Brian Babin

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight we stand with our brothers and sisters in Israel and France to express our support and our commitment to these, our allies overseas. We have witnessed the violence in Israel in recent weeks whipped up by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, knowing now that radical Islamic militants are determined to continue their assault on the democracies of the world and western civilization. On Friday, the 13th, the world witnessed an unspeakable tragedy brought about by ISIS. This is a terrorist organization that has repeatedly plagued the Middle East with gruesome beheadings, violent killings, the rape of women, and the enslavement of children. Now they have unleashed a terror rampage on our ally, France, and they promise to bring it to America as well. Our President has called this slaughter ``a setback.'' So now Congress must recognize both the gravity and the tragedy of what has recently occurred and respond accordingly. What will it take, I ask, for this administration to admit that we are in a life-and-death struggle with radical Islam? Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu once gave this admonition: Know thy enemy. The enemy must be identified in order to defeat him. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the recent terrorist attacks, and I hope that the United States will stand by them and the people of Israel as well as France during these times. To the people of France: I am very sorry--Je suis vraiment desole.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2262. This bill is the result of bipartisan negotiations with our Senate colleagues over the last several months. Just last week, the Senate passed this bill unanimously. Over the last 3 years, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has held 14 hearings on issues related to commercial space, with dozens of witnesses from government, industry, academia, and grassroots organizations. We have met with countless stakeholders and considered this bill in committee with markups, on the House floor under a rule that allowed for amendments, and successfully negotiated a bipartisan, bicameral bill with the Senate. By all measures, this is how the legislative process should work. I commend my colleagues both in this House and in the Senate on a job well done. That isn't to say that this is a perfect bill, but in some instances I don't think the bill goes quite far enough. But that is the nature of our legislative process, and the bill before us moves the ball down the field in the right direction, enabling a strong American commercial space industry to flourish. This bill reflects the most significant piece of legislation relating to commercial space since 1988. I am also very proud that our final product looks remarkably similar to the bill we approved in the House, with strong bipartisan support, earlier. We were able to convince our Senate colleagues of the importance of extending the regulatory learning period beyond 5 years to 8 years; we were able to extend indemnification to 10 years as opposed to 5 years as called for in the Senate bill; and we were able to include many additional launch provisions from the original House bill. These are important provisions that will build a strong American space industry. I am also very pleased that the Senate agreed to include three other critical titles in this bill that were introduced and advanced by members of the committee. These include the Commercial Remote Sensing Act, sponsored by Representative Bridenstine; the Office of Space Commerce Act, sponsored by Representative Rohrabacher; and the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act, sponsored by Representative Posey. Their tireless advocacy ensured these provisions stayed in the bill. These provisions will pave the way for new industries to blossom in the United States, allowing our Nation to remain the world leader in space. We want the United States to be the place where the world comes for space. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan, bicameral agreement facilitates a progrowth environment for the developing commercial space sector and creates more stable regulatory conditions. None of this could have been possible without the tireless leadership of Majority Leader McCarthy and Chairman Lamar Smith, who sponsored the bill. Throughout the process, they helped navigate and chart a course for our private sector space community. I thank them for their leadership and recommend a yes vote on this important legislation. Planetary Resources, Richmond,VA, November 15, 2015. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader McCarthy and Chairman Smith: I want to thank you for your vision in taking up H.R. 2262, the Commercial Space Launch and Competitiveness Act. Planetary Resources strongly supports H.R. 2262, as amended, and commends you for your leadership in passing this vital legislation. The bill provides a critically important element of legal certainty regarding property rights in asteroid resources. This will help companies like ours continue to unlock private support for resource exploration in space. Thank you for your foresight and perseverance. Sincerely, Chris Lewicki, CEO, Planetary Resources.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I inadvertently voted ``Yea'' on Roll Call 606. I intended to vote ``Nay.''

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 607, my voting card didn't register. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio and their staffs for their cooperation and assistance in moving this amendment forward. I would also like to thank the commissioners and the staff of the Texas Department of Transportation. I insert in the Record a letter of support for these efforts from Retired Lieutenant General Joe Weber. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX, October 29, 2015. Re High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System in Texas Hon. Bill Shuster, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Peter DeFazio, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is supportive of Congressional action to enhance the highway system in Texas and designate additional portions of that system as high priority corridors and future interstates. TxDOT has facilitated communication with affected communities and interested parties along the Central Texas Corridor and U.S. 190, which is proposed to be a future section of the interstate 14 corridor. The route is important for east-west connectivity within the state and provides an important link to military facilities, to metropolitan areas, and Texas' existing and future interstate system. If I can be of additional assistance, please contact me or your staff may contact Melissa Meyer in the TxDOT Federal Affairs Section. Sincerely, LtGen J.F. Weber, USMC (Ret), Executive Director.

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to offer on behalf of my State of Texas, our military, and all Americans this amendment to designate the central Texas corridor as the first segment of what I truly believe will be America's next great highway, Interstate 14. As Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, General Dwight D. Eisenhower understood the critical importance of a reliable system of high-speed, high-capacity roadways to move across great distances the hardware and personnel that a modern military requires. As Commander in Chief, President Eisenhower applied these same principles to his domestic agenda with his championing of the Interstate Highway System. This allows our military to maintain maximum effectiveness and readiness, both in times of peace and in times of crisis. But even President Eisenhower could not have foreseen the incredible impact that the interstate system has had for almost every American family and business on a daily basis. Congress should not be in the business of designating a new interstate just because it can. A new interstate should truly serve the national interests on a number of levels. I am pleased to say, though, that the proposal of I-14 does not just meet these requirements; it far exceeds them. There is a reason this interstate already has a nickname, ``Forts to Ports,'' as it provides either direct or very close access for some of our country's most strategically important military and shipping assets. I want to be very clear to my colleagues that this amendment that I am offering today only impacts my State of Texas and is just the first step in a long process for establishing a new interstate highway. Even one that builds upon many roadways that are already interstate grade is no small task. It requires buy-in from all the States involved, and the Interstate 14 coalition is working to get the consensus and the support that we have in Texas from all of these State DOTs and other stakeholders. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my friend and colleague, a strong supporter of this amendment and former member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure whose work in years past on this issue has helped lead us to where we are today.

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, every one of us on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hears a lot about trucks, bigger trucks and heavier trucks. I think by now it is safe to say that all 435 of us have heard a lot about trucks. It is a tough issue with strong feelings on both sides. But this amendment isn't talking about bigger trucks or heavier trucks, as my colleague, Mr. Farenthold, said. All we are talking about here is allowing the State of Texas, through a rigorous licensing and approval process, to keep the same weight limits that are in place right now for certain trucks on certain stretches of our road, not bigger, not heavier, but the same. Unless we get this amendment adopted, the new blue signs for Interstate 69 in East Texas won't just mean a new interstate. It could mean financial ruin for our loggers who already have a very thin profit margin and a very tough time for our timber industry. It will mean a dramatic decrease in the amount of weight that all the loggers can haul on their trucks, which they have been doing safely and effectively on these roads for generations, even back when these same Texas counties were represented by our colorful Texas Democrat Congressman, Timber Charlie Wilson. I am asking all of my colleagues, no matter where you stand on bigger trucks, to join me, Congressman Farenthold, and Congressman Gene Green in supporting this bipartisan amendment to allow the State of Texas to be treated in the exact same way that this same body treated the States of Kentucky and Mississippi just last year and help save these jobs.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to speak tonight on an issue that impacts the safety and the security of our country. There is a grave threat to our national security that no one seems to want to talk about or to address--we talk around it; we allude to it; we look the other way or vainly hope that it will just go away--but sticking our heads in the sand will not make it go away. Instead, the threat is growing, and a lack of knowledge, foresight, and action on our part could jeopardize the future of our children and our grandchildren. The threat that I am referring to is the Refugee Resettlement Act. Today, I want to share with my colleagues and the Nation some very important aspects of the Refugee Resettlement Program, which, I hope, will result in serious debate and in an effective reevaluation of our current refugee resettlement policies. After events like 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing, you would think that America would have implemented a more rigorous screening process for allowing entry into the United States. On the contrary, as the world becomes increasingly more dangerous, significant security gaps remain. President Obama has recently announced his plans to increase from 70,000 to 85,000 the number of refugees allowed into the United States in 2016, next year, and, for 2017, he plans to bring in 100,000. Most of the increase is from Syria and western Iraq, a direct result of the conflict of ISIS and of Mr. Obama's own weak, disjointed foreign policy. In addition to the alarming national security concerns the resettlement program poses, there are significant costs that will be placed on the U.S. taxpayer and on State and local governments. The numbers that we have seen suggest a large economic burden on Americans, and we don't even know the full extent of all of the costs of this program. This is why I have introduced H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act of 2015. My bill places an immediate moratorium on the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program until the Government Accountability Office conducts a study to determine the economic costs to the American taxpayer and until Congress analyzes the risks to our national security. According to the U.S. Refugee Admissions' database, nearly 500,000 new refugees have come into the United States under the Refugee Resettlement Program since President Obama first took office. As a first-term Representative from Texas, I immediately began to investigate this issue because the State of Texas and its taxpayers have been asked to take in more refugees than any other State. I found out that no one was asking--much less answering--the questions of who, how, when, where, and how much regarding these refugees. I also found out that aspects of this program are very hard to determine even by the government agencies supposedly overseeing it, mainly because these agencies contract and provide funding to nongovernmental organizations to administer the program and because the United Nations gets to choose the majority of the refugees who enter the United States. Since the Resettlement Act was signed into law by then-President Jimmy Carter in 1980, more than 3 million refugees from Third World countries have been permanently resettled in the United States; and as I said earlier, nearly 500,000 refugees in just the last 6\1/2\ years of the Obama administration have been resettled by private Federal contractors across this country in over 190 towns and communities whose local citizens have little to no say in the matter. The private government-contracted organizations that administer the Refugee Resettlement Program and choose the locations of resettlement within the United States are nonprofit groups. However, these nonprofits are paid, literally, millions of Federal dollars. I am very troubled by the Refugee Resettlement Act's cost to America. The stark financial problems of our nearly $19 trillion national debt argue against asking the American taxpayer to take on the further financial burden of tens of billions of dollars for refugee resettlement. According to official statistics published by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, or ORR, more than 90 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on welfare. This is alarming from a budgetary standpoint alone. The Congressional Research Service's memo that was issued to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Office of Refugee Resettlement Admissions from the Department of Health and Human Services revealed that 74.2 percent of all refugees up until the year 2013 received food stamps while 56 percent received some sort of medical assistance. The very next year, in 2014, the ORR reported that 92 percent of Middle Eastern refugees were on food stamps, and over 68 percent received direct cash assistance. According to the ORR's annual report to Congress for fiscal year 2013, the majority of the refugees who enter the United States are without any income or assets to support themselves and are given benefits paid for by State-administered programs. Families who have children under the age of 18 are eligible for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program. Refugees who are older, blind, or disabled are eligible for Medicaid benefits and Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, whose trust fund right now is nearing insolvency. The Federal Government does not reimburse States for the costs or for Medicaid programs, which places a huge economic drain on the State governments. As a former mayor and local school board member, I know of the strain this places on local municipalities and school systems as well. Refugees in certain States who do not meet the specifications listed above, such as single adults, childless couples, and two-parent families, are still eligible to receive benefits under the Refugee Cash Assistance, or RCA, and Refugee Medical Assistance, or RMA, programs for up to the first 8 months that a refugee is in the United States. While the States are reimbursed for these programs, they cost U.S. taxpayers about $302.4 million each year. For 2013, the Office of Refugee Resettlement allocated $400 million for transitional and medical services, $150 million for social services, and nearly $50 million in targeted assistance. Along with several other allotments, the total refugee appropriation was over $620 million. What many Americans do not realize is that refugees are eligible for lawful permanent residence, or LPR, status and for all Federal benefits after being here 1 year in the United States. In addition, if they have children born here in the United States, they are eligible for benefits as well. Robert Rector of the respected Heritage Foundation puts the cost of accepting just 10,000 Syrian refugees at more than $6.5 billion for a lifetime of costs. Again, I ask: Is this wise for a country that is nearly $19 trillion in debt? It sounds noble for the Obama administration to propose bringing in more refugees next year, yet there is no full accounting or transparency over what this will cost the taxpayers at the Federal, State, or local level. In a critical time when we must be economically responsible and prioritize our finite resources accordingly, allocating over a half a billion dollars for a program with unknown consequences is not the best use of our government resources. The question at the end of the day is: Can we really afford not to take a further look at the resettlement program? Let's also take a few minutes to examine the national security threats of this. Perhaps even more disconcerting than the enormous costs are the numerous security risks posed by accepting refugees without properly screening or vetting them. As entire regions of the Middle East dissolve into chaos, the ability to conduct the proper vetting of refugees by verifying places of origin, political orientations, criminal records, or sometimes even basic identities is, all too often, simply nonexistent. Already, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson have testified under oath that they cannot properly screen the refugees who are streaming out of these war-torn areas of the Middle East. FBI Director James Comey said he had serious concerns about bringing in refugees from conflict zones. We cannot just call up the Damascus or Libyan police department and run background checks on these refugees from conflict zones. There is already a very good chance that, of the 70,000 refugees per year coming into the United States, terrorists and ISIS followers who are posing as refugees may have slipped through the gaps. ISIS has promised that it will exploit this refugee crisis, and it has already, indeed, been caught attempting to do so. According to a senior Lebanese official, at least 20,000 jihadists have already infiltrated the Syrian refugee camps and are plotting to enter Western Europe. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, jihadist groups typically target European countries that have generous and liberal immigration policies and that are allies of the United States. In line with this, the Hurriyet Daily News, in Turkey, stated this past February that the Turkish intelligence service had warned police that 3,000 trained jihadists were attempting to cross into Turkey from Syria and Iraq and then make their way into Western Europe to target countries involved in the U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition. What is even more alarming is that the news publication reports that some of the members of the group, including their leaders, have already entered Turkey and have already established cells of terrorist operation. Palestinians and citizens from Syria who are between the ages of 17 to 25 have entered Turkey as refugees and plan to travel to Europe through Bulgaria in order to attack anti-ISIS coalition-member countries. In fact, one ISIS operative has claimed more than 4,000 covert ISIS gunmen have been smuggled into Western nations and are currently hiding amongst innocent refugees. He then warned ``just wait,'' according to the International Business Times. In May, the International Business Times also cited Libyan Government adviser Abdul Basit Haroun, who warned that ISIS operatives were being smuggled into Europe by boat. Haroun said that ISIS militants are taking advantage of the crisis by using boats for their own operatives whom they want to send to Europe, and the European authorities can't differentiate between those from ISIS and the actual refugees. If this is not disturbing, then I don't know what is. There are also thousands of former refugees who have settled in Europe over the past several decades now going to join ISIS in the Middle East. According to Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union's counterterrorism chief, nearly 4,000 Europeans are estimated to have left Western Europe and gone and joined ISIS. We have even seen this in the United States refugee settlement communities as well. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, there have been 22 young Somali men that we know of since 2007 that left their new refugee home in the United States to join the terrorist organization al Shabaab. In Somalia, they are fighting against U.S. allies and U.S.-trained troops. There are 27,000 Somali refugees in the Minneapolis area, and President Obama's plans call for thousands more. In Texas, 37-year-old Bilal Abood is an Iraqi American who is suspected to have come to the United States as a refugee or an asylum seeker in the year 2009. When the FBI went to his home, they found evidence of ties with ISIS, including pledging an oath to its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. A former cab driver in Virginia, Liban Haji Mohamed, who came to the United States as a Somali refugee, is on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list for providing material support to al Qaeda and al Shabaab. He is considered particularly dangerous because he worked to recruit other U.S. terrorists for these terrorist organizations. He lived in Alexandria, Virginia, just a few miles across the river from where I am standing right now. According to Mike Mauro, a professor of homeland security and national security analyst at the Clarion Project, a poll was conducted in November of 2014 of 900 Syrian refugees. In this poll of recent refugees, 13 percent, or roughly one out of seven, claim to have sympathies toward ISIS. Alarmingly and incredibly, that amounts to a potential 130 ISIS sympathizers. The Immigration and Nationality Act, known as the INA, specifies that applicants for the resettlement program be subject to various grounds of inadmissibility, including criminal, security, and public health grounds. The grounds of inadmissibility applying to refugee applicants include the broad terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds, or TRIG, in section 212 of the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act. Very disturbing is the fact that, beginning in 2005, the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Department of Justice began exercising their discretionary authority to waive these categories of inadmissibility for refugee applicants. Then, in 2015, the Department of Homeland Security began implementing new additional exemptions for individuals if they only provided insignificant or certain limited material support to terrorists--this includes routine commercial and social transactions--or provided humanitarian assistance to undesignated terrorist organizations. As of this past June, the United States Government has granted more than 15,560 TRIG exemptions to refugee applicants. That is right. More than 15,000 times the Government of the United States has waived past participation with terrorist organizations so that refugees could come and enter into the United States. This must stop. The warning signs are everywhere of the potential of terrorist suspects posing as refugees while President Obama redoubles his efforts to bring these people in the United States and put at risk the lives and safety of the American people. We have recently had two terrorist gunmen in Garland, Texas, who linked themselves to ISIS; the shooter in Chattanooga, Tennessee, who killed five U.S. servicemembers, recruiters; and the Tsarnaev brothers in the Boston Marathon bombing, who killed three spectators and injured an estimated 260 others. What we need to ask ourselves is: How did the Federal Government fail the American people with respect to vetting these refugees? Of course, not all refugees are Islamic jihadists. Indeed, most are not. But the few that are pose a very real threat to the safety and security of the American people. The 9/11 terrorist attackers numbered 19, the Boston terrorists only 2. As elected representatives, our responsibility to the American citizens and our communities should be our number one priority. The Refugee Resettlement Program has long operated under the radar of most Americans. The average American has no idea that this resettlement program is a U.N. plan that chooses which refugees come to the United States and that the United States taxpayer foots the bill. But as it has grown over the last few years and its implementation has become a threat to small communities, saddling them with the problems that refugee resettlement brings without their say-so and often even without their knowledge, residents in several States, including Texas, are starting to ask hard questions. No longer satisfied with past answers, they are showing up at townhall meetings, starting blogs and email lists, digging up information and informing their friends and neighbors of what is really going on with refugee resettlement in such diverse American communities as Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Lewiston, Maine; Amarillo, Texas; the State of Idaho; and many other locations, just to name a few To really see what America's future will be, we have to look no further than western Europe, which has taken in over half a million refugees just this year, not to mention the millions over the past decades. A very popular destination for refugees coming to Europe is Sweden. The country is currently facing a large-scale refugee crisis, and the government does not know where these refugees will live, how they will work, and who will foot the bill for them. According to Boverket, the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, Sweden needs to build half a million homes by the year 2020. This costly housing initiative will cost about $387 million a year and will only fund half of this by 2020. Sweden is also known for its horrific rape numbers. Recent refugees-- and now their Swedish-born children--are responsible for more than half of those convicted of rape, murder, and robbery. Clearly, the existing approach to addressing the plight of refugees is simply not working. Are these really the sort of problems that we want here at home and the United States? Again, I am not saying that brutal rapes, gang violence, and domestic terror are the norms, but, rather, they are the risks that have been seen in Europe that come along with accepting large numbers of refugees without proper vetting and screening. While refugee crises are tragic, crimes committed by transplanted people against unsuspecting, unprotected victims in their own country are even more tragic. The five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula--Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain--have not taken in a single refugee that we know of. Instead, they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is a threat to their safety, as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people. The only help so far from Saudi Arabia is an offer to build 200 mosques in Germany. It is quite apparent that the fear of importing terrorists is real for American communities if Syria's own neighbors will not admit these refugees. My investigation of the refugee resettlement policies have also led to a concern for the most persecuted religious minority in the entire Middle East region: Christians. Of the nine nongovernmental organizations which receive Federal grants and contracts to resettle refugees, six are designated religious charities. However, I could find no mission statements from any of them about saving Christians. The U.N. connection could explain why so many non-Christian refugees are chosen to be brought into the United States while persecuted Christians in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and other nations there have a very hard time getting within sight of the Statue of Liberty. In fact, the glaring shortcoming of the U.N. refugee program is that it falls short of helping one of the most persecuted groups around the world, and that is Christians. According to reporting by Nina Shea and Elliott Abrams, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees refuses to classify Christians as a persecuted group eligible for resettlement on this basis. Why? Because our Department of State chooses to adhere to a definition of refugees as people persecuted by their own government. The murders of Christian men, the rapes of Christian women, and the butchery of Christian children apparently do not count. These people are routinely beheaded, crucified, burned at the stake, sold into slavery, or have their property confiscated. In Iraq, ISIS has blown up dozens of churches, kidnapped Christians and held them for ransom, even after they have already murdered them. Last summer they started marking Christian homes with a red letter ``N'' for ``Nazarene'' before they took the homes and exiled the owners. Unfortunately, for many Christians, exile is a better option than the inhumane atrocities that many in the region are currently facing. Many are sexually enslaved by ISIS, like Kayla Mueller. Kayla Mueller was a Christian American human rights activist from Prescott, Arizona. She was taken captive in August 2013 by ISIS in Syria after leaving a Doctors Without Borders hospital. After she was taken by the terrorist group, she was repeatedly raped by Abu Bakr al- Baghdadi, who is the leader of ISIS. There are still many other Christian ISIS prisoners, including 460 taken from Syria and many more who have already been killed. Many have been taken by al Shabaab in Africa. Pope Francis has even gotten involved and is calling this targeting of Christians a form of genocide. Many Christians who want to flee persecution face the difficult decision of where to turn and where will they be safe. A decision of how to flee and what mode of transportation to take can be critical to Christian families. It was reported this past April that 12 Christian migrants trying to get to Europe by boat were simply thrown overboard by fellow Muslim migrants and drowned. Most are afraid to go to the U.N. refugee camps and fear the actions taken by some of their more radicalized Muslim neighbors within the camps. There are very few Christians in these camps and other non- Muslims because they fear for their own personal safety. Unfortunately for these persecuted religious minorities, the only persons able to qualify easily for U.N. refugee resettlement are those people who are in these U.N. refugee camps. There in the camp they can be designated as priority 1 eligible by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, and then they qualify for resettlement. This is critical to know because the U.N. refugee camps are the only source from which the U.S. will accept U.N. refugees under this resettlement act. Since very few Christians feel safe in these camps, it is apparent that this is the reason that less than 4 percent of the U.N. resettled refugees are Christians. Former Archbishop George Carey of Canterbury said it best when he stated that this inadvertently discriminates against the very Christian communities most victimized by the inhuman butchers of the so-called Islamic State. It is a sad reality for Christians in this part of the world right now. They are so desperate to leave that they have said that they will go almost anywhere except the U.N. camps to try to rebuild their lives. There is another method, however, other than the resettlement act by which it is possible to admit Christians and other groups into the U.S. as refugees. The U.S. State Department has the authority to designate certain groups like Christians as priority 2 refugees, which would enable them to enter the United States without having to be living in a U.N. refugee camp. The U.S. State Department needs to act on this immediately. It defies logic that we would want to potentially import the problems of the Middle East into the very heart of America. The recent terrorist attacks in Garland, Texas; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Oklahoma City, and the Boston Marathon should serve as a dire warning. A report submitted by the Obama administration for proposed refugee admissions says that in the year 2014 the median age of refugees from Iraq and Syria was 28 and 23, respectively, and over half of these refugees were of working age, between 16 years and 64 years of age. In fact, according to U.N. statistics, 65 percent of these Syrian refugees are military-age males, who should be defending their own country and pose a risk of having ISIS infiltrators among them. Again, we don't need to look any further than Europe for all the evidence that we need to see the dire consequences for this program to American safety and security. According to the Gatestone Institute, half a million known migrants and refugees came to the European Union in the first 8 months of 2015. This number will most likely reach 1 million by the end of this year, and this does not include the number of individuals who slipped in undetected. Of the maritime arrivals in Europe, the top countries of origin are Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Nigeria, Albania, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Iraq. For the refugees who arrived by land, the top three countries of origin are Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. There has been much criminal activity, including multiple cases of rape, among refugee camps. On August 6 of this year, police finally reported that a young 13-year-old girl was raped by another asylum seeker at a refugee facility in Detmold, Germany. The rape actually had taken place in June, but the police had kept quiet about it for several months, not wanting to alarm the German local population. It was only after a local media outlet had published this story about the crime that it came to light. According to German social work organizations, large numbers of women and young girls housed in refugee shelters in Germany are being raped, sexually assaulted, or forced into prostitution by male asylum seekers. An editorial comment in the German newspaper Westfalen-Blatt said police are refusing to go public about the crimes involving refugees because they don't want to give legitimacy to criticism of the dangers of mass, unchecked migration from the Middle East. In this refugee population, there are many elements that neither Europe nor the United States would ever invite in, and the challenge is separating them. Europe is dealing with a stark reality that it does not want to face and would prefer to turn a blind eye. Police in the Bavarian town of Mering have issued a warning to German parents not to allow their children to go outside unaccompanied. In another Bavarian town of Pocking, administrators at the Wilhelm-Diess- Gymnasium have told parents not to let their daughters wear revealing clothes to avoid ``misunderstandings'' by the large number of refugees in their town. These are not the only troubling actions unfolding in Germany, a country which has pledged to take more refugees than any other country in the European Union. Levels of violent crime brought about by the groups from the Balkans and the Middle East have turned certain cities such as Duisburg into no-go zones for police, according to a police report from their headquarters in the North Rhine-Westphalia region. This is the most populous state in Germany. This report states that the ability of the police to maintain public order ``cannot be guaranteed over the long term,'' according to Der Spiegel, the newsmagazine which leaked the report. There are districts where immigrant gangs are taking over entire metro trains for themselves. Local residents and businesspeople are being intimidated and silenced. People taking trams during the evening and nighttime describe their experiences as living nightmares. Policemen, and especially policewomen, are subject to high levels of aggressiveness and disrespect. Unassimilated refugees and immigrants have turned large sections of Europe's great cities into no-go zones where even the police will not go. Jewish emigration from France is the highest since World War II. In the near term, nothing will change, according to this report. The reasons for this: the high rate of unemployment, the lack of job prospects for immigrants without qualifications for the German labor market, and ethnic tensions among the migrants themselves. The Duisburg police department now wants to reinforce its presence on the streets and track offenders much more consistently than before. I am not suggesting that every refugee or even the majority of these refugees are engaged in such criminal activity. It is a very small number. But what I am suggesting is that there are some among them who have terrorist intentions that have infiltrated these communities, and it is difficult to screen them out. Even one is too many. President Obama's plan is a potential national disaster waiting to happen. No one is saying that we should not help those who are in refugee camps. We should. America is the most generous and compassionate country in the world. We already are spending $4.5 billion in humanitarian aid, food, shelter, and medicine for these displaced persons in these refugee camps. What we should not do is endanger the American people and the safety of our children and our grandchildren. Each of us serving in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic, and ISIS has already exploited this U.N. program to infiltrate Europe. We have a sworn duty to prevent foreign enemies from entering the United States and allowing them to become domestic enemies, particularly at taxpayer expense. The President's plan and the current policy of the Refugee Resettlement Act defies all logic. I am sure that I will be criticized and attacked for making this speech and sharing these very disturbing facts with you today, but I am compelled by the oath of office that I took when I was sworn in as a Member of the United States Congress to put the safety and security of the American people above political correctness. I didn't come to Congress to be politically correct. I came to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to protect our national security. Protecting our American way of life, the greatest experiment in liberty and freedom in all human history, is our highest calling as elected leaders of this great Nation. Those who criticize me for these remarks should instead turn their criticism toward those who are exploiting refugees and to the terrorists who are infiltrating these very refugees who are entering Europe and the United States. I encourage my colleagues to further investigate the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program and to join me in calling for a moratorium on the President's proposal while we fully examine the costs to the American taxpayer and the national security implications of his policies. Let us reassert our congressional authority over the refugee program and put the safety and security of the American people above all else. It is crucial that Congress take a look at the results of my proposed reassessment of the Refugee Resettlement Program, its cost to the American taxpayer, its threat to our national security, and its impact on our small towns and communities by passing H.R. 3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act of 2015. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 100th Anniversary of the Livingston Volunteer Fire Department, in Livingston, Texas. On August 23, 1915, the Livingston Volunteer Fire Department was officially established following a decision by the city to give Fire Chief Keenan Peebles full authority over the firefighting equipment, which at the time consisted of three hand pulled hose reels, a few fire hydrants, and three hose reel houses. During the last 100 years, 275 citizen firefighters have volunteered their time and energy to respond to 24,000 calls under the direction of 17 fire chiefs. Currently, the Livingston Volunteer Fire Department has 39 fire fighters operating out of three stations. Today, thanks to the support of the local community, the Livingston Volunteer Fire Department is as fully equipped and prepared as any department in Texas. In celebration of this important milestone, we thank all those who have served as volunteers at the Livingston Volunteer Fire Department for their commitment, dedication and bravery.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 702, legislation by my friend and Texas colleague Congressman Joe Barton to lift the ban on American exports of crude oil. Lifting this outdated and unnecessary ban on crude oil exports is a win for Texas and America. It opens up billions of dollars of new economic opportunity for American companies, which will create thousands of good paying jobs. It will help to stabilize the price of energy on the world market, making sure that gasoline and electricity remains abundant and affordable for hardworking families across America. And South East Texas is uniquely positioned to be at the center of it all, with the Port of Houston and other facilities in our area uniquely suited to lead America into this new market. Unfortunately, and predictably, the Obama Administration has threatened to veto this bipartisan bill once it passes the House and the Senate. This is the same Administration that just led the way on a deal to lift the crude export ban that has been in place on the Islamic Republic of Iran, a terrorist sponsoring regime that will use the proceeds from selling crude oil to finance terror and mayhem throughout the world. Americans deserve better treatment from their President than he is giving to terrorists in Iran, and I believe that if he vetoes this bill, we will override that veto.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 461, legislation to establish a select panel to investigate the matters that were brought to the forefront in a series of shocking and disturbing videos recently released by the Center for Medical Progress. These videos, which show Planned Parenthood officials engaging in the sale of aborted baby body parts, must be fully investigated with the utmost detail and attention. Ten videos so far have been publicized depicting Planned Parenthood engaging in fetal tissue trafficking. These actions are despicable, unspeakable and barbaric. This select committee will also, investigate, the practices of businesses involved in the second and third trimester abortions, including partial birth abortions and procedures that lead to babies being born alive in attempted abortions. It's a national disgrace that taxpayer dollars account for 41 percent of Planned Parenthood's revenues, which also serves as the nation's largest abortion provider. The creation of this investigative panel is an important step in getting to the truth and holding the recipients of taxpayer dollars accountable for what they do. It is wrong to take money out of the wallets of hardworking Americans and hand it over to organizations like Planned Parenthood. This select committee will investigate this issue thoroughly--a responsibility that the Obama Administration has refused to do. I look forward to the panel's findings.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 160th Homecoming and Anniversary of the Beech Creek Baptist Church, in Spurger, Texas. Charter members were James G. Collier, his wife Elizabeth Collier, his half-sister Mary Caswell, his stepmother Mary Keith, his daughter Lucy Ratcliff, his brother Thomas Collier and his nieces Volumnia Freeman and Mary Baker. With no Baptist church in this area at the time, eight community members came together on September 24, 1855 to organize a church by the name of Beech Creek. As the oldest Baptist Church in Tyler County with complete records of its existence, Beech Creek is an important and treasured place of worship for our area. As we pause to celebrate another important milestone, let us remember those who faithfully and humbly came before us in service to God at Beech Creek Baptist Church.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, we must pass this bill today, the Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. We have seen the gruesome videos. They are not doctored. I dare say, none of these folks that we are hearing from the other side of the aisle have watched them all. How can they make a recommendation or an appraisal? They show senior Planned Parenthood officials, former employees, and a tissue procurement company discussing the sale of ``intact'' unborn baby parts. This is disgusting. It is inhumane. A society and culture that refuses to stand up and say this will not be tolerated is a society that is in grave danger. A child born alive during an abortion procedure is the most vulnerable living human being on Earth, and they should be granted full legal protections. Medical practitioners who fail to provide necessary care for that baby must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and this bill does just that. While it is so sad that an act of Congress is required to ensure such compassionate care, we must do all we can to provide for the safety of babies that are born alive as a result of failed abortion procedures. It is absolutely necessary that we end this inhumane practice today.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, on this day, the 14th anniversary of the terrible attack of 9/11/2001, I rise to strongly oppose the deeply flawed, dangerous, and unacceptable deal that President Obama has struck with the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. To even stand here in the people's House of the greatest nation on Earth and discuss this course of action taken by the President is both shameful and embarrassing for our country. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. They have the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands. They lead chants of ``death to America,'' whom they call the Great Satan, and burn our flag in their streets. They declared just last week, with certainty, that Israel, whom they call the Little Satan, will be wiped off the map in no less than 25 years. This plan allows Iran to build a nuclear bomb in no less than 15 years. You do the math. The President's deal with a terrorist nation allows them to continue their nuclear program and gives them over $150 billion to fund worldwide terrorism. A vote for this deal, with all of its dire implications for the future of our children and grandchildren, could well be the most regrettable vote that a Member of Congress will ever take in his career.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas not only for yielding, but for getting this Special Order together on such a special issue. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Harris County Deputy Sheriff Darren Goforth and all of America's law enforcement officers. On Friday, August 28, Deputy Goforth was ambushed and murdered while refueling his patrol car in Houston, Texas. I am proud to represent a portion of the city. Deputy Goforth was a committed 10-year veteran of the police force, a proud husband, and the father of two. Tragically, his life was cut short for one simple reason: his uniform. It is hard to express my outrage and my contempt for those who have incited this war of hatred and violence toward our Nation's law enforcement officers. Police officers take an oath to protect and to serve, and it is time they receive the same level of commitment and protection in return. In August alone, we have lost five other police officers. In 2015, we have seen 24 law enforcement officers gunned down. These brave men and women put their lives on the line every single day for our communities and for the safety of our families. They deserve our support and our respect, and it is a travesty that this situation has gotten to this point. This is not an issue of whose life matters most. This is a matter of right and of wrong. And what we have seen in recent weeks is absolutely wrong, and it must end now. Our community and elected leaders, starting with the President of the United States, must stand up for what is right and denounce the hatred being directed at our law enforcement personnel in this country. I, personally, could not be more thankful and proud of the men and women who police our communities. Last week, I was honored to join in a community celebration of the men and women in blue of Tyler County, Texas, my home--and all over America, as a matter of fact. We also gathered together in Jasper County, Texas, on Saturday to honor and rally support for America's first responders; and this week, much of my staff, while I am up here serving in Congress, will be attending an event recognizing the law enforcement personnel of Hardin County, Texas. Our law enforcement officers have a very difficult job, and it is a shame that the violent rhetoric of a very few are putting their lives at greater risk. During this difficult time, I, along with an overwhelming majority of Americans, stand in strong solidarity with our law enforcement officers and offer them and their families our unwavering commitment, attention, and support.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chair, as a cosponsor of H.R. 427 I rise in strong support of the REINS Act. Our bill is imperative to ensuring that federal agencies, and those in the White House, are held accountable for the expensive and intrusive regulations they are imposing on the American people. The REINS Act simply requires an up or down vote by Congress on any costly regulation proposed by a federal agency before it is allowed to take effect. This is a common sense check on regulators who too often ignore the impact of their job-killing regulations. The United States was founded on the principle of separation of powers, a system that exists to protect the people from the unchecked, unilateral actions of a faceless bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the current Administration has issued regulations at record levels and ventured into new regulatory areas that go far beyond the originally authorized regulatory authority. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the last five years, the Obama Administration has issued 82 ``major rules''--or rules with more than $100 million in economic impact--each year. Bureaucratic red tape and costly mandates have forced small businesses to close up shop, have resulted in other businesses laying off workers and have made U.S. businesses less competitive. America's job-creators and small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities, and our economy, and we cannot stand by and let them be overrun by rules and regulations. It's time to rein in the regulators and bring some accountability to their unchecked power. The American people deserve a government that is both accountable for their actions and one that operates under a structure meant to protect their freedoms. I believe it's time that we stand up and put a stop to this abuse of power, and the REINS Act is a critical step towards the achievement of that goal. I'm standing with hard-working Americans, the nation's small businesses and America's job-creators. Let's pass H.R. 427 and restore common sense in our government.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage over the recent disclosures of Planned Parenthood's deliberate efforts to harvest tissue from aborted babies. The practices described by Planned Parenthood officials on these videos are simply despicable, unspeakable, and barbaric. The lighthearted tone of Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood, as she talked about how much fetal tissue parts were worth while eating salad and drinking wine only adds words of insult to this atrocity. A video released just today shows Dr. Mary Gatter, another high- ranking Planned Parenthood official, again discussing fetal tissue payments. Gatter describes using a less crunchy technique to yield as much and many body parts as possible for more money to buy herself a Lamborghini. This is inhumane. As a health provider myself, I condemn it in the strongest terms. I hope the relevant medical licensing boards in their States disqualify her and Dr. Nucatola from ever practicing medicine again. It is a national disgrace that taxpayer dollars account for 41 percent of Planned Parenthood's revenue and that over the past 3 years the organization has received $1.2 billion in funding from Medicaid. All of this for an organization that performs more than 300,000 abortions a year. American families should not be forced to pay the operating costs and salaries for abortion businesses, much less one that engages in fetal tissue trafficking. As an original cosponsor of Representative Black's Defund Planned Parenthood Act, we are working to prohibit Federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood or any entity that performs abortions. I call upon the House and the Senate leaders to allow for its immediate consideration and attach it to any must-pass bill. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin and all of my colleagues who are here tonight to speak on this important issue--and the millions of Americans who are leading this effort in all 50 States. May God bless all of you.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Chad Taylor Johnson. Chad passed away on July 7, 2015, at the age of 32. Chad was an impressive young man who proudly served his country in the United States Army. As a decorated Army Forward Scout, Chad served our nation courageously in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was a close friend of our family and he will be sorely missed by us, his family, his community and the nation he served. My prayers and condolences go out to Chad's loving wife, Jennifer, and his parents, Tillman and Beverly Johnson.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about this Iran deal. President Obama has made a deal with Islamic Republic of Iran, a terrorist regime that regularly leads chants of ``Death to America,'' burns our flag, and has killed hundreds of American soldiers. In April, Energy Secretary Moniz said inspectors would have ``anywhere, anytime access'' to Iran's civil and military sites. Unfortunately, this deal sets forth no such requirement. Under the deal, inspectors can only ask for permission to access Iranian military sites, like their fortified underground facility in Fordow. Decisions about access will be left to Iran's leaders, who have said that inspectors will not be permitted to inspect military sites even ``in their dreams.'' This deal doesn't require the release of the American hostages being held by Iran's Government. It has no acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist. These provisions would signal that Iran is serious about changing their ways, but they have said no. And that is why Congress should reject this bad deal.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, the tragic killing of Kathryn Steinle at the hands of a five-time deported illegal alien and a seven-time convicted felon should never have happened. But that is exactly what happens when a city ignores immigration laws. The consequences of government-sanctioned lawlessness are real, and this is another in a long line of tragic wake-up calls that cry out for deporting criminal aliens. Ms. Steinle's killer, a wanted criminal illegal alien, had been in custody but then was put back on the streets by San Francisco officials. The Obama administration shares blame because they have done nothing to combat sanctuary city policies. Instead, they have encouraged them. We swore an oath to protect the American people from enemies, foreign and domestic. This Congress should take action to combat sanctuary city policies and make sure that criminal aliens are deported. I rise in strong support of legislation that I have cosponsored that would do just that, because it is time to put the safety of American citizens first.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from Iowa and good friend. I appreciate recognizing my wife in the gallery as well. I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I thank him for his leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today deeply and bitterly disappointed and saddened by the recent actions of five unelected U.S. Supreme Court justices and their decision to defy the will of the American people and disregard the rule of law. As a strong defender of traditional marriage and State sovereignty, I believe it is absolutely wrong that five unelected members of the U.S. Supreme Court overruled tens of millions of Americans, including many in my home State, the State of Texas, who voted to enact State statutes and State constitutional amendments to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Under this ruling, five members of the Supreme Court invalidated the votes of over 50 million Americans. That is deeply disturbing and alarming. And the dissenting justices raised this very concern. Traditional marriage has been under assault as courts and some state legislatures have sought to both redefine marriage as something other than between a man and a woman. Most seriously, they are now taking action to penalize and discriminate against those who have religious and conscience convictions against the redefinition of marriage. Over 30 States and tens of millions of Americans acted through the legislative and election process to keep marriage between one man and one woman within their respective States. Unfortunately, various courts took it upon themselves to sidestep the democratic process and to silence those voices with their reprehensible activist decisions. By circumventing the votes of American citizens, the Supreme Court's sweeping decision now sets the Government on a collision course with religious freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Americans with religious conviction will now be forced into a position of great uncertainty. If their religious beliefs conflict with same-sex marriage, they may lose their business license and they could be subjected to prosecution or even litigation. Some are even calling for ending tax exemption status for any church or religious organization that opposes same-sex marriage. This is alarming and it demands action. We have seen the attacks led by IRS bureaucrats like Lois Lerner on conservative groups in the past, and we can expect the same under these discussions. As elected leaders, we cannot and must not back down. We have an obligation to fight for the religious protection of our constituencies against such judicial activism and the consequences that will come from it. I have met with local pastors in Texas over the past few weeks, and they are very, very concerned about this ruling. Congress wants to take immediate action to restore each States' ability to determine their own marriage laws and to protect individuals and institutions with deeply held religious convictions regarding traditional marriage to ensure that they do not face discrimination because of these convictions. As an unwavering advocate for protecting the traditional marriage, I strongly support and have cosponsored a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. We should also pass the First Amendment Defense Act to protect churches, Christian schools and colleges and business owners from being coerced by the government to act against their religious convictions in regards to acceptance of same-sex marriage. In the 36th Congressional District of Texas, where I have spent my entire life, people are very distressed over the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage and its impact on their ability to freely practice their faith. They realize, as do I, that, under the Supreme Court's decision, things are going to get worse as this collision course is set in motion. We will see more lawsuits spring up that challenge the faith of average American families who hold their beliefs dearly, as well as their churches, schools, and charities. Under such uncertainty, I stand in strong solidarity with my constituents, our local and State leaders, and the like-minded colleagues that I have had the great privilege of listening to tonight and having your time yielded to me. I serve with you folks in Congress that we will never back down on this issue. I will work tirelessly on all fronts to defend traditional marriage and the protection of religious liberties granted under our U.S. Constitution.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize another step forward in the great relationship between the United States and Taiwan. This past Friday, June 19th, EVA Air began offering direct flights from Taipei, Taiwan to Houston, Texas. The inaugural flight, number BR- 52, arrived at George Bush Intercontinental Airport shortly after 4:00 pm on June 19th. This is the beginning of weekly direct flights from Taipei to Houston. In June there will be three flights a week which will be increased to four flights a week in July. EVA Air is looking to serve the Taiwanese community of the Houston area by offering these direct flights multiple times per week. These communities are an important part of Texas and I am pleased that EVA Air has further facilitated travel between our nations. EVA Air operates out of Taiwan and is their second largest airline. According to the JACDEC Airline Safety Rankings for 2015 (based on 2014 data), EVA is the 3rd safest airline in the world. Taiwan and the United States already have an outstanding relationship that was codified with the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979. The TRA was created to allow our two nations to foster close ties and specifically ``commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan.'' The TRA enables our two nations to work and partner with one another in a way that is unique from all other nations, and these weekly flights between Taiwan and Houston are just the latest example of how compliance with the TRA continues to benefit our citizens 36 years after its passage.

Mr. BABIN

Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 364, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''