[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 165 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4878-H4882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  RECOGNIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garcia of Illinois). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, last week, I took some time on the floor here 
in the House of Representatives to recognize our important law 
enforcement community and what they mean to the American people and why 
this body should stand alongside, behind, and in defense of our law 
enforcement community unapologetically.
  Since speaking on the floor last week, I have been, frankly, 
inundated by emails, Instagram messages, Facebook messages, tweets, 
phone calls from I think all 50 States. The video from the floor of the 
House of Representatives has been seen almost 8 million times. I, 
frankly, was blown away, but it just tells you how many Americans are 
looking for the leadership of their country to stand by and stand 
alongside our law enforcement community.
  Some of the messages that we received--and this isn't about me, and 
this isn't about any Member of this body, but these were some of the 
messages we received.
  This was sent to me: ``Your speech about the 43 officers was moving. 
My father is a police officer. The world would make me feel as though I 
shouldn't be proud of that, let alone give any support to the police. 
Thank you.''
  Another message: ``Thank you for addressing the 43 law enforcement 
officers who have been killed this year so far. I am a law enforcement 
officer's wife for over 20 years. My husband is a phenomenal human 
being and law enforcement officer. He has spent his life protecting 
strangers. I won't rant. You know how we are living right now,'' she 
said. ``I just wanted to thank you for being bold and brave and having 
his six.''
  For the record, I don't consider myself bold or brave. I just 
consider myself a representative of constituents who share my complete 
disbelief that this body refuses to take any action, to do anything as 
a body in unison to defend and stand alongside our law enforcement 
community.
  It is an abject failure by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and this body that we have not passed a resolution; we 
have not joined together; we have not stood on the steps of the 
Capitol; we have not done a thing to stand alongside our law 
enforcement community who keep us safe every day. And I think that is 
an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment that the people's House 
refuses to do that.
  Another message: ``I start off first saying I am law enforcement, and 
I want to continue saying thank you for your support. I have watched 
your C-SPAN video so many times, and it gets me every time. It is just 
nice to have some people out here backing us.''
  Again, this is not about me. I wish there were 435 Members sitting 
here on the floor right now together, all doing that for these people, 
for those law enforcement officers.
  Another message: ``Thank you, sir, for your speech in the House. We 
at the Nevada Highway Patrol were rocked by our first line of duty 
death since 2006. On March 27, 2020, Sergeant Ben Jenkins stopped on a 
snowy Nevada rural road to help a stranded motorist. After his attempts 
to get the motorist's vehicle unstuck failed, the motorist pulled out a 
.308 rifle and shot Sergeant Jenkins in the right shoulder. Sergeant 
Jenkins retreated to the back of his vehicle, severely wounded, got 
`shots fired' over the radio before he collapsed. The suspect walked up 
to Sergeant Jenkins as he lay in the cold, snowy Nevada highway and 
shot him in the head. Sergeant Ben Jenkins died doing what any trooper 
would do when they see a stranded motorist. He would have helped 
anyone. He lost his life doing it.'' This person said: ``Your speech 
was impactful. Thank you for being our voice.''
  I don't know the race of any of these people. I don't. I don't know 
the race of the officers. I don't know the race of the perpetrators. I 
don't know the race of any other victims. I literally have no idea. But 
these are people from all over the country, thousands calling in, 
tweeting, checking. They are hungry for a body that is supposed to 
represent them in the people's House to stand up and just say a simple 
thank-you. Just say a simple, ``We have got your back.''
  Since I spoke just under a week ago, three more officers have been 
killed in the line of duty. I read all the names of the 43 who have 
been killed last week. Here are three more: Investigator Luis Mario 
Herrera, on September 7; Deputy Sheriff Ryan Phillip Hendrix, on 
September 10; Sergeant Alvin R. Sugranes-LeBron, on September 16.
  That means we are up to 46 officers who have been killed thus far in 
2020, a 53 percent increase from the same period in 2019.
  As I said last week, eight categorized as premeditated murder, two 
were a victim of unprovoked attacks, eight fatal shots were fired at 
point-blank range zero to 5 feet from the officer, eight shot in the 
front of the head, two in the back of the head, six in the neck, nine 
in the chest.

  We have an over 50 percent increase in officers killed in the line of 
duty, the law enforcement officers who represent the thin blue line 
between us and anarchy.
  My grandfather was the chief of police of Sweetwater, Texas. My 
great-great-grandfather was a Texas Ranger. I was proud to be an 
assistant United States attorney working with the law enforcement 
community.
  Where is the people's House? Again, sitting here at 6:23, we had 
three votes this afternoon in series. We marched in here, we voted. We 
don't have any debate. We vote, we clean, we vote, we stand out on the 
steps, and we walk out. And, thus, has been the people's House for the 
last 190 days.
  It is an embarrassment. We are sitting here in an empty Chamber. We 
haven't passed a PPP extension bill. We haven't done the hard work of 
trying to make sure our small businesses that are struggling in this 
environment survive. We sure as heck have not been on the floor of this 
body engaged in any kind of effort to pass a resolution, to sit here 
and have a moment of silence, an understanding, a recognition for any 
member of the law enforcement community.
  With all due respect to the other side, where is the Speaker? Where 
is the Speaker of the House? Last Thursday, after a number of us gave 
speeches about this issue, after I gave a speech, Speaker Pelosi came 
down to the floor of the House and said a handful of words: ``We 
support peaceful demonstrations. We participate in them. They are part 
of the essence of our democracy.'' She went on: ``That does not include 
looting, starting fires, or rioting. They should be prosecuted. That is 
lawlessness.''
  Well, congratulations to the Speaker of the House for recognizing the 
rule of law. The body that passes laws, including our Federal criminal 
laws, the body that represents the people, all 330 million of them, the 
Speaker of that body came all the way down to the floor of the House of 
Representatives to explain to us that she supports the basic 
fundamentals of the rule of law but did not say a word about law 
enforcement and backing them up, did not say a word about calling out 
Antifa or BLM or any organization behind a lot of the activities going 
on around our country, endangering our communities, burning down 
stores, wrecking people's lives, putting people in danger, letting 
people get killed, having officers put in danger.
  I read through a number of officers who have been killed throughout 
this process, and what are we doing?
  When we had a debate back in June when it was politicized, Senator 
Scott sent over legislation. Did we have any robust debate about that? 
No. We haven't had a single vote on an amendment on the floor of the 
House since May of 2016, and that is an absolute embarrassment.
  We have groups of people who sit up in the Rules Committee. They 
throw down a bill on the floor of the House of

[[Page H4879]]

Representatives, and we are supposed to march down here like lemmings, 
push a button yes or no, and then let leadership go out on the steps 
and give a press conference.
  How is that representation? Where is the Speaker? It is not enough to 
come down and give lip service for 10 seconds about riots and about how 
those are lawless but not come down here and actually recognize our men 
and women in uniform who are serving us in blue across the country.
  Or how about our Border Patrol? How about ICE? Many of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle like to go around saying defund ICE, 
abolish ICE, take away resources from Border Patrol and ICE.
  Have they walked a mile in the shoes of the Border Patrol or ICE that 
I know on the border in Texas, where cartels have operational control 
of our border still to this day right now? We just had apprehensions of 
about 45,000 in August, the second highest number in the last 6 years, 
second only to last year.
  Do you know why that number is low right now? Guess. Title 42 
protecting our health because of the virus. Our men and women in 
uniform on the border of the United States serving their country, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle say abolish them, get rid of 
them, when they are securing the border of the United States outmanned, 
outgunned. They can't navigate the Rio Grande.
  I would invite any of my colleagues to come down along with my 
Democratic friend Henry Cuellar. He and I have cosponsored legislation 
to clear cane and open roads along the Rio Grande. Why can't we do 
that? We could do that in a matter of seconds right on this floor and 
give our Border Patrol and give our ICE agents the ability to actually 
stop and stem the tide of the horrors being perpetrated by cartels 
along our border.
  We duck our head in the sand and ignore it while little girls get 
raped and abused on the journey through Mexico; while we find stash 
houses with 50 people in basements in Houston; while families get held 
hostage for ransom; while meth comes pouring across our border, 
fentanyl, cocaine, large quantities, pouring across our border; all 
while we have been shutting down our way of life, causing people to 
have extreme mental health concerns and issues and addictions being fed 
heavily by the Chinese running right up through the gut through Mexico, 
right into Texas, right into our country, and what are we doing? 
Playing politics with our border instead of doing what any sovereign 
nation would do, which is defend the border of the United States for 
the interests of our community and the migrants who seek to come here, 
who are being abused, who are being sold into the sex trade, who are 
being held ransom by cartels.

                              {time}  1830

  There is a bloody civil war going on along the border along the Rio 
Grande, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle come out and 
say, ``kids in cages''; they come out and say, ``drinking out of 
toilets.''
  It is just simply not true. I have been to these facilities. We have 
all been to these facilities. We know it is not true. The Speaker knows 
it is not true. Yet that is the stated position of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle.
  ``Kids in cages,'' the very barriers put up by the previous President 
and the previous President's administration for what? To separate kids, 
to separate them from other dangerous individuals who may or may not be 
their family members, people coming across claiming to be their 
parents. We don't know.
  What are we supposed to do, just take them and throw them to the 
wolves? Or maybe we should have a system for trying to figure it out.
  And you go down there and you look and you see what our Border Patrol 
agents are doing, and you see what our ICE agents are doing: working 
hard to try to figure it out when you have 900,000 people apprehended 
in fiscal year 2019.
  I didn't make that number up. All right? This is how many people were 
apprehended. I am not talking about the ones who got away. I am talking 
about the ones who were apprehended, coming into our facilities, and we 
have to manage it.
  Where is the Speaker? Where is the Speaker for any member of our law 
enforcement community on the streets in any city in America, Federal, 
State, or local, Border Patrol, ICE? Where is the Speaker? Completely 
MIA, wandering around D.C. no doubt raising money for the D triple C or 
something to go have another political speech, but sure as heck not on 
the floor of the House of Representatives standing alongside law 
enforcement.
  Let's consider the grand successes of this body of the House of 
Representatives under Speaker Pelosi.
  Proxy voting. For the first time in the history of this body, under 
the Speaker of the House, this body, led by Democrats, is allowing 
proxy voting.
  Now, for those of you at home, what that means is that you can have a 
Member, as has happened, vote from a boat--get on a screen, log in, and 
vote from a boat. That happened.
  This body, if you are elected to it, you cannot delegate that which 
has been delegated to you under the Constitution of the United States, 
by the people, that sacred obligation to represent them, you cannot 
delegate that to another. That is plainly and clearly unconstitutional.
  I look forward to that question getting to the Supreme Court. I am 
proud to be a part of litigating that. I look forward to getting it to 
the Supreme Court so we can actually answer that question.
  We don't need the Court to answer it. This body can answer it. It is 
plainly unconstitutional.
  Yet for the first time in our history, we have allowed and enabled 
proxy voting where a Member of this body can allow somebody else in 
this body to cast a vote for him or her.
  For two centuries, through the yellow fever of 1783, which took out 
10 percent of the population of Pennsylvania, the burning of the 
Capitol during the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish flu of 1918, 
both World Wars, 9/11, Congress never flinched from its constitutional 
duty to assemble in the Capital City.
  Ten percent of Philadelphia in 1793--think about that--was wiped out. 
They found a way to meet. They found a way to carry out their solemn 
obligation.
  The Speaker continues to refuse regular order. I have already 
referred to that. We bypass the committee process, block amendments for 
every bill, effectively shutting out participation for rank-and-file 
Members of both parties of the House.
  Just yesterday we voted on a continuing resolution to fund government 
$1.6 trillion, ladies and gentlemen. You are sitting back at home. Yes, 
another number stuck in front of a trillion--$1.6 trillion.
  Your august body, the House of Representatives, representing you, had 
approximately 20 minutes to review the continuing resolution funding 
$1.6 trillion of government, busting caps of busted caps already 
busted.
  That is your House of Representatives, ladies and gentlemen, and I 
don't think you should accept it. I don't think the American people 
should accept this level of complete incompetence and disgrace that we 
are seeing on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Twenty minutes.
  How about that 72-hour rule? We like that? We adopt the rules every 
time we come into Congress. Seventy-two hours you must have to read 
legislation, they say. Does that ever happen? Let's be honest. Does 
that ever happen? No.
  And when you go home and you talk to your constituents, they say: Why 
is Washington broken?
  I say: Because we never sit down at a table, roll our sleeves up, and 
do the work that you do in your home, that you do in your business, 
that you do in your nonprofit, that you do in your church to actually 
balance your budget, to actually make tough decisions.
  We never do that.
  Democrats and Republicans should be appalled at the way this body has 
been operating.
  We should have debate. We should have votes. We should have 
amendments.
  What are we afraid of? Bring your amendments down. I will vote, and I 
will go face my constituents and explain why.
  And you know what? There will be tough votes, and they will be used 
against you.
  And you know what? That is the process.
  I have already mentioned that the Speaker refuses to stand for law 
enforcement. It took months to even

[[Page H4880]]

come down here to condemn the looting and the rioting and the violence, 
and she still won't condemn BLM or antifa.
  In July, the Speaker's response to the chaos on the streets was: 
``People will do what they do.''
  Well, boy, oh boy, is that blowing the socks off of our law 
enforcement community getting the great leadership from the Speaker of 
the House that ``people will do what they do.'' Well, they sure will if 
we don't stand behind our law enforcement community and stand up for 
the rule of law.

  The Speaker infamously pushed an impeachment inquiry without a vote 
on the House floor for the first time in history. Now, that has played 
out. I haven't heard much about impeachment over the last 7 months.
  It gripped the Nation, supposedly. I think it gripped the body. I 
think it gripped half of this body.
  We spent 6 months essentially shutting this Chamber down to pursue 
that inquiry, and now the Speaker is talking about impeachment again.
  The Speaker has refused to condemn the blatant anti-Semitism that 
some in her own party have used, and she herself has referred to 
Republicans as ``enemies of the people,'' the Speaker of the House.
  The Speaker recently referred to the peace agreements, the historic 
peace agreements between Israel and Bahrain and Israel and UAE--these 
are massively successful, important peace agreements. She referred to 
them as ``distractions''--Israel, our great ally in the Middle East.
  These were great agreements. This is historic stuff.
  There are other countries considering it. Why? Because we led.
  We moved our Embassy to Jerusalem, and other countries followed. Why? 
Because we took out Soleimani.
  And what did the Speaker do? She wanted to condemn the President for 
taking out Soleimani, a murderous thug who targeted American soldiers.
  It was great that the President of the United States took out 
Soleimani.
  And now, as I said, the Speaker is threatening impeachment 2.0. Why? 
Because President Trump is daring--hold on, here it comes--daring to do 
what every President in the history of this country has done when there 
is a vacancy on the Supreme Court in the fourth year of their term, 
every one, 29 times.
  That the President would exercise Article II authority to nominate an 
individual to fill a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court, for 
that--for that--the Speaker is suggesting we should consider Articles 
of Impeachment 2.0.
  It is facially absurd. It is not an arrow in a quiver. It is facially 
absurd. It is an embarrassment to this institution. It is an 
embarrassment to this Congress.
  We should have an open and vital debate about all of these issues we 
are talking about right here, amending, debating, voting. No, no, no. 
We are going to go rattle that impeachment and go give some press 
conferences. This is just politicizing the process.
  Now, we have seen that before. We have seen this many times before, 
the politicization of this process.
  I was a lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003. I had the 
great honor and privilege of serving Senator John Cornyn. I spent 5 
years as a lawyer on that committee working on a host of issues. One of 
the issues I worked on was nominations.
  Now, you might be asking: Who are these two women?
  Well, Judge Janice Rogers Brown was--if my memory serves correctly; I 
don't have any notes; I am doing this from memory--a supreme court 
justice in California who was nominated to the Ninth Circuit. Priscilla 
Owen was nominated to the Fifth Circuit.
  Now, in 2003, the Democrats in the United States Senate sought to 
stop--that is, filibuster--stop their nominations.
  Their great crimes? They were conservative women. And in one case, a 
minority conservative woman. Those were their great crimes in 2003, 
ladies and gentlemen.
  And that is what your Democrats in the United States Senate did: 
attacking them, tearing them down, blowing up the very process that 
people are talking about right now, the confirmation process. They 
attacked them, these two public servants.
  I met both of them. Very kind, nice people being ruthlessly attacked 
for simply being conservative women, or a conservative minority woman.
  We can't have that. We can't have those dastardly Republicans 
appointing someone who doesn't fit the narrative by my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, but yet that is precisely what happened in 
2003.
  What have we seen since? We saw the complete horror show that was the 
Kavanaugh hearing 2 years ago, an utter disgrace by Senate Democrats.
  But I also remember the 2005 confirmation of Sam Alito. I also was 
there for the Roberts confirmation.
  Ask Justice Alito's lovely wife, Martha-Ann, how she feels about the 
way her husband was treated, attacked, torn down, vilified through his 
confirmation proceedings by Senator Schumer.
  It was vitriolic. It wasn't just highlighting differences of views or 
judicial philosophy; it was targeting him personally and attacking. But 
that is the playbook that I have to suggest is the routine playbook for 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the United States 
Senate.
  Of course, that wasn't the first time. We all know, in 1987, there 
was a new verb in the lexicon of the confirmation process called 
borking, because Judge Bork was borked. They took down Judge Bork.
  And, again, what was his great crime? He was a constitutional 
conservative. He was a constitutionalist. That was his great crime.
  It took a mere 4 years later for Justice Thomas, in his own words, to 
receive a ``high-tech lynching.''

                              {time}  1845

  I say to the ladies and gentlemen watching, watch the video. It is on 
my Twitter feed. You can go find it. Google it. Go watch the great 
biopic. You can go find that on PBS. There is a great documentary on 
the life of Clarence Thomas who was born into the relative poverty of 
Savannah, Georgia. He was raised by his grandfather. Read his book, 
``My Grandfather's Son.''
  A life overcoming many obstacles to end up at Yale, and then to end 
up at the Supreme Court. And if you remember at his confirmation 
hearings, what did he say? He said: This isn't worth it for the court 
at the hearings, when he was being pilloried, his character 
assassinated. He said, You know what, the Supreme Court isn't worth it.
  But you know what was worth it and the reason he came back, and the 
reason he shoved it right back down the throats of those members of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, including, by the way, Chairman Joe Biden, 
because it was his character. It was his name, the name that he had 
inherited, and he had from his grandfather that loved him and raised 
him.
  It was his name and he brought that Senate Judiciary Committee to its 
knees. And we should be grateful for it because he has been an 
excellent justice on the United States Supreme Court, and he did not 
deserve the attacks that he got.
  Let's talk about the person to the left of Justice Thomas, Miguel 
Estrada. Does anybody know that name, remember that name? Miguel 
Estrada is a good human being. He is a good man. He was also a nominee 
in the Bush administration in 2003, during that same time that I was 
describing with Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, and there were 
others.
  I think there were some 50 that were filibustered during that time. I 
can't remember. Do you know why Miguel Estrada was filibustered? 
Ultimately, he was stopped. A deal was cut, and Janice Rogers Brown and 
Priscilla Owen ended up on the bench. Miguel Estrada was not fortunate.
  Miguel Estrada was targeted and stopped precisely because he is 
Hispanic. That is a known truth in Washington, D.C., but nobody talks 
about it. Do you know why?
  Because of concerns about how a leaked memo was found. It was a 
leaked memo that was found on a server. It is the stuff that would be 
great for ethics classes in law school or undergrad about what folders 
are open and who can look at them and who can see them. It is a 
reasonable debate.
  But the fact of the matter is, there was a memo by Senate Democratic 
leadership saying we must stop him because he is a Hispanic. I say to 
the ladies and gentlemen who are watching

[[Page H4881]]

this, this is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. And what are we going 
to see transpire in the coming weeks?
  I hope we have a great celebration of Justice Ginsburg's life this 
week. Obviously, it has transformed very quickly into what is next, but 
I hope we will stop and celebrate.
  But as we go forward, we know what is going to happen. We know it as 
sure as we are sitting here, as sure as the Sun comes up tomorrow that 
it doesn't matter who the President nominates. He or she will be 
attacked viscously, violently.
  We certainly know that if Judge Barrett is nominated, she will be 
attacked viciously. Her faith will be attacked viciously. The fact that 
she is a proud mom to, I think, seven, of whom I think two are adopted, 
she will be attacked.
  Why is this? It is because we have made Washington, D.C., and its 
institutions too consequential to the lives of Americans in a country 
in which we are supposed to live freely.
  We have taken issues that you are supposed to work out and debate at 
the State legislature and the local level and, at most, in this body, 
in this Chamber, in the Senate, and we have placed them into the hands 
of nine judges.
  So now every June everybody waits with bated breath outside of the 
Supreme Court Chamber. What great pronouncement shall come down from on 
high?
  Why do we choose to live that way? Why don't we choose to make 
decisions in this body?
  Why don't we the people of this body make Article I great again? Why 
don't we make Congress work again?
  I introduced legislation a year and a half ago called the Article I 
Act, designed to take power away from the President and expand power 
here in times of emergencies, so you can't have situations like we have 
now where over the last 30 years vast numbers of emergencies have just 
been perpetual. And we still operate and give the executive branch 
authority to operate under these emergencies, 30 years later. That is 
facially absurd.
  Why don't we fix that? I have had conversations with friends and 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are interested in doing 
that. Why isn't the Speaker?
  Look, I did that with a Republican President in the White House who 
is trying to secure the border, a proposition with which I agree not 
just a little, but strongly. It is our job to secure the border of the 
United States. I fully support the President in securing the border of 
the United States.
  I fully agree that it is an emergency at our border. I fully agree 
that we need to stop the cartels. I fully agree that we need to protect 
migrants who are seeking to come here. I fully agree that it is in the 
best interests of the people of the United States and the people who 
seek to come here for us to have a simple, secure border.
  No one could logically disagree with that statement, by the way. But 
we don't deal with logic. We deal with grand statements, and emotion, 
and allegations of kids in cages. But why don't we have a debate?
  This Republican introduced legislation in the time of a Republican 
President that would pull power back from that Republican President 
because I believe it is in the best interests of this body, this 
Chamber, the House of Representatives. Why don't we do it?

  Do it now, I say to my Democratic colleagues. Don't wait to do it 
when there is a Democrat in the White House. Let's do it now. It is our 
job to make Article I great again.
  Why do we turn virtually all of our power over to courts and 
executives? We see it unfolding before our very eyes right now in the 
course of this pandemic.
  What are we doing with respect to the pandemic? What are we doing 
with respect to COVID?
  We launch a $2 trillion missile in April, and we walked away. Now we 
have executives around the country who are making all sorts of 
decisions irrespective of what their State legislatures might be doing. 
We have a lot of power being executed in our Article II executive 
branch without any checks or balances here because we are not doing our 
job.
  Let's have those debates. Let's bring Scott Atlas, Fauci, Birx, a 
host of other doctors, let's bring them before this body; not in some 
random committee with a handful of people on it on a Zoom call. Bring 
them before this body and let's hear from them and let's cross-examine 
them. And let's understand what is at stake. Let's make good decisions 
based on that and let's make sure the American people know the facts.
  I happen to be one of those people who believes that we should take 
this virus very seriously, who has a 77-year-old father who survived 
polio, and a 71-year-old mother that I want to protect from the virus. 
I also happen to be somebody who believes that we have scared the 
bejesus out of the American people in such a way that we are causing 
them harm.
  They are having mental health issues. They are not getting cancer 
screenings. Suicides are up, addictions are up, and we just bury our 
head in the sand and go around, and some people on the other side of 
the aisle scream 200,000, and they think that is an argument when it is 
not an argument. It is an irresponsible effort to instill panic in the 
American people for political purposes. And that is precisely what my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing.
  Why don't we have a debate and have a discussion and bring people 
forward and determine the facts and share those facts with the American 
people so we can open our society up again properly, wisely, but open.
  I am always mystified while I watch people running around talking 
about how much we need to be locked down, but they are drinking their 
bottle of water. Sitting at a hearing today I saw Dr. Fauci drinking 
his bottle of water. I see people saying we need to stay locked down. 
They are drinking their Starbucks coffee. I see them stop off and pick 
up Little Taco in Austin, Texas, or go pick up some food.
  Who made it? Who distributed it? Who brought it to them on the 
curbside service? Who brought them their latte? Who is making their 
electricity run? Essential workers? Who among us are fine with 
endangering essential workers in grocery stores and power companies and 
food service so that some people can pat themselves on the back saying, 
They are doing a great thing by staying locked down?
  Let's study the data, the reports that came out just today from Brown 
University showing a relatively low transmission rate for some kids in 
college in our schools. Let's study that data. Let's look at how many 
are hospitalized. Let's talk about how we are going to achieve 
immunity. It might be a vaccine. It might be that some of the most 
healthy members of society continue to engage and operate and we build 
up immunity.
  That is what we do for other things. Let's talk about that, instead 
of scaring the heck out of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, this is no way for us to do our job. Our job is to 
represent each and every American and to be here and debate and to 
vote.
  I am going to say one more time, with all due respect to the Speaker 
of the House, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this body 
cannot meet and stand up for our law enforcement.
  I cannot understand why this body cannot meet, debate, and vote on a 
PPP extension bill, or another form of that kind of legislation to make 
sure our small businesses can survive; the restaurants, the music 
venues, the wineries, distilleries, breweries, barber shops, hotels--
all of the entities that are struggling to survive right now throughout 
this country.
  Where are we? We have been back now after a long hiatus for 10 days-
ish, not really. We will be back next week. What are we doing? Let's 
pass that. Let's stand up with law enforcement. Let's pass a bill to 
protect our small businesses.
  Let's do the basic duty that is incumbent upon us as Members of the 
United States House of Representatives to represent the people who are 
asking us to do those things. It is our job. We are asking millions of 
Americans to do their job while we completely and totally fail to do 
ours.

  Mr. Speaker, we are $27 trillion in debt. It is about to jump to $30 
trillion, and we walk around here like nothing is going on. Drugs and 
narcotics are still flowing across our southern border, and we don't do 
a thing about it. Law enforcement is getting attacked on the streets--
targeted--buildings are

[[Page H4882]]

getting burned, streets are in unrest, and we are doing nothing about 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close by just saying, it is an honor to serve in 
the United States House of Representatives, but this body has got to do 
better. It is time for this body to do its job. It is time for us to 
stand up for America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________