minutes to come down and 
share these few things we did for our Nation's heroes.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Phil Roe for sharing. The 
gentleman is one of the heroes around here. He not only talks the talk, 
but he walks the walk.
  Speaking of somebody who walks the walk, that is  Dan Crenshaw from 
Texas' Second District, a 10-year Navy veteran, a lieutenant commander. 
He is one bad dude. I would probably use a different expression, but my 
mother may be watching at this particular time.
  ``Saturday Night Live'' made him famous, but his work already has put 
him out as one of our leaders. It is my privilege to introduce and to 
hear from the former lieutenant commander.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.  Dan 
Crenshaw.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for setting this 
up and for having me speak here today.
  I rise today to address the urgent issue of border security. There 
are two elements to the border debate. One is political, and one is 
policy.
  The political element consists of the circumstances regarding the 
shutdown, the negotiations or lack thereof, and the points of 
compromise from either side.
  The policy side is simply the question of whether or not we need a 
wall as part of comprehensive border security.
  Let me begin with the political gamesmanship.
  Democratic leadership has been running a victory lap this week 
because they ``won'' the shutdown. I keep wondering, what exactly did 
they win?
  If you think winning means a porous border with 400,000 people 
apprehended every year, then your definition of winning is different 
than mine. If you think winning means standing strong against any sort 
of negotiation or compromise that would have allowed Federal workers 
finally to be paid, then your definition of winning is different than 
mine.
  The President didn't cave to Democrats. The President gave compassion 
to Federal workers who needed it. If that is your idea of losing, then 
you and I have different definitions of what it means to lose.
  The truth is that the President has compromised time after time 
because, for us, this is not about who wins or loses the political 
game; it is about securing the border.
  First, the President agreed that a 2,000-mile, sea-to-shining-sea 
wall

[[Page H1276]]

would be a logistical difficulty, so he agreed to 234 miles of fencing, 
a mere tenth of his original campaign promise.

  Then the President agreed to $5.7 billion in border wall funding 
instead of the originally requested $25 billion, a fifth of the 
original request.
  Democrats then said that they could discuss border security only if 
the government was open, so the President opened the government.
  At every turn, the President has reached out and compromised in order 
to get a deal done. And at every turn, Democrats scoffed at compromise.
  This brings us to the second element of this great debate, the policy 
element. Democrats have laughed at a wall. They call it medieval and 
ineffective, and they dismiss it without any rationale or reasoning.
  The reality is that walls do work, as every rational security expert 
acknowledges. Border agents overwhelmingly attest to this. After all, 
the President's plan came from the experts at the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  An integral part of this multifaceted plan is a 234-mile border wall. 
Everywhere we put walls, illegal crossings drop. Look at San Diego, El 
Centro, Tucson, and El Paso. The drop in illegal immigration and 
apprehensions after constructing a wall is enormous and immediate, yet 
Democrats pretend these facts don't exist.
  They point to common myths about how walls function. They like to 
claim people will just climb over or tunnel under them. Oh, yeah? Just 
like that?
  Well, I am a Navy SEAL, and I know better than most what it takes to 
infiltrate hardened areas. I would much rather be infiltrating a place 
with no barriers than one with a giant, 20-plus-foot wall. The planning 
considerations, training, and equipment necessary are considerable. 
And, yes, it takes a lot more than a tall ladder, especially when 
discussing huge groups of migrants like the ones we are seeing.
  The obvious truth is that walls make a difference and clearly 
mitigate movement, and we actually all used to agree on this.
  Democrats claim they are for security but would prefer a virtual wall 
with sensors, drones, cameras, et cetera. That is fine, and that is 
exactly why that technology is included in our plan, but to say we need 
only that technology is effectively asking our Border Patrol to chase 
migrants endlessly across large swaths of territory.
  It is one thing for a sensor to go off when we see a group of 
migrants go by. But guess what? When we see that go off, they keep 
going unimpeded. Asking our border agents to simply chase them down 
when there are literally hundreds crossing each day is complete 
insanity.
  This dishonest, so-called debate must end. We must start having 
serious discussions and secure our border because that is what the 
American people want. That is what it means to be with the people.
  Mr. WALKER. What a privilege it is for me to serve with Lieutenant 
Commander  Dan Crenshaw, two Bronze Stars a Purple Heart. He has 
sacrificed much for this country and serves with honor and integrity.
  Speaking of service, somebody who serves next door to my district in 
North Carolina is the past chairwoman and top Republican on our 
Education and Labor Committee. If there is anyone who works any harder 
among the 434, 435 Members, I have not met that person yet. It is my 
privilege to honor and to acknowledge her.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms. 
Virginia Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the vice chairman 
of our conference for his very, very kind words. We are neighbors in 
North Carolina, friends, and colleagues here who are concerned about 
the very same issues that face our country.
  We are worried about many, many, many things. We worry about the 
absence of a wall. We worry about the need for more national security. 
I know that we also worry and share the concern with what has happened 
in this Chamber in the last few weeks when we have heard a few loud 
voices whose rhetoric has completely departed from the bipartisan 
consensus on policy toward Israel.
  Just last May, for the 70th anniversary of Israel's independence, the 
House passed, by unanimous consent, a resolution that I introduced with 
two of my Democrat colleagues supporting robust, bilateral relations 
with Israel globally and fairness in its treatment in multilateral 
fora.
  The House of Representatives unanimously sent a message to the U.N. 
and the world that respect for Israel's national sovereignty and broad 
recognition of its statehood is a priority for U.S. national security 
and achieving peace in the Middle East.
  Over the past couple weeks, though, some new Members of this body 
have cast a cloud over this Chamber's long-time priority of the U.S.-
Israel relationship. I has been suggested that support for Israel 
represents a betrayal of one's patriotism and that Israel has no right 
to exist.

  I reject that position. The simple truth is that, throughout history, 
Israel has made numerous concessions in the pursuit of peace while 
seeking only the right to exist. Opponents of the Jewish state don't 
seem to understand that supporting our ally is a matter of national 
security.
  On that basis, anti-Israel bias runs counter to advancing our 
national interests in the Middle East. Perpetuating the false 
narratives that there is an occupied Palestinian territory and that the 
Jewish people do not have any connection to the land only undermine the 
efforts to bring peace and stability to the region.
  Other statements that Israel has ``hypnotized'' the world harken back 
to an age of extreme insensitivity to Israel at best and a new 
acceptance of anti-Semitic norms at worst.
  By our own State Department's definition, applying double standards 
that require Israel behave in a manner that is not expected or demanded 
of any other democratic nation and denying the Jewish people their 
right to self-determination are anti-Semitic beliefs.
  We must reject this rhetoric and continue to support Israel as the 
major strategic partner that this body has long enshrined in our laws, 
our policy priorities, and our hearts and minds. With that, we are also 
improving our national security.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Foxx for sharing 
her heart and our continued pro-Israel stance.
  There are few who would be able to speak more to that issue than one 
of our two Jewish Members in the House, the co-chair of the House 
Republican Israeli Caucus and an Iraqi war veteran. Some would say he 
has three beautiful daughters, but I think he just married well and has 
two children. He serves on our Foreign Affairs Committee and is a 
classmate of mine from the 114th Congress. It is my privilege to 
introduce and to hear from him.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Lee 
Zeldin.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Walker for his leadership in 
our conference and his great representation of his district. It is an 
honor to be joining the gentleman tonight for this important time on 
the House floor.
  I come here to appeal to all my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, Republicans and Democrats, to reject the anti-Israel and anti-
Semitic hatred that we are starting to see infiltrate American politics 
and even the Halls of Congress.
  It is important that we all come together, that we work together to 
not empower, not embrace, not associate with individuals and rhetoric 
and policy that promotes this anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatred, but 
that we reject it.
  It was just a couple weeks ago that this Chamber came together nearly 
unanimously to reject white supremacy. What is taking so long for House 
Democratic leadership to schedule a vote on H. Res. 72 that I 
introduced with Congressman Budd, Congresswoman Stefanik, Congressman 
Walker as a cosponsor, and others as well? Why can't we come together 
as forcefully and urgently to reject that anti-Semitism and that anti-
Israel hatred?
  We have House Democrats who have associated with, taken pictures 
with, embraced Louis Farrakhan. He said: ``So when they talk about 
Farrakhan, call me a hater, you do what they do, call me an anti-
Semite. Stop it, I'm anti-termite.'' Louis Farrakhan said that last 
year.

[[Page H1277]]

  He also said: ``Satanic Jews have infected the whole world with 
poison and deceit.''
  This is offensive to me, as someone who is Jewish. But I am talking 
to colleagues who aren't Jewish, and they are offended as well by 
Farrakhan and the fact that there are Members of this Chamber who 
associate with this person.
  In 1984, Farrakhan said about Adolph Hitler: ``He was a very great 
man.''
  Activist Tamika Mallory called Louis Farrakhan ``the greatest of all 
time.'' Her fellow organizer, Linda Sarsour, said: ``Only Jews . . . 
are ones that condone violence against Arabs and are cool with mosques 
being attacked.''
  I have no problem standing here in the well of this Chamber rejecting 
it. I don't know what is taking so long for House Democratic leadership 
to schedule a vote on H. Res. 72, so they can join us in condemning it 
as well.
  There is a freshman Representative from Michigan, Representative 
Rashida Tlaib, who supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions 
movement. She invited Abbas Hamideh to attend her swearing-in events 
this month. Abbas said, in 2016: ``Israel does not have a right to 
exist. The terrorist entity is illegal and has no basis to exist, other 
than a delusional, ISIS-like ideology.''
  Also this month, that person said: ``I'm willing to go back to my 
country Palestine, if the Zionist terrorists go back to Poland. Deal? 
Let's get that ball rolling ASAP. Get off Twitter, and let's make that 
happen.''
  This same Representative said of those who support Israel: ``They 
forgot what country they represent.''
  Well, as someone who has been in the United States Army for over 15 
years, has deployed into combat in defense of this country, a former 
Army paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division, never once in my life 
have I forgotten what country I represent.
  It is kind of ironic that someone who, on their victory night, wraps 
themselves in the Palestinian flag is trying to lecture us, especially 
for supporting our Nation's greatest ally in Israel.
  The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is one that is founded 
by someone named Omar Barghouti, who said: ``We are witnessing the 
rapid demise of Zionism, and nothing can be done save it, for Zionism 
is intent on killing itself. I, for one, support euthanasia.''
  He also said: ``Many of the methods of collective and individual 
`punishment' meted out to Palestinian civilians at the hands of young, 
racist, often sadistic and every impervious Israeli soldiers . . . are 
reminiscent of common Nazi practices against the Jews.''
  So when you are embracing BDS, know that this is what the founder of 
BDS says. This goes beyond anti-Israeli hatred. It is anti-Semitic 
hatred.
  What is taking so long? This Chamber that had no problem rushing to 
this well and nearly unanimously rejecting white supremacy has a 
problem rejecting this?
  Meanwhile, our students, in the name of the BDS movement, on college 
campuses all across this entire country, are being subjected to blatant 
anti-Semitism.
  For example, at New York University, the student government passed a 
resolution supporting BDS. The Bronfman Center for Jewish Life was 
temporarily closed in response to threatening Twitter posts by a 
student who expressed ``a desire for Zionists to die.''
  Other college campuses include a University of Michigan professor who 
refused to write a letter of recommendation for a qualified student to 
study abroad solely because she was seeking to study abroad in Israel.
  A Students for Justice in Palestine cofounder and University of 
California, Berkeley, professor spoke at a national conference and 
shared an anti-Semitic meme of an Orthodox Jewish person in his 
presentation.
  At Warren Wilson College, an invited speaker said: ``Jews are doing 
the same thing to the Palestinians as the Nazis did to the Jews.''
  The examples go on, whether it was Charlottesville, where the 
leadership said that Jews must die, that he wanted all Jews to die, or 
whether it was the shooting that took place in Pittsburgh.
  We are motivated, my colleagues and I, to this Chamber to stand 
against anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatred. Everyone in this Chamber 
should join us.
  I went kindergarten through 12th grade, college, law school, 4 years 
of Active Duty, and I never once experienced anti-Semitism. It has no 
business infiltrating American politics; it has no business 
infiltrating the campuses of United States universities and colleges; 
and it has no business infiltrating the Halls of Congress.
  I encourage an immediate vote on H. Res. 72.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, you can see why Representative Lee Zeldin is 
thought so highly of in the United States House of Congress. I 
appreciate his remarks and, even more, his passion.
  When we talk about going through some tough things in life, I don't 
believe there is anyone that I know who can relate to the journey that 
our whip, Representative   Steve Scalise, has been through.
  I will never forget getting word that Thursday, and we did not know 
for sure whether Representative Scalise would actually make it through 
the day, but somehow he did. The thing that I remembered most is his 
gift with policy. There are lots of things that he does well. The thing 
that I will always remember is how he let his faith shine through all 
of this darkness.
  I yield to Louisiana's finest and our whip, Representative   Steve 
Scalise.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
for yielding and for bringing attention to what we are here to talk 
about tonight.
  This would have been the State of the Union that the President was 
initially invited by the Speaker to deliver back on January 3. I am 
glad, Mr. Speaker, that, ultimately, we got a new date that the Speaker 
has invited the President to come to this Chamber, the people's House, 
on February 5, when President Trump finally will have the opportunity 
to address the people of this country on the state of Union, as the 
Constitution prescribes.
  We have seen, over time, it has been done in many different ways. 
George Washington started the tradition in 1790 by actually addressing 
a joint session of Congress, as opposed to just sending a letter. It 
has been done different ways over time.
  But over the last 50 years, it has been done here in this House 
Chamber every single year, and I am glad that we will finally have that 
opportunity to see the tradition continue.
  Mr. Speaker, when you talk about the state of the Union and some of 
the things that President Trump has been fighting for, the main things 
he has been fighting for are to deliver to the American people on 
getting the economy back on track and keeping America safe.
  Part of keeping America safe, Mr. Speaker, means securing America's 
border. That is really what was at the heart of the fight over the last 
month of this government shutdown.
  A lot of people in Washington are so focused, Mr. Speaker, on who is 
to blame or who won the week, who is the winner or who is the loser. 
You hear everybody saying that, okay, well, Nancy Pelosi was able to 
hold the State of the Union hostage and somehow that is a victory for 
the American people that she denied the President the ability to come 
here to the people's House to share his message.
  I wouldn't be bragging about that as a victory if I were Speaker 
Pelosi, because, ultimately, what that means is that she is afraid of 
having the American people hear the message that President Trump had to 
say.
  That message will be distributed next week, but part of that message 
involves why we need to secure the border. That is really at the heart 
of this debate.
  Why do we need to secure America's border? There are some people 
questioning whether or not we need to secure America's border. The good 
news, Mr. Speaker, is that there are not many people in this country 
that wonder whether or not we should secure the border. The bad news is 
that of the few people who are in that category, one of them is the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  We are going to continue to have this debate. On February 5, when you 
hear President Trump give this message, I am sure some of the things we 
are

[[Page H1278]]

going to hear are the horror stories that we have had because we don't 
have a secure border.
  I have experienced something, and I have heard firsthand from 
constituents in my district about what is at stake. I had the 
opportunity to get a call from the mother of a fire chief in south 
Louisiana, Spencer Chauvin.
  Spencer Chauvin was responding to a call, like he did. He was a 
public servant, a fire chief in St. John the Baptist Parish. As he was 
responding to that call, Mr. Speaker, he was killed by someone who is 
in this country illegally.
  He never got to go home that night to his 6-year-old and 8-year-old. 
He doesn't get to talk to his mother anymore.
  But after his mother and I talked, she mailed me this just last week, 
Mr. Speaker, and it is a coin. It is a coin in tribute to Spencer 
Chauvin. I keep this coin with me as a reminder of what is at stake in 
human terms, because we could talk about who won the day or who won the 
week, but is it really victory when the result of Speaker Pelosi's 
victory is that there may be more victims like Spencer Chauvin across 
this country because we haven't secured our border?
  President Trump didn't campaign saying he needed $5.7 billion to 
build a wall. President Trump talked about building a wall to secure 
our border. When he became President, the experts who risk their lives, 
men and women who are not partisans, men and women who wake up every 
day, whether it was Barack Obama President or whether it is Donald 
Trump President, they just go to the border and risk their lives to 
keep the bad people out.
  There is a way for good people to come in. If you want to come in 
legally like a million people every single year who we let in our 
country legally, there is a legal way to do it. If you are seeking 
asylum from around the world, Mr. Speaker, there is a legal way to do 
it.
  In fact, this caravan that you saw coming into America, they stormed 
through Mexico's border on the southern border of Mexico. They stormed 
through that border. They wanted to storm through our border because we 
don't have a physical barrier. They were offered asylum by Mexico, and 
they were offered work permits by Mexico, and they turned that down.
  Are you really an asylum seeker if you turn down asylum along the way 
here? It is not about asylum. It is about whether or not we are going 
to get back to rule of law and secure our border.

  The experts who risk their lives say it is going to cost $5.7 billion 
to secure our border, to give them the tools they need, and that 
includes a physical barrier.
  Now that we are seeing a growing list of Democrats, including the 
majority leader, Steny Hoyer, say physical barriers ought to be part of 
the solution, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what I would say, when we 
open back the people's House to the President on February 5, is let's 
heed the call of Republicans and Democrats alike who recognize we need 
to secure our southern border so that we can get back to rule of law 
and prevent more Spencer Chauvins from becoming victims to an open 
border.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Whip, Representative   Steve 
Scalise, for his example and courage in standing up for what is right 
and true.
  Many Members whom I have run across in this House are studious in 
their work, but I don't know of any more than Representative Gary 
Palmer.
  In this town, there is probably a dinner every night somewhere. Mr. 
Palmer chooses to take his time going back to his office, preparing for 
the next day, constantly reading and staying informed.
  I was born in the State that he represents. I lived there only 6 
months. We have a mutual love for the Crimson Tide. It is my privilege 
to acknowledge and yield to Representative Gary Palmer from Alabama.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman just 
acknowledged that I have no social life, but that is fine.
  I want to talk a little bit about healthcare. Here is a fact that my 
Democratic colleagues were desperately trying to keep from the public. 
Not only do the Republicans support providing health insurance coverage 
for those with preexisting conditions, but we actually passed 
legislation that did just that with the American Health Care Act of 
2017.
  It included an amendment that Representative   David Schweikert of 
Arizona and I introduced that ensured that anyone with a preexisting 
condition could purchase health insurance. The Palmer-Schweikert 
amendment established a risk-sharing plan that would allow any 
individual with a preexisting condition to purchase insurance at the 
same price as a healthy individual.
  It was actually modeled after a successful State-based program in the 
State of Maine. Instead of billions of dollars being paid out by the 
Federal Government in bailouts for health insurance companies, our 
plan, funded by having the majority of the premiums paid for those with 
preexisting conditions, transferred into a fund, a risk-sharing fund.
  This represents an alternative approach to ObamaCare's guaranteed 
issue provision, which priced everyone as sick, resulting in far higher 
premiums. As a matter of fact, the premiums got so high that insurance 
companies literally began pulling out of whole States.
  What our amendment did was, if someone had a preexisting condition, 
they would come to an insurance company, fill out a health survey, mark 
down if they had had a heart attack or cancer. The insurance company 
would sell them insurance at the same price as anybody else. But when 
they paid their premiums, 90 percent of the premiums would go into this 
risk-sharing agreement.

                              {time}  1630

  The insurance company would only keep 10 percent. Now, if the person, 
the individual became very sick, if it became very expensive, the 
insurance company would pay the first $7,500 and then 10 percent of the 
next $25,000, so the most that they were out was $10,000. The risk-
sharing plan would pick up the balance and reimburse the providers at 
the same rate as Medicare.
  The way this worked was not only did the premiums go into the risk-
sharing plan, 90 percent of the premiums, but the rest of us would pay 
anywhere from $5 to $10 a month on our premiums. That would go into the 
risk-sharing plan, and our amendment was backed up with $38 billion.
  What this allowed us to do was create a situation where the actuaries 
could actually be more predictive in what the cost would be; and, as a 
result, it lowered premiums for everyone. So not only did it cover 
people with preexisting conditions, but everyone else's premiums came 
down.
  As a matter of fact, in that 20- to 30-year-old age group, it came 
down 41 percent; 30 to 40 years old came down 33 percent; 40 to 50, 25 
percent; 50 to 60, 11.6 percent; and that pre-Medicare 60 to 65 came 
down 5.9 percent. So what we were doing was trying to repair the 
American healthcare system, doing it in a way that made sense for 
people.
  Not only that, we have other options that we want to present. For 
instance, one of the biggest uninsured populations is young people. It 
doesn't make sense to spend the amount of money you have to spend to 
pay your premiums when a lot of those folks are earning lower wages.
  So we want to set up a plan where you could buy short-term insurance, 
buy what you need, what you can afford for that time in your life, and 
it would be for 1 year. Depending on what you bought, your premiums 
could come down 85 percent. If you needed to extend it, you could 
extend it for another 3 years. That is transition insurance.
  In addition to that, the vast majority of people in America who have 
a job work for a small business, and small businesses aren't part of a 
larger group. So we wanted to set up association group plans so that if 
you are a small business and your city set up an association group 
plan, you could be in that. Or if you are a farmer, you could be a 
member of an association group plan that the Farm Bureau established, 
and premiums there are projected to come down by as much as 50 percent.
  The Republicans have the best ideas for repairing our healthcare 
system, making it affordable, and keeping our promise, a promise that 
was broken repeatedly: If you like your doctor, you

[[Page H1279]]

can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your 
doctor.
  It is not just about the cost. It is about improving outcomes and 
helping people live better and healthier.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, as I enter my fifth year serving in these 
hallowed Halls, I am still in awe of the sacred duty we have been 
given. We are truly the people's House. However, I believe that the 
people's House should give a voice to every single American, including 
the unborn.
  This past Congress, we were able to pass, in the House, two major 
bills protecting life. The Born-Alive Protection Act and the Pain-
Capable Child Protection Act both affirmed the humanity of the unborn 
and our firm belief that they are worthy of protection. Sadly, these 
bills were not taken up in the Senate, and with the new Democratic-led 
House, their future is uncertain.
  But each January gives us hope. It is a critical time to talk about 
the importance of life and what it means to all Americans. Not only 
does the beginning of the year bring new goals and ambitions, but it 
contains important events that celebrate life, justice, and human 
potential.
  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose life we recently celebrated, knew 
this potential. He said that any person cannot succeed if he or she is 
willing to ``sacrifice the future of his children for immediate 
personal comfort.'' He also professed the value and hope of every 
single human life.
  We also witnessed tens of thousands of marchers just recently 
arriving from all across America to march and boldly speak for those 
who can't speak for themselves.
  Last week, we saw what my friend Benjamin Watson says is a ``sad and 
evil day.'' Throughout history, there are pivotal moments that sober us 
up to the point of engagement. Such a moment happened 1 week ago as we 
watched the New York State Assembly celebrate expanding the path for 
late-term abortions in their State.
  Mr. Watson said this: ``It is a sad and evil day when the murder of 
our most innocent and vulnerable is celebrated with such overwhelming 
exuberance.''
  This law allows for abortion up to birth, practically without limits. 
It authorizes the legal murder of a fully viable human baby. This is 
what was being celebrated. This is why the Freedom Tower was lit bright 
pink on a cold winter's night.
  That celebration is now seared into our Nation's conscience, and many 
are now realizing, more than ever, that we should not, that we must 
not, that we cannot look the other way. Even our sleeping churches are 
beginning to awaken to this just and righteous cause.
  New York already faces a cataclysm. In New York City, more than 500 
abortions are performed for every 1,000 births. These numbers are more 
staggering for African American babies, more of whom are now aborted 
than actually born.
  The Governor of New York has even suggested that those who are pro-
life are not--and get this--welcome in his State.
  I support federalism and the idea that New York can make its own laws 
for New York. My question is not a legal one, but a moral one. How long 
will our American society allow this injustice? Can we expect the new 
House Democratic majority to continue down this path? Will there be 
consequences?
  As my friend Kay Cole James likes to say: ``The right to life is the 
most fundamental of all civil rights.''

  To revive the American Dream, we must reclaim America's soul. That 
means standing with the majority of the American people who reject the 
Federal funding abortions; that means putting the life and health of 
women and babies ahead of the desires of abortion giants like Planned 
Parenthood.
  But in many cases, we must also regain our credibility in valuing the 
birth at all stages of life. Do we care--tough question. Do we care, 20 
weeks after the baby is born, as much as we value the baby 20 weeks 
before birth?
  In closing, Mark Twain said this: The two most important days are 
when you are born and when you find out why. How many babies, how many 
children will never get to discover either?
  Please continue to stand for those who have no voice. In the name 
that is everything just, never stop raising yours.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________