[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 42 (Thursday, March 5, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2459-H2463]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SHOOTING IN AUSTIN, TEXAS
(Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2025, Mr. Roy of
Texas was recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.)
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in Austin, Texas, near where
I live, we had a tragedy where an individual shot a bunch of
Austonians, including several University of Texas students, at a bar on
what we call West Sixth Street, in an area that I frequented often when
I was in law school, a little less often these days. But it is an area
that is a fairly normal place for people to go, not generally perceived
as dangerous.
This past Saturday night, early Sunday morning, even as I believe I
was returning home from the San Antonio Rodeo, or I had been there, I
wake up in the morning to find out that there were three people who had
been killed, one of whom was the shooter, and then later a fourth
person would die, a third victim.
It was an unnecessary, senseless act. It is compounded by not just
normal violence, but why this individual was here in the first place.
I think we have got to wrestle with some serious questions about who
we allow into this country and why. The individual who killed these
students--by the way, there were multiple others who were shot having
surgeries. One young woman, a young student, was shot multiple times in
her abdomen, and another young man who was shot in his head. It was not
just the three dead victims. Other people were hurt. Other people were
traumatized by it.
The individual who did it was wearing a ``Property of Allah''
sweatshirt, had a Koran in the back seat of the car that he had
traveled in, was wearing an Iranian flag T-shirt under the ``Property
of Allah'' sweatshirt.
What we know about him is that he came here from Senegal in 2000,
overstayed his visa.
In 2006, he obtains LPR, or legal permanent residency status, under
the Bush administration--I am going to be an equal opportunity basher
of administrations who have failed to secure our border properly--and
did so on the back of supposedly a marriage to an American citizen.
Fast forward to 2012, under Obama, he gets full citizenship, which
Obama was handing out like candy, and then tries to get LPR status for
two additional women, allegedly women he was marrying. I don't know
whether in succession or at the same time. All I know is he was trying
to do that.
Fast forward, he was arrested for a hit-and-run alleged in 2022.
My fundamental question is: Why are we importing people who are
deeply at odds with the values of our country and Western civilization?
Why are we doing that? Why have we done that exponentially in the wake
of the attacks of 9/11/2001?
It doesn't make any sense. This is avoidable. This man didn't need to
be in the United States who does not share our values and clearly was
interested in serving his convictions for Iran and radical Islamism
more than his commitment to this country, peace, and our rule of law.
I am going to have more to say about that, but related to this topic,
I am proud to be the cofounder, alongside my friend and fellow Texan,
Keith Self, a veteran, a great public servant, longtime public servant,
a great friend, who shares my conviction--I won't speak for him, but
shares my conviction for ensuring we defend our values, our Western
civilization, the rule of law in our country; that we stand up against
the Islamist movement, putting sharia law forward in direct conflict
with our laws.
I know my friend has a limited time, so I would like to yield some
time to him to speak on this subject that concerns us both so greatly.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Self).
Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend, fellow Texan
colleague and cofounder of the Sharia-Free America Caucus, Congressman
Chip Roy, for yielding me time.
First of all, I have been aware of and been involved in Iran since
1979. I commanded the Special Forces Detachment 18 at that time. While
the trigger was not pulled, I was in a forward-deployed battalion, and
we were prepared to go in early to get the hostages should we need to.
We had just came out of a--actually, we had literally, just the week
before, I believe, come out of a shooting house in northern Germany
where we had actually rehearsed a hostage rescue.
I also was involved in Iran in 1984, when the 82nd Airborne Division
was preparing Op Plan 1004.
I have been cognizant of and aware of Iran and planning for Iran
since the late seventies, since the ayatollah took over.
Mr. Speaker, we have in the United States one Constitution, one legal
system, and one supreme law of the land. No foreign code, no religious
legal system, and no ideology that rejects our founding principles has
any place here.
{time} 1820
Just this week, as you heard, on March 3, 2026, Texas Republicans
delivered an overwhelming message that cannot be ignored, should not be
ignored. Proposition 10, which states that the State of Texas should
prohibit sharia law, passed by--get this--a 95-percent landslide in the
Republican primary.
Texans are saying loud and clear: American law only. Sharia is not
compatible with our Constitution, and our constituents reject any
attempt to import it.
[[Page H2460]]
This nonbinding proposition is a clarion call to this Congress:
Protect our sovereignty before it is too late.
Tragically, just 2 days before that vote, on March 1, we witnessed
exactly why this mandate is so urgent. In Austin, Texas, as the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) just outlined for you, a gunman opened
fire on innocent people enjoying their night. He killed three young
Americans.
We always say their names: 19-year-old Ryder Harrington, a Texas Tech
student; 21-year-old Savitha Shan, a University of Texas student; and
30-year-old Jorge Pederson. Mr. Speaker, 13 others were wounded, some
critically.
The suspect, as you have heard, was a naturalized U.S. citizen,
originally from Senegal, who entered the United States on a B-2 tourist
visa in March 2000, overstayed illegally, married a U.S. citizen in
2006 to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, and was naturalized
as a full citizen in April 2013, despite a history of arrests both
before and after receiving his green card.
Our broken legal system let him in, let him stay, and, disturbingly,
made him one of us via naturalization.
Investigators found him wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with
``Property of Allah'' and an undershirt featuring an Iranian flag
design, and recovered a Koran from his vehicle. The FBI is
investigating this as having a potential nexus to radical Islamic
terrorism tied to U.S. actions involving Iran.
These three young lives filled with promise, dreams, and futures were
stolen in an instant.
This is not random violence. The symbols were unmistakable and
intentional: ``Property of Allah,'' references to Iran, and a Koran at
the scene. This attack was a direct, bloody manifestation of the
supremacist ideology that sharia promotes, one that claims divine
authority over man-made law, demands submission, and justifies violence
against those who stand in its way.
Islam steeped in sharia teachings that reject equality under the law,
free speech, and constitutional governance is not some abstract debate.
It arrived here through failed vetting and immigration loopholes. It
took root over the years as a legal resident and citizen, and struck at
the heart of Texas.
The enemy is inside the gates. Wake up, America. We don't have to
accept this. We don't have to watch leaders, Republican and Democrat,
allow individuals from regions hostile to our values to enter on
temporary visas, overstay, marry their way into permanent status,
become naturalized despite red flags, and then unleash terror on our
streets.
This horror is precisely why Proposition 10 passed with such
overwhelming numbers, because sharia ideology fosters the very
extremism that turns foreign loyalties or personal grievances into mass
murder on American soil.
This brings us to the heart of this matter. Sharia is not merely
personal religious observation. It is a comprehensive political and
legal system that stands in direct conflict with everything we hold
sacred.
As Karl Popper warned in ``The Open Society and Its Enemies'':
``Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If
we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we
are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of
the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with
them.''
In the name of tolerance, we must claim the right not to tolerate the
intolerant, although I admit that we, unfortunately, have to tolerate
the Democrats.
Sharia, as a supremacist ideology that demands submission and rejects
our freedoms, falls squarely into this category. It refuses to tolerate
dissent, equality, or our Nation's law.
To preserve America's tolerance, liberty, and open society, we must
firmly reject and refuse to accommodate sharia. Unlimited tolerance for
such intolerance would destroy the very foundations of our tolerant
Republic.
Sharia includes clear, real-world practices that directly violate our
Constitution, such as wife beatings. Although, in America, you are
prohibited from breaking your wife's bones--I mean, it is disturbing
that we even have to say this. It includes forced child marriages,
child genital mutilation, and death penalties for apostasy, which is
leaving Islam, and blasphemy. It also includes harsh penalties, like
hand amputations for theft and stonings for adultery, and public
floggings.
Sharia law is systemic inequality. Women receive only half as much
inheritance as men. Their courtroom testimony counts as half a man's
value. Non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens.
Sharia explicitly asserts supremacy over man-made law, explicitly,
directly contradicting ``we the people,'' and the very foundation of
our Constitution.
The Austin attack is a tragic, real-world illustration of what
happens when elements of this supremacist ideology take hold here. We
cannot afford to ignore the warning signs any longer.
That is precisely why Congressman Chip Roy and I launched the sharia-
Free America Caucus. It has grown rapidly to dozens of members, now 46
strong, from across the country, representing 22 States. The caucus'
mission is clear: ensure sharia never gains a foothold in America,
protect the Constitution as the supreme law, secure our borders against
ideologies that refuse to assimilate, and defend Western civilization.
We will not surrender our freedoms.
I urge every colleague, Republican and Democrat, who believes in
American sovereignty to join us.
Mr. Speaker, the American people expect us to defend the Constitution
against any ideology that seeks to replace it. Let us pass legislation
affirming that no court may consider sharia or any foreign religious
code. Let us strengthen vetting to keep out those who adhere to sharia.
Let us advance the PAUSE Act to freeze immigration until our system is
secure. Let us stand with the sharia-Free America Caucus and declare
once and for all: America must be made sharia-free.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a district in north Texas. Mr. Roy
represents a district in the Hill Country. I would ask the gentleman
how bad he thinks the Islamization of Texas is.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend who has very well laid out
the extraordinary problem we have as a country if we allow sharia law
to take root. People say, well, yeah, just dismiss it. It is not a big
deal. This is just a problem in Europe. You hear that all the time. Is
that right?
Mr. SELF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I would say absolutely.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it is a real problem here. It
is not just Dearborn, Michigan, where some people get some headlines.
It is not just New York City, where you now have Mayor Mamdani and
prayer calls in the middle of Manhattan. We have--and I will let the
gentleman expand upon it--300-plus mosques, and more mosques being
built every year in the State of Texas than any other State in the
Union.
We have EPIC City, which you can comment about, in your own backyard.
We have a massive Islamic center in Houston, a massive Islamic center
north of Austin, and an Islamic center in West Campus.
You say: Chip, why is that a problem?
{time} 1830
People can believe what they want to believe. They can build these
things.
These entities are expressly putting out and advancing Islamism
consistent with the plan laid out by the Muslim Brotherhood in
accordance with some 600 organizations designed to do it, to put a
footprint here that is ideological and political and designed to take
over our country.
Would the gentleman agree?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SELF. Absolutely. Texas has seen 48 new mosques in the last 2
years, just 2 years. That is roughly one every month. This is the
fastest pace in the Nation, and it reflects rapid Muslim growth in
suburban areas like DFW where I live and Houston which is closer to
where Chip lives.
Frankly, it is not just in Texas. I was told by one of our North
Carolina Members just today that in his district they plan to build the
largest mosque in this hemisphere, I believe is the way he
characterized it. So, no, it is not just
[[Page H2461]]
in Texas. However, Texas is ground zero.
My district, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is ground zero because of this
EPIC City, because of the mini mosque. EPIC City was going to be a 400-
plus-acre compound, Muslim only, and if you invested a certain amount
of money, Mr. Speaker, then you might be able to buy a plot of land and
you might be able to build a house. However, when you sold the house,
Mr. Speaker, you had to sell it to the right person using contract law
and using our own freedoms, our own legal system against us.
Mr. ROY. Is the gentleman familiar with areas in and around the
Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, even nearby his own district in places
like Richardson, in places like Arlington, and a little farther away in
other areas, that some of our Texas women in particular, and generally,
believe to be no-go zones? There are areas where they are increasingly
feeling uncomfortable as if they are somehow immersed in the Middle
East, in areas that do not share our values of equality, of treating
people respectfully the same as peers, and where some of our women feel
uncomfortable?
Is the gentleman familiar that that is the case, in fact, in the
Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, from what we understand?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SELF. Absolutely. I understand that from the local officials that
women are not comfortable traveling there because, frankly, to quote an
imam, women are animals created by Allah to be used by men. Women are
no different from cows, sheep, horses, or mules. God made women
resemble humans.
That is totally anathema to our vision of equality between men and
women. It is not that men are women and not that women are men. We can
define what a woman is. However, women have certain individual rights
under our concept of individual human rights. Under sharia law, it is
total submission. It is totally different. We need to understand that.
Mr. ROY. One last point, because I get it thrown in my face quite
frequently that our Founders would be appalled that we are raising
these issues and questioning people's ability to carry out and practice
their faith.
I know that the gentleman is a student of our history and the
Constitution, and he is a student of military history. I am confident
that he is well apprised of the engagement that Thomas Jefferson had
with respect to the Barbary pirates and the Barbary wars.
When posed with the question that Jefferson posed: Well, why do you
make war with us?
The response was, as the gentleman knows: Well, we are commanded to
in the Koran.
To which Jefferson was fairly appalled, as you would expect him to
be, Mr. Speaker. We had to carry out wars to make sure our shipping
lanes were open and so forth.
I know the gentleman, who is a student of history, understands that
that conflict was very clear and present even among our leaders as they
were founding this Nation and the enlightenment that led to the First
Amendment which we cherish, but the recognition of the direct conflict
that the Islamic faith had, especially with respect to sharia law being
carried out against our values and Western civilization?
Does the gentleman agree?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SELF. Absolutely. In fact, there is a term now that is being
used: civilization jihad. This is the importation of Muslims who are
under sharia. It reaches the accommodation phase: Yes, we will pray in
the middle of the street. No, you can't walk your dog on the public
sidewalk. Then it goes to the intimidation phase that my friend was
referring to earlier about women feeling unsafe on the street.
We do not want to get to the position where Great Britain is where
they have rape gangs that kidnap young girls off of the street, take
them and fill them full of drugs and alcohol, rape them mercilessly,
and then the police arrest the young women for being drunk in public.
We do not want to get to that point that the U.K. is at currently.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman has to go to another
engagement. I thank him for his leadership in working with me and
cofounding the Sharia-Free America Caucus.
Do we now have 46?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SELF. We are 46 strong as of today.
Mr. ROY. We have 46 strong and growing.
I would invite colleagues on either side of the aisle to join. We
should all be united in having a sharia-free America. It is
inconsistent with our values.
I appreciate his leadership, I appreciate his public service, I
appreciate his friendship, and I wish him well this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend very much for allowing me to
participate.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that in addition to what we
just talked about, there is this view that Europe is unique. Right now
there are some 50 million Muslims who have now moved into Europe.
We now have got France approaching 10 percent of its population. We
have the United Kingdom at 7 percent-plus of its population. In the
United Kingdom we have 85 courts carrying out sharia law alongside the
civilian courts. In Germany they have 7 to 8 percent of the population.
Spain and Italy, and a good chunk of Western Europe, is now approaching
10 percent-plus Muslim.
The question now is: As we are having a battle with Iran to take out
their nuclear capability, at what point are we going to be concerned
about a nuclear France or a nuclear United Kingdom?
People say: Well, Chip, that is awfully controversial.
Is it? Is it really that controversial?
We have majority Muslim countries that are refusing to send their
kids to schools in the United Kingdom because they believe that the
schools there are teaching a radicalized Islam that is more radical
than they have at home.
This is purposeful. This is being driven by the Muslim Brotherhood.
This is not just happening in Europe. It is happening here, and but for
an ocean, we would be Europe now. However, after the massively open
borders under the Biden-Mayorkas regime, with the increasing shrinking
of the globe, and with totally irresponsible wide-open borders and
totally irresponsible ``legal'' immigration policies by this country,
we are importing people who hate us and hate our values.
Why would we do that?
Someone explain to me why we would do that.
In the 25 years since 9/11 we have imported millions of people from
countries that are diametrically opposed to our values.
Why? Why would we do that, and why would we continue?
I don't care what it is. I don't care if it is H-1B, and I don't care
if it is tourist visas that people tend to overstay and we never
enforce. We have massive and rampant abuse of our so-called legal
immigration system, and I am sick and tired of hearing colleagues and,
frankly, the administration, Republicans, generally Governors, who say:
Oh, we love legal immigration. You just have to stop the illegal
immigration.
Of course, we should stop the illegal immigration. It is the basic
duty of government.
However, why would you continue massive, widespread legal immigration
from countries that very heavily and largely oppose our way of life and
want to transform it?
They do not wish to melt into the pot. They wish to take over the
country and change it.
Stop doing that. This is common sense. But common sense was thrown
out the window years ago.
Everybody lives in this touchy-feely nonsense bull that they were
taught in school to say: Well, you know, you just have to open your
doors to everybody. Have your porch open and have everybody come in.
Hold on.
Why would you let people in who want to undo what you have?
We have to have people who wish to come here to achieve the American
Dream, who want to learn our language, conform with our laws and our
[[Page H2462]]
society, conform with our customs, conform with our heritage, celebrate
and venerate our heritage, support In God We Trust, and accept our
values.
We have Moses sitting right here overlooking the House Chamber. I am
guessing that ``Mr. Property of Allah'' here, who shot up people in my
town and killed students from the University of Texas and the Texas
Tech student, would not be too excited about Moses overseeing our
Chamber.
{time} 1840
Look, we have to make choices. We have 53 million-ish people foreign
born in the United States, almost 16 percent. It is the highest
percentage of our population in history. In the 1920s--in 1924
specifically--Congress restricted immigration after a massive explosion
of immigration in the late 1800s, early 1900s.
Now, let's also consider at the time that while there were
differences in cultures--German, Czech, Italian, whatever--
predominantly, these were people who shared Western civilization
values. They believed in our country, were going to schools that taught
that our country was great, were going to schools that taught the
Constitution, were going to schools that taught kids English.
At the time, we were trying to build a melting pot. Yet, even with
that, we all recognized, whoa, whoa, whoa, maybe we need to pause
immigration because we have had so many people come here, we need a
little resettling to ensure that everybody here knows what being an
American means.
For the better part of 40 years, we pretty much flatlined
immigration, constrained it to negligible numbers. By the way, during
that period, we ultimately were able to win a world war, ultimately
have the baby boom post-World War II, and grew the economy.
Then sometime in the mid-1960s, we opened up the spigot, and we set
forward now a 60-year march that has been a massive curve that has now
exploded into the 21st century in which we have brought masses of
population into our country, but now increasingly people who flatout do
not share our values, and, worse, wish to eradicate our values and kill
us.
Again, to my colleagues who like to yap on the House floor or on news
media about how great legal immigration is, is this great? Is it?
Now, I want to say that I am not just making these numbers up. Since
2002, which astute observers of history will recognize was the year
after 9/11, where 3,000 Americans were murdered by people who
overstayed their visas, I would remind, all the friendly, oh, come join
us melting pot folks who came over here on tourist visas that
overstayed their visas and then flew airplanes into buildings.
Since then, the United States has issued 4.6 million green cards or
lawful permanent status to nationals from Muslim-majority nations,
allowing them to remain here indefinitely.
Now, I am sure there are some of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle that will come down and say: Well, Chip, that is a good thing.
Isn't that great, having people come here, diversity?
Well, is it?
There has been a 48 percent increase in green cards to these
countries from 2002 to 2023 since 9/11: Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Cameroon, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya,
Malaysia, Mauritania, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen.
I am doing that for the benefit of the stenographer.
Meanwhile, sharia is exploding. They say no, it is not. Yes, it is.
We have story after story of how that is being meted out in communities
around our country, not always formally, but certainly in the
communities in direct contradiction to our Western values and our law.
We have actually had courts being propped up. For example, Governor
Abbott in Texas had to go quash two courts that were being set up in
the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, which is why I am saying we should
pause immigration.
I introduced legislation in November to do that. Let's just pause all
immigration. We can allow tourist visas so long as we enforce visa
overstays, but we shouldn't reopen the spigots on immigration until we
have revamped our badly broken H-1B system, until we have revamped the
entire visa system, until we vet people for sharia law or adherence to
values inconsistent with ours, until we fix Plyler v. Doe, a
wrongheaded Supreme Court opinion saying that we have to allow illegal
aliens to be able to get educated here, until we fix our broken
immigration system, which the next Democratic regime will exploit, as
Secretary Noem testified to yesterday in the House committee, that that
would assuredly occur if we do not codify changes to asylum, codify
changes to parole, codify changes to catch and release, that it will
happen, and we haven't done it.
By the way, the House hasn't even passed it this Congress. Why? Why
haven't we passed it and sent it over to the Senate? Well, the Senate
won't pass it. Well, we are hearing that about the SAVE America Act,
too, right now, but why don't we just put more pressure on the Senate
to do its job? Show up to work. Debate in the supposedly greatest
deliberative body in the world in which they never actually deliberate.
When was the last time somebody saw a great speech on the floor of
the Senate between two Senators, engaging in debate? The greatest
deliberative body in the world? There is more deliberation in an
average high school debate than the United States Senate.
I have offended a few Senators apparently by virtue of what a couple
people said when I called it the nursing home and the Jell-O
dispensary.
Well, forgive me. Not. Because you don't do anything. The Senate is
nothing more in today's operation than the personnel office for the
White House. That is it. By the way, it is not even doing that fully
effectively.
Why haven't we passed the SAVE America Act in the Senate? Well, Chip,
we don't have 60 votes. Does anybody know how the filibuster and the
rules of the Senate actually work? Sixty votes is one mechanism for
shutting off debate, but you actually have to have debate to turn off.
Have the debate. Put it on the floor.
Oh, but they might offer amendments, and those amendments might be
really tough votes for our Members. Well, hell's bells, you might have
to vote on something in the United States Senate? Who could imagine the
horror of running for office to become a vaunted United States Senator,
and yet, oh, no, I might be forced to vote on something?
Heaven forbid that the United States Senate Republicans lock
together, lock arms, have a strategy, and say, hey, why don't we just
table all the amendments.
I serve on the Rules Committee here in the House. We get amendments
every week, gamesmanship by my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. They offer amendments to put us in a bad position, to run ads
against us that we are somehow the Devil because we voted against
puppies and children and whatever it is. Boo-hoo. Vote no, move on, put
a message out, but the Senate won't do it because they are hiding.
The United States Senate is hiding behind a fake filibuster, a fake
60-vote threshold that is not real.
Put a bill on the floor of the Senate, allow it to be amended. Table
the amendments, allow the speeches to go, make them sit there and
speak, make them burn the clock, make them sit there for weeks on end,
telling the American people how they oppose that only American citizens
should vote in American elections, and that we should have voter ID to
demonstrate you are who you are when you vote. Go sell that at home.
{time} 1850
However, the Senate continues to hide, say we can't do that. We don't
have 51 Senators. We don't want to upset the filibuster.
Chip, you are going to risk the filibuster. False. Fake news. We are
saying use the real filibuster. Speak. Invite Mr. Smith to come back to
Washington. Allow Mr. Smith to come into the Chamber and show you what
a real filibuster is because it isn't keeping the Senate in a quorum
call while you go to fundraisers and State dinners or go parade in
front of the screens on the committees, come down to the Senate floor,
have a few votes, and then fly back out after 2\1/2\ days of work in a
week.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was on the floor of the Senate for 3
months, 3
[[Page H2463]]
months. They were 25 votes shy of the then-cloture vote to shut off
debate.
Right now, we are--I don't know--10 votes shy. Put it on the floor
and see what happens. Let's see how many phone calls come into
Senators' offices. After a week, after 2 weeks, after 3 weeks, you
could pull it off the floor if you have got to move something important
like DHS funding if Democrats stop blocking the funding of Coast Guard,
FEMA, TSA. This is not rocket science stuff, y'all, but the Senate
refuses to fight.
The American people demand that we actually preserve the integrity of
our elections. The American people believe that only American citizens
should vote in American elections. They believe you should have voter
ID. The Senate should act. The House should codify President Trump's
executive orders, send them to the Senate, and then the Senate can do
another talking filibuster.
Mr. Speaker, they might have to show up on the Senate floor and force
work. All of these things are related: wide-open borders, crime rates,
organizations that are funding it, the advance of sharia law and the
Islamist movement in the United States. All of it is tied to large
networks of Marxists and Islamists that are trying to remake the United
States of America and undermine everything about our history, heritage,
our rule of law, the Constitution, the Declaration.
The question is: Are we going to continue to remain asleep, kowtowing
to corporate America, telling everybody what to do for labor, earnings
per share, and the bottom line so they can get better reports from Wall
Street? Because that is what is happening.
You turn the management of affairs over to corporations, corporations
that continue to buy up land, buy up ranches, buy up farms, often
international corporations, almost often foreigners buying up American
assets. Are we that slave to corporate America that we are willing to
leave our doors wide open to the most dangerous individuals around that
do not share our values?
A lot of people think that the sharia crisis is only in Europe and in
foreign countries, and that it has not yet arrived here. That is false.
It is alive, well, and growing. People are going to use the First
Amendments incorrectly to hang us with it. They are going to pile
weight upon the bow that is our system and it will crumble under its
own weight while we fiddle while America burns because we don't want to
say uncomfortable things that we can all see with our own eyes.
Why do you have to wait in line at the airport? Why can't you take a
pocketknife in your pocket on the plane like we did for years? Why do
you have to take your freaking shoes off? Was it because of some nice,
Christian choir boys and girls from the local church in your community,
or was it because of the rise of the Islamist movement around the
world? Was it from the Pan Am bombings and all the various terrorist
attacks of the 1980s and 1990s culminating in 2001 on 9/11?
Open your eyes and see what the world is. Recognize the enemy before
you and stop inviting the enemy into your home, and then allowing your
own rules to be used to promulgate your own destruction.
It is a radical, political ideology that is at odds with the
Constitution, the Declaration, and the rule of law. We should act like
it. We should tighten down our immigration laws. We should pause
immigration. We should vet people for adherence to sharia law. We
should ensure that our communities stay safe and recognize the war that
is being waged against us and take action.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that my good friend from Arizona is in the
Chamber and is no doubt going to regale us with a tutorial on our debt
crisis, the extent to which interest payments on the debt, the
skyrocketing mountain of debt that is piling up as a result of
mandatory spending, in particular, demographic changes, our lack of use
of great medical technology, and other things that will allow us to
save money and have a much better healthcare system and save our
children from the scourge of debt and interest payments that I talked
about.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect he will say something to those effects, and I
think I have filibustered long enough.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Schweikert) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I no longer have to speak because he
just took care of the speech for me.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, can I say something and then I will turn it
over to him because I have to go, but the gentleman and I poke each
other and have a little fun. I am certainly prone to giving some
speeches on immigration, board of security, and other things to come
down to the floor. I think the floor should be used. I wish we had
actual, real debate. I wish we had something other than Special Orders
where you come down here and talk to an empty Chamber.
I think we should have 10, 20, or 30 of us down here for hours at a
time debating serious issues. I think the American people would expect
that. That is why I think the Senate ought to actually advance to
debate. Don't be afraid of a real filibuster, but I will say as a
compliment that the gentleman has done this for now over a decade. I
can't remember how long he has been in Congress where he has been down
to the floor and he gives those speeches. I don't mean that as a
criticism because that message has been consistent.
By the way, the big, beautiful bill last year was nothing like I know
what he wanted or I wanted. I wanted to go much further, but what we
did get in terms of Medicaid reforms, what we did get in terms of
spending reductions, $1.6 trillion in reductions and so forth, again,
not what we wanted, would never have happened but for the groundwork
being laid by people like my friend from Arizona, the speeches he gives
on the floor regularly making the case for how debt, interest, and so
forth is killing our country.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. The classic problem of--you are a brilliant lawyer. I
am sort of a walking accountant or walking calculator. We both serve
different--and a lot of people in the public don't understand--we serve
different committees and they take over our life. You sit on Judiciary.
Are you also on Oversight?
Mr. ROY. I am on Judiciary, Budget, and Rules.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Oh, so your life is hell.
Mr. ROY. I see it all.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Yeah. Your life is hell. I do Joint Economic
Committee and Ways and Means. That is actually one of the elegance the
Founding Fathers gave us is, we eventually end up where we are good. In
some ways, I always loved the yin and yang thing here where you are
doing the legal stuff and then I am going to actually sort of pound on
the math.
Mr. ROY. Well, you do a great job of it. Keep pounding on the math.
We have made slight progress with flat discretionary spending for 2 or
3 years and a little bit of work last year in the big, beautiful bill,
but we barely dented the problem.
Mr. Speaker, the iceberg sits in front of us. We are on the Titanic.
A few of us are pulling the wheel, but, hell, people on both sides of
the aisle are pulling the wheel the other direction. Our kids and
grandkids depend on us actually avoiding the frigging iceberg.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor). Members are reminded to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the Senate or its Members.
____________________