[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 121 (Thursday, July 18, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7136-H7140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Carter), a former district judge.


    Swearing in of the Honorable Richard Hudson into the Texas Navy

  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. 
Gohmert, for yielding.
  I rise today to honor my dear friend, Congressman Richard Hudson of 
North Carolina.
  Congressman Hudson served as my chief of staff from 2006 to 2008 and 
is now forging his own path right here on Capitol Hill.
  Some time ago, Congressman Hudson gave me a hard time about other 
Members being recognized as ``Honorary Texans'' by Governor Abbott. 
Well, after speaking with the Governor, we have gone one step further 
with our recognition here today, and I am pleased to swear in Admiral 
Richard L. Hudson to the Texas Navy.
  I will now read the certificate granting his commission:
  ``In the name and by the authority of The State of Texas to all to 
whom these presents shall come, Greetings. Know ye, that Richard Hudson 
is hereby commissioned an honorary Admiral in the Texas Navy with all 
rights and privileges appertaining thereto and with the duty of 
assisting in the preservation of the history, boundaries, water 
resources, and defense of the State.
  ``In testimony whereof, I have signed my name and caused the Seal of 
the State of Texas to be affixed at the City of Austin, this the 10th 
day of May, 2019.''
  Signed: Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas.
  I am now going to read the oath that Mr. Hudson will take as he takes 
this commission:
  ``I, Richard Hudson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States and the State of Texas against 
all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and 
allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the 
President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the orders 
of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice. And I will remember the Alamo. So 
help me God.''
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Gohmert for yielding, and I 
thank Judge Carter for this incredible honor. The gentleman is a dear 
friend and someone I admire very much. His love for the State of Texas 
is unmatched.
  This truly is an honor. I am proud to be a North Carolinian, but I do 
love the State of Texas.
  I would first suggest that we should all remember that seven North 
Carolinians, if my recollection is correct, died defending the Alamo.
  I also have family ties to Texas. My great uncle Joseph Wesley 
Humphrey was a deputy sheriff, a member of the Texas legislature, and 
county judge in Rains County, Texas.
  Another great uncle, Reverend Daniel A. McRae, was a Methodist 
minister in San Augustine County, Texas. I believe that might even be 
in Mr. Gohmert's district. And the church and the cemetery there is 
still named ``McRae'' after my great uncle.
  So I do have family ties. I do love the State. I am deeply honored to 
receive this commission, honorary as it may be, and I will be proud to 
recite the oath:
       I, Richard Hudson, do solemnly swear that I will support 
     and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the 
     State of Texas against all enemies, foreign and domestic; 
     that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and 
     that I will obey the orders of the President of the United 
     States, the Governor of Texas, and the orders of the officers 
     appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform 
     Code of Military Justice. And I will remember the Alamo. So 
     help me God.

  Madam Speaker, I thank Judge Carter.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Hudson.
  Mr. GOHMERT. It is wonderful to have a new admiral in the Texas Navy, 
and we welcome Congressman Hudson to that role, that honorary role, in 
the Texas Navy.
  And we are grateful to Judge Carter for his role in making that 
happen and to our great Governor Greg Abbott. I thank both the 
gentlemen.

[[Page H7137]]

  It is nice to be able to do something that brings a smile. But I 
think, for Texans to ask that people remember the Alamo harkens back to 
feelings within us that freedom and liberty are something worth dying 
for. That is what all of those Texans did.
  And with due deference to my friend from Tennessee, Marsha 
Blackburn--yes, I know--we are grateful to Tennessee for their 
contribution at the Alamo and to Texas as well.
  But those people had a choice: Were they going to run or were they 
going to stand for freedom, stand against despotism. And they chose to 
stand.
  And here it is 163 years later, and we still remember, and we are 
still inspired. Liberty comes at great cost, and we are forever 
grateful to our God and to our predecessors who took such a stand 
against tyranny.
  There is a lot of tyranny going on in the Middle East, and there will 
be until the end of time. But each of us has a responsibility to do 
what we can to help accommodate and protect those who can't help 
themselves.
  That is why some of us are pro-life. But when it comes to life in the 
Middle East, it has been shocking now for years, under the previous 
administration, the people that were supported, the weapons that were 
provided to people that were called the ``vetted moderate rebels'' 
against the leader of Syria.
  Yet we saw over and over again those so-called ``vetted moderate 
rebels'' were constantly allowing their weapons to be seized--there is 
some question whether they were actually turned over--to radical 
Islamists who hate Americans, who made clear, yeah, they are not crazy 
about some fellow Muslims, but they like them a whole lot better than 
they do the United States and Christians.
  So it was tragic, in years prior, when our current U.N. general 
secretary was in charge of the refugee program at the U.N. and people 
were noticing, under the then head of the refugee program at the U.N., 
now general secretary--they were noticing that, gee, you are helping 
all these Muslims, which is wonderful, but there is a significant 
percentage in those areas, some areas there, that are being overrun by 
ISIS, where there are Christians and the Christians appear to be the 
target of genocide.
  And it has been a long time since I read his quote, but in essence it 
was basically, well, those Christians are very important to those areas 
historically where they are, and so we think it is important to just 
let them stay in those areas.
  Well, what Christians had found was, if they tried to go to the 
refugee camps where they were unwelcome and brutalized, they were lucky 
if they got out with their lives. But they weren't welcome.
  And the head of the refugee program did nothing that we can find to 
accommodate Christians to the extent that he was accommodating Muslims. 
I don't know if it was an innate bias, prejudice, bigotry that he had--
maybe still has--or whether it was just sheer ignorance on his part, 
deciding to save some people and not save a big bulk of the Christians.
  So they were being wiped out. There was a genocide going on.
  I saw this story today by Edwin Mora. The title of the article is, 
``Hope Is Back: Trump Helps Save Christians, Yazidis in Iraq From 
Extinction.''
  It goes on to say, ``U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is 
helping bring Christians and Yazidis in Iraq back from the brink of 
extinction fomented by a genocidal campaign at the hands of the Islamic 
State, religious minority representatives declared this week at the 
second Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom convened by the 
Department of State.
  ``The U.S. Government has officially determined that ISIS committed 
genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities 
during its reign of terror in the Middle East that began in 2014 . . . 
`'
  Of course, that was when the Obama administration was in its heyday. 
Of course, we didn't realize how much the DOJ, FBI, and some of the 
Intel community had been weaponized and actually corrupted.

  The article goes on, ``Echoing Yazidis activists and a U.S.-based 
Syriac Catholic Iraqi priest who spoke to Breitbart News, a Chaldean 
Catholic priest from a parish in a Christian Iraqi town indicated that 
hope for the future along with security improvements have returned to 
religious minority communities devastated by ISIS, courtesy of the 
Trump administration efforts.
  ``Their comments came during the 3-day ministerial summit. . . .
  ``While delivering a speech during the event on Wednesday, Father 
Thabet Habib Youssef, a Chaldean Catholic priest from the town of 
Karamles in Iraq's Nineveh Province, thanked the Trump administration 
for its assistance.''
  And this is what Father Youssef had to say:
  ``I wish to give thanks to the government of the United States for 
including us in this important conference and a special thanks to the 
administration of President Trump for his concern and commitment to the 
persecuted minority communities in Iraq.
  ``I can say this conference gives us hope. Our greatest fear in the 
early years was that the world would forget us. This conference tells 
us we are not forgotten.'
  ``Nearly half of the Christian families who fled Karamles, liberated 
by U.S. and local forces in November 2016, have returned, and Father 
Thabet expects many more to come back in the coming year.
  ``Although ISIS burned down the homes and churches in the Christian 
town, `We are determined to return and rebuild.'
  ``Today we have 45 percent of our families returned, and we hope in 
this next year we will see many more.'
  ``He went on to say that the Iraqi government needs to do more to 
bring about `real change and support for the protection, safety, and 
equal rights for the minority communities in Iraq.'
  ``The U.S.-funded nation-building efforts, coupled with''--and let me 
make myself clear on that, I'm talking about helping others build their 
nations--for those who claim that America is trying to build some 
hegemony, has imperialistic notions, as it always has--it just tells us 
they had terrible history teachers.

                              {time}  1330

  They are not intentionally spreading untruths. They are just 
ignorant. They don't know what the real truth is because the real truth 
is, we have never been an imperialistic nation. If we were, if we had 
been then English would be all that was spoken in France, and Germany, 
and Japan, and many other nations. That is not who we are. That is not 
who we have been.
  We have given our most precious commodity, American lives, for 
another people's freedom.
  Back to this article. It says: ``The U.S.-funded nation-building 
efforts, coupled with assistance from the Catholic group Knights of 
Columbus and the government of Hungary, have rendered the town of 
Karamles a `story of success and we are optimistic it will survive' '', 
Father Thabet also said.
  ``Northern Iraq's Nineveh province is the historical homeland of 
Iraqi Christians and home to the largest concentration of religious 
minorities in the country.''
  So it goes on and also talks about the help this has been to Yazidis.
  And I note this week we had resolutions or amendments to condemn and 
express the majority of the House's sentiment that we shouldn't do 
anything to help in the effort against those who are killing, 
persecuting, and trying to commit a genocide against the Yazidis in 
Yemen. But, thankfully, that is only from the majority in the House. 
That is really unfortunate.
  But there has also been news this week that we may have a very strong 
anti-Israeli resolution filed. Why not? The majority doesn't ever 
condemn specific anti-Semitism by Members here in the House; so why not 
file a resolution? We will see if it gets filed. That is the news.
  That resolution supports the boycott against Israel; even though the 
people it supports, that resolution would support, would be the very 
people that have said they want Israel wiped off the map. They want no 
Israel from the river to the sea. They want it gone. They want a 
genocide. They want the Jews wiped out, and that is a goal.
  It was a goal of Arafat. It is why, when Ehud Barak, as prime 
minister of Israel, when President Clinton was twisting his arm so 
strongly, basically

[[Page H7138]]

offered Arafat virtually everything he wanted.
  I, personally, knowing biblical history, I think you had a case 
where, just as God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, initially, when Moses 
was asking to let his people go, I think Arafat's heart was hardened. 
He got basically everything he wanted, but he turned it all down.
  If he had accepted it, it would have been basically impossible for 
Israel to defend itself under anything but nuclear means; no 
conventional way to defend Israel if Arafat had accepted that, what I 
would consider, outrageous proposal. But fortunately, he didn't accept 
it, and so Israel has been able to defend itself since then.
  But the attacks are daily. They are ongoing. There is an ongoing 
effort by enemies of Israel that are being promoted by some Democrats, 
some in Congress, some outside of Congress. That is who they are 
supporting, people that are, every single day, smuggling rockets into 
Gaza, smuggling weapons, trying to smuggle weapons into Israel, and 
continuing to teach hatred, blind bigotry against the Jewish people, 
against Israel.
  So I would be thrilled if that resolution did not get filed; but that 
is up to individuals in Congress. Everybody has a right to file 
whatever bill they think will be most helpful.
  But I have looked for Scripture in the Bible that says, those who 
curse or seek to harm Israel will be blessed. And I just--it is just 
not there. So it causes me grave concern to think that we may have 
people in leadership positions in the United States, again, who really 
want to harm Israel. They want to divide it.
  I know we have a growing group that don't believe anything in the 
Bible. But for those of us who do, when we are told that any nation 
that divides or attempts to divide Israel will bring down judgment on 
itself, that causes me great concern for the country for which I have 
taken an oath to defend repeatedly; as a member of the United States 
Army, as an Assistant District Attorney, as a District Judge, as a 
Chief Justice, and as a Member of Congress.
  That oath means so much to me that I think it would be a good idea to 
be supportive of the Nation of Israel, and I am thrilled we have a 
President that is doing that.
  Even though, reports I have heard from people that were there, he had 
Cabinet officials telling him he was going to start World War III if he 
recognized Jerusalem as the capital. A bit like some of the stories of 
Lincoln being told by every member of the Cabinet it would be a 
disaster if he finalized the Emancipation Proclamation.
  Lincoln knew it was right in his heart, and with every Cabinet member 
reportedly against him and arguing against it, he, in essence, said the 
ayes have it. He was the only one.
  Here you had not all, but most of the Cabinet really hammering 
President Trump not to recognize Jerusalem as the capital. He knew in 
his heart it was the right thing to do. He had said he would do it; he 
did it.
  I know some can't find anything at all admirable about President 
Trump; they are so blinded by their hatred. But I think that is a 
pretty amazing thing that President Trump has done.
  And now, to hear from Christians in the Middle East who were the 
objects of genocide, being wiped out, being killed, destroyed, taken 
off of the map completely, without much of anything helpful from the 
so-called United Nations, it is amazing what President Trump has done 
in that regard.
  So when I hear friends across the aisle saying we have lost respect 
around the world, they are not seeing and hearing what I am. The last 
polls I saw were that, around the world, there is more respect for our 
President than the prior administration.
  And the truth is, in respect, there is a little element of fear. You 
can not like somebody, but still respect them, and fear can be 
involved.

  We have a reputation that is growing again, that we have a President 
that will do what he said. Sometimes he is talked out of taking steps, 
like bombing and killing 100 or more in Iran. But what we are seeing in 
Iran is amazing, because their economy is suffering dramatically, so 
much so you see them lashing out and trying to, whether it is by 
attacking ships, trying to use whatever power they can. The pressure is 
intensifying.
  And I would humbly submit, this will not be a President who, in 
response to the biggest supporter of terrorism in world history, sends 
them pallets full of billions and billions of dollars in cash to help 
the biggest supporter of terrorism, who has killed and been responsible 
for the deaths of more American military than anybody else in recent 
decades.
  So they can say what they want about our President. He is doing 
amazing work.
  And it is interesting, I keep hearing this term ``racist'' and the 
President keeps talking about American citizens. Well, until recent 
days, it has never been racist to talk about American citizens.
  In fact, going back again to the comment of Benjamin Franklin after 
the Constitutional Convention: ``It's a republic, if you can keep it.''
  He knew that republics, the very few that have been established, that 
just means they elect representatives. It is not the totally democratic 
governing that was, for example, in Athens, as a city state. They had a 
democracy.
  And what historians have seen, clearly, is that when it is a true 
democracy, where everybody participates--they had jurors, they would 
have 501 jurors in just a court case. And what that would often lead to 
what would be mob action. I mean, people get stirred up, and they end 
up coming out with a sentence like they did for Socrates, that was far 
beyond anything appropriate whatsoever. You take an innocent man like 
that and have him put to death simply because you had too many jurors 
that got each other worked up.
  So that is where Rome made a great stride forward. They said, you 
know what? There were problems. It was a good idea, but there were 
problems with a complete democracy, where everybody participates in all 
governing decisions, except jurors, and that is 501.
  But Rome figured out, we need a representative form of government; so 
it has parts of it that are democracies, and in part it is a 
representative government, so it is a republic. And until Caesar 
crossed the Rubicon and made it into a virtual dictatorship--of course, 
that didn't last long because as, Mark Antony said:

       Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable 
     man. So are they all, all honorable men.

  There was trouble in the Roman empire. But they began to have a flood 
of people that were not Roman citizens. They lost their power. They had 
begun bread and circuses; gave away way too much in what was considered 
welfare of that day, bread and circuses.
  And, as I recall, it was even Caesar that decided maybe we are 
corrupting people by providing this form of welfare and entertainment. 
But by that point, it was too late to rein it in and, for all of these 
factors, and others coming into play, people crossing the borders and 
taking a toll, the Roman Empire was eventually lost.
  No country is going to last forever. I love this country. I have 
offered to die for this country. That is what you do when you sign up 
and take an oath in the U.S. military.
  But when people begin not to appreciate the good things that their 
nation does and is doing, has done, and they build up hatred toward 
their own nation, you really are on the downhill slide and you are 
moving ever closer to the dustbin of history. Eventually every country 
is going to get there.
  But our goal in this body should be to perpetuate this little 
experiment in self-government, the best ever contrived. Keep it going 
as long as possible. Don't let it die on our watch. But it is in 
trouble.
  And as we have bills, I don't know anybody on this entire House 
floor, either party, who is against standing behind and helping those 
incredible American heroes of 9/11 and the days following. We are all 
for that.

                              {time}  1345

  But then we have people in the majority who see an opportunity. 
Instead of doing what we normally do and have an authorization for 5 
years and 5 years extend 10 years, we had a bill that was extended to 
2092.
  There will not be a firefighter or policeman who is alive anywhere 
close to 2092, first responder that was there during 9/11 and doing 
these heroic works. So why would they choose 2092?

[[Page H7139]]

  Well, the saying in Washington is no matter how cynical you get, it 
is never enough to catch up. But you go by what we have seen.
  People in this body often, and it has happened on both sides of the 
aisle, like to get a bill, especially with money, get it extended out 
as far as possible, way beyond the existence of people for whom it is 
dedicated, and then when those people eventually pass away, you will 
see an effort to come in here and say, wow, we had all this money that 
we have passed overwhelmingly, and now the people aren't there that it 
was originally meant for, so let's start giving this money to other 
people, people that we want to curry favor with.
  That is not the way it is supposed to go. I voted for it out of 
respect for our heroes, but for goodness' sake, 2092, seriously? How 
could anybody with a straight face say: Oh, if you are not for paying 
out billions and billions of dollars in 2091 to 2092, then you must 
hate the first responders of 9/11? That is ridiculous.
  They have inspired me from that time, and in my hometown in east 
Texas and other towns all over east Texas, all the same thing. People 
lined up to give blood.
  The first time I went, they said: There is hours and hours of wait to 
give blood for people in New York so we would ask that you come back 
tomorrow.
  You couldn't even get in. That was true all over east Texas and all 
over the country. People cared deeply about what they had seen happen. 
We were under attack from outside. There were no hyphenated Americans. 
We were all just Americans wanting to help each other and help those 
who had been harmed.
  So I hope that the Senate will take a look at that and be able to be 
more responsible so that the 9/11 fund will truly be for the people who 
the 9/11 fund says it is supposed to be for.
  We are loading up future generations with so much debt. That alone 
could be enough to bring down our country. It is time to become 
responsible.
  And I know across the aisle we have had these hearings on the bills, 
the Equality Act, for example, and I understand the sentiment behind it 
is to try to avoid any type of discomfort, uncomfortable feelings by 
anybody because of their chosen gender.
  But as we brought out at our hearings before the Equality Act was 
passed in committee and here on the floor, there is a danger, and it is 
not about making people a little uncomfortable because they are 
biologically male but they want to go to a women's restroom.
  As a former felony judge, I have heard the testimony about the 
trauma. I have seen the effects of sexual assault on women. I have read 
and understand that women who are victims of sexual assault have three 
to four times more occurrence of PTSD.
  There are different explanations as to why they have so much higher 
rate of PTSD than even our soldiers in combat, but also that a trigger 
for reliving the horrors, the awful crime against them and their person 
is to be in a small, confined area and have someone of the opposite sex 
come in. We were laughed at and belittled when we brought up that 
concern.
  The story was contained in another story. It was about a British 
leader who was pushing for transgender bathrooms. It is now under 
criminal investigation or charges.
  But this was a story I missed back in February: ``A trans `woman' 
''--meaning biological man but considered himself, herself, whatever 
you want to say, to be a woman--``was allowed to walk free from 
Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court in Scotland after being convicted of sexually 
assaulting a 10-year-old girl in a supermarket restroom.
  ``The attacker, whose name is given as Katie Dolatowski, waited for 
the young victim to come out of a toilet cubicle at Morrisons 
supermarket . . . then grabbed her by the face and forced her back 
inside.
  ``Dolatowski told the girl to remove her trousers and warned that a 
man outside would kill her mother . . . but she fought back, striking 
the pedophile in the face, belly, and crotch and tearing away to her 
father and siblings outside.
  ``Dolatowski had attempted to photograph a 12-year-old as she 
urinated at another supermarket a month prior . . . but Judge James 
Williamson decided not to send the sex offender to prison, instead 
handing down a tagging order and community service order. . . . The 
girl's mother was horrified, saying she felt `very, very let down' and 
that she did not have any confidence whatsoever that Dolatowski will 
not go out and do something equally as bad or worse.''
  It is important to still discuss this because the Senate hasn't taken 
it up, and I hope they won't take it up because of the problems of the 
so-called, misnamed Equality Act. It is not equality for female sexual 
assault victims, that is for sure.
  But then it contained another reference: ``Girl Guides''--it is like 
Girl Scouts--``Expels Leaders Who Opposed Trans Shower-Sharing 
Policies.
  And this insert says: Two Girl Guides leaders were expelled after 
they opposed ``new rules which compel units to let transgender-
identifying males share showers and other facilities with girls as 
young as 5.''
  There are other references like: Allegedly transgender prisoner gets 
life after raping two women, sexually assaulting inmates in female 
jail.
  Another: Mother arrested in front of her children for calling a trans 
activist a man; said Kate Scottow was arrested for calling a trans 
activist a man online and a judge has banned her from referencing their 
former male identity.
  So there was a time when people could say hurtful things in America, 
but as we see with any declining society--not declining in goods and 
services, but declining in morality and as a society. We see it in L.A.

  The most so-called liberated and liberal leaders of cities in America 
seem to have more homelessness, more defecation on the streets, more 
pollution.
  Where are all the green activists, by the way? I mean, these people 
are polluting like crazy, and they are out there with signs picketing 
everywhere else, but for some reason they don't seem to be bothered by 
the destruction of an orderly society.
  You go back to some of the great city-states, one of their big 
problems was sewage. And if you have too much homelessness, you 
encourage it, bless it, then it can cause problems for any society.
  But that also brings us to our southern border, the continued 
expressions from this body about wanting to get rid of any enforcement 
of our border and refusing, in the $4.6 billion that was passed out of 
this House, not one dime for detention beds, not one dime to help the 
Border Patrol do their job to secure the border, not one dime to help 
build a wall barrier where we need it, when we basically, because of 
liberals who may mean well, but they basically turned over our southern 
border to drug cartels.
  Some of the most evil people in the world, these drug cartels, and we 
are not going to enforce our border. That message from the majority has 
gone out over and over again, and what it does, as the Border Patrol 
will tell you if you go down there as often as I have: Every time one 
of you guys in Congress talk about amnesty, legalization, not enforcing 
the border, any of those things, we get surges.
  And they will also tell you, and I have seen it for myself, the drug 
cartels control everybody, when and where they cross the border, and 
they will send groups. The Border Patrol know when they send a group in 
the middle of the night, they have to stand there and go through in-
processing all these people, asking them their questions.
  And despite what some of our colleagues across the aisle have said, 
these are sympathetic border patrolmen. I have seen it over and over 
again. I have seen hundreds of very sympathetic border patrolmen, but 
they are at their wits end.
  An article here from Michaela Ross today talking about ``Sick, 
Exhausted Border Agents Stoke Exodus Fear in Migrant Surge,'' the 
migrants, the illegal aliens coming in.
  I have been castigated for referring to them as ``aliens,'' like they 
are from some other planet; and I had to remind my colleagues the very 
bill that they were supporting referred to them as aliens, and they 
were a little embarrassed because they didn't realize they referred to 
them as aliens. They thought it was just mean-spirited Republicans.
  It is kind of interesting when you see that kind of thing, but it is 
a tragedy,

[[Page H7140]]

and it is a humanitarian crisis on our southern border. And it is no 
longer just a humanitarian crisis for those who are pouring over our 
border illegally. They are taking their toll on the border patrolmen. 
Some have suspected that: Gee, maybe that is a strategy of the 
Democratic Party.
  You keep talking about amnesty, about getting rid of border 
enforcement, which will encourage more and more people to come in.
  You keep claiming that people, no matter whether they came in 
illegally or legally, should be allowed to vote and keep encouraging 
people in.
  You refuse to give a dime for border enforcement. You refuse to give 
a dime for beds to house people who are pouring in illegally for what 
they need to be able to detain people that commit criminal acts in 
coming into the country.
  You continue to talk about doing away with any criminality to 
violating the law and more people come in.
  You devastate those officers who have taken an oath to defend our 
border and our Constitution, and they are already having recruiting 
problems.
  Why would somebody want to come work where you have got a major party 
of the two in the country that castigates you at every turn, says you 
can't or won't protect babies, children, you do not care, you are mean, 
you are evil, when you are out there doing everything you can, and you 
are being harassed, not being given what you need?
  And then we had this bill this week in Judiciary talking about it was 
going to add millions and millions and millions of dollars of 
requirements for the Border Patrol to have to follow, lest they be 
pursued with some kind of charge or allegation, and yet not give them a 
dime to do those jobs, knowing that the result will be more and more 
people flooding in, more and more humanitarian crisis. Then you blame 
the humanitarian crisis on those who are trying to secure our Nation.

                              {time}  1400

  Then you get an allowance for all of those people who have poured in 
illegally, and many of them don't speak English. They don't know what 
is going on. They have never been educated on how you sustain a self-
governing country.
  All I can figure, the assessment has to have been made, yes, it will 
have our country in chaos for a little while, and we will have to take 
away some freedoms because of all the chaos, but, as Democrats have 
said, that will end the Republican Party nationally, as the Democrats 
were able to do in California with 2 or 3 million pouring in and voting 
that had come in illegally after the amnesty in 1986.
  Actually, after 1986, when they were given amnesty, now it is legal 
for them to vote, and that changed California into a very Democratic 
State.
  And there is an assessment: We can do that for the Nation and 
eliminate the Republican Party as having any kind of viability. And 
then once we do that, even though it has taken quite a toll on the 
country, we will get control back again. We will rein in the chaos, and 
the Republicans will be gone and we will be a one-party country.
  Somebody must have made that kind of assessment to be pushing the 
kind of bills that they are.
  We cannot allow that chaos to occur and to build, because it wasn't 
just Ronald Reagan, but historians throughout time have noted, once you 
have a country that has had great freedom and it loses that freedom, it 
doesn't come back. Reagan said not in that generation, but I have 
trouble finding where it ever came back once a nation of freedom lost 
it. That is a real potential if we don't get things under control.
  I think God has blessed this country more than any country. I know 
Solomon's Israel was just an absolutely amazing place, but there is no 
place that has ever had our opportunities, our individual freedoms, our 
individual assets, never in the history of the world.
  There is nothing wrong with recognizing the greatness that America 
has been. It is only in recognizing America's greatness that you can 
determine we want to perpetuate that for future generations to have 
those opportunities, those freedoms, those assets.
  But we are in trouble, and there has got to be a change or our time 
as the greatest country in history will become a self-fulfilling 
prophesy of those who say: ``Ah, it was never that great.'' ``Nah, it 
is not a great country.'' ``No, I have always been embarrassed of 
America.'' That will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We will lose 
our greatness. We will lose our freedom.
  I said to three individuals from Australia who were here on Capitol 
Hill a couple years ago: Hey, I have had people up here say when we 
lose our freedom, I guess we can all come to Australia.
  Neither of them even laughed. One of them said: Do you not 
understand, if you lose your freedom in America, China will take over 
Australia before you could ever get there?
  America is a shining light on a hill. We give people hope. I have 
heard it and seen it from Africans with tears in their eyes--and, yes, 
they were Christians. Maybe you would be prejudiced against them. But 
they said: We need America strong if we are going to have any chance of 
security and freedom in our own country.
  Let's keep America strong. Let's support Israel. Let's support 
enforcing the law as it is, as it has been, and as we need it to 
prolong and perpetuate this incredible country.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________