Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my friend.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to control the balance of the Republican time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Arizona an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding some time to me. Madam Speaker, we consider something very serious today, and that is reformation of policing. And we are, as Federal elected officials, reaching into State and local police agencies. And if this bill were to become law, we are imposing the values of us collectively--because that is the way this works--on those State and local agencies. Madam Speaker, when we had this debate in the Committee on the Judiciary, it was often pointed out by some on my side of the aisle that there was movement afoot to defund, and in some cases, even eliminate police agencies at the local and State level. And that was viewed as a ruse, as a deflection from the issue. But in reality, indeed, this bill itself will have that effect. Madam Speaker, see, on the front side of it, you have a radical group of folks, people who are agitating to actually defund or eliminate police agencies--whether they are affiliated with any of my colleagues, I don't know. We have had some Members of this body suggest that their own police departments are cancerous and should be amputated. We have seen that. And then on the other hand, though, this bill actually is a rear- guard action. So you have a frontal attack on State and local police--eliminate them. Then you have a rear-guard action. That is what this does. It brings power to control local and State police to this body. Madam Speaker, as my friend from California said earlier, one of the most unique things about policing is it is tied to community. So we need to consider that. We need to consider that this bill will actually have the impact that so many seem to want, and that is to attenuate State and local policing. So when we start talking about qualified limited immunity and the proposed elimination of that in this bill, I recall that there were several Members from my side of the aisle that wish to see that. I mean, Mr. McClintock said he would like to see it done away with. Others said the same thing. But there were also efforts and attempts to modify the qualified limited immunity rules. Madam Speaker, now why is this important? Because you need to understand that QLI does not protect a police officer from charges for illegal or unconstitutional conduct. It just doesn't. But when you totally eliminate it, the same protections that are there for, whether it is a schoolteacher or social worker or some other government worker, police officers will now be left without protection whatsoever. And the result will be, it will be harder to recruit, train, and retain police officers. We are not going to have the best police officers we can get anymore. Madam Speaker, so what is going to happen, then, is you are going to see fewer police officers. So you are going to see, for instance, in one of the big cities in my State, hundreds of vacancies already there. You will see that move to thousands of vacancies. You will see fewer police on the street. Those police who are there will have to make a calculated cost-risk-ratio assessment. And that assessment will be this: If I get involved in this particular situation, what will be the risk to my family going forward? If you want police officers to make that calculation, I can guarantee you they will say it is better if I sit in my car. I will wait till this situation has been ameliorated and then I will step forward. So you will have less policing, fewer officers, and that will mean higher crime. More crime. Madam Speaker, I can't help but comment on something that was said by the chairman earlier today, something that was iterated the other day in our Committee on the Judiciary hearing on this, where a gentleman said at that time the same thing that the chairman said today, that effectively antifa was a fiction. It was imaginary. It was like a unicorn, for Pete's sake. I refer them to a CNN article from, I believe, it is 2018, where a couple of CNN reporters interviewed leaders of the antifa movement and iterated that some members don't want to advocate for violence but others do because they have an objective and they believe that violence will help them get their objective. I don't think CNN thinks antifa is a fiction. Apparently, here, we do, though. Madam Speaker, but I have to say that as we are talking about taking away--back to the QLI--qualified immunity, one of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary said, Well, look, here is what will happen: We just tell the police officers to go get an E&O policy, get an errors and omissions policy, like I have to do as an attorney or like doctors have to do. Well, I viewed that statement at the time as an accidental omission that elimination of qualified limited immunity will actually leave police officers unprotected and subject to the avaricious litigation of trial attorneys. And I say that as a guy who was a trial attorney. I am really familiar with how that works. So this bill will nationalize policing while at the same time result in higher crime, less policing, less safety. That always means there will be less respect for rights for individuals in this country. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his staunch and relentless pursuit of freedom, his defense of our liberty and this tremendous country. I am going to take a few minutes and talk about some things that are going on in the country today that I think need to be addressed. As we ruminate upon these things and consider the direction of this Nation, I feel like I need to, quite frankly, express my gratitude to that thin blue line that spends so much time working, training, making sacrifices on our behalf, the men and women of the police agencies, local, State, and Federal. Every day that they put on that uniform, every shift that they put on that uniform, at any time day or night, and go out, they understand that they could be called upon to sacrifice the full measure of who they are on our behalf, and I thank them. In fact, I was recently talking to a friend of mine who is a police officer, and he expressed to me his concerns because what we are seeing is inexplicable, inexplicable to the rational mind. We understand protests. We appreciate protests. The First Amendment guarantees us that right. We get to stand up. We get to express our disapprobation of our government. In fact, I think back to Thomas Jefferson, and he was asked one time why he refused to take action against a particular individual who slandered him repeatedly. He said: You know what? My friends know the truth and believe me; my enemies will never believe me; and this individual can say what they want to say. We believe that to be true. So we understand protests. What we don't understand so much is when it becomes lawless rioting where you imperil somebody's right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. That is the problem that we are going through today. Tonight, apparently, one of the statues or monuments was to be dragged down tonight. They have rescheduled the spontaneous tear-down for tomorrow. We will see how that goes for them. The point is, we recognize that we have God-given freedoms. We set many of those forth in the Constitution of the United States, and we have spent 200-some-odd years trying to defend those trying to move toward a more perfect union. So I give my gratitude to the men and women of our police agencies. You may be wearing blue, you may be wearing green like the Border Patrol, but you all sacrifice for us to have our freedoms. I want to talk briefly now, if it is okay with my host, about the bill that was passed out of the House earlier this evening. I have the privilege of serving with the gentleman from Texas on the Judiciary Committee, so we got to hear the markup and the efforts to run that through, and we also got to offer amendments. I know that the good gentleman offered an amendment. I know I offered an amendment. They were not entertained. In fact, we were ridiculed for offering the amendments. The implication by many in that committee was that by merely offering an amendment to that bill, we were racist. That was the implication of what they said. It is unfortunate because nothing could be further from the truth. We were trying to get at some very important changes in that bill, which would make it a viable bill, would make it work, perhaps. But one of the things I find most intriguing is the elimination completely of qualified limited immunity, and I will tell you why. We grant qualified limited immunity to many who work in government. We do that because they are asked to do a hard job, and they won't be able to do that job without taking some personal risks. But the elimination of qualified limited immunity means that not only will those who are criminally reckless or criminally culpable but those who are merely negligent or even those who follow the procedures to the letter who don't violate a constitutional right, who don't violate a law, will be exposed. Not just them, but all of their finances will be subject to garnishment, execution. Houses can be lost, their families left in ruin and desolation. So I posit that because when we were trying to offer amendments to actually provide reforms that we thought would be good and necessary, yet provide some protections, we were rebuffed and told that our attention was nonsensical. Then, on the other hand, if we would just grant them passage of the bill, maybe they would allow us to amend it later. Well, of course, we couldn't stop the passage of the bill. We are a majoritarian body. But here is what this means. If you are a police officer with 19 years in, you know what that means for you? That means you are sitting in your car when somebody needs help. Why would you get out and risk your family and everything you have worked for, for 19 years, on a potential liability? Now, there will be those that make this sacrifice because that is the kind of men and women who enter the police force. But you put them at such a serious risk, they have to make an almost risk-reward calculation every time they encounter a situation that would call for police contact. So, that is what happens. There will be many younger on who will do the same. Others 5 years in, they will say: You know what? I am going to change careers. I can go somewhere else where I don't expose my family. What this ultimately means is more vacancies in the big cities. In my State, the big cities have hundreds of police vacancies. You won't fill them because you can't recruit. You can't recruit, you can't train. You can't train, you can't retain. You are going to have seriously decimated police forces, certainly, in the big cities. One of our colleagues, he said: Oh, the police should just go get E&O insurance like lawyers and doctors. Not really viable. They said, well, the department will remain liable. Well, so will the individual. But if you have joint and several liability and it comes back to the department, and you have a department with five officers in it, they can't afford E&O insurance, nor can they afford to take care of this situation. Departments will be decimated large and small. What does that mean? You are going to see increased crime, higher crime rates. That is what this bill that was voted out of this House today will produce, mark my words. And right now we are having unrest throughout the Nation. I tell you that I am grateful for the police from the agencies State, local, and Federal who are willing to stand in that breach. I call upon our FBI Director to make arrests, and I call upon our U.S. Attorney General to charge and prosecute those who have engaged in criminal conduct. The number one call I get is for a restoration of law and order. That is what they want. That is what my constituents want. And it doesn't matter the political party. That is across the board. So I conclude with these remarks. This country is at a crossroads. It could be the leftist, Marxist point of view that we allow to take over in this Bolshevik-type of conduct that is going on, or we can resort and restore the law and order and the freedoms that we have long held dear and make sure those freedoms apply to every citizen in our society. I have great and tremendous hope in these people. I know our President has that same hope, and I believe we are going to get there. We are going to restore this, and we will be at peace, and we will be prosperous again.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The current bill provides $12 billion to jurisdictions that specifically authorize and encourage the use of surveillance and contact tracing. The bill does not define these terms. Does it allow big tech companies to surveil and trace American citizens and then turn that accumulated information over to the government? How will this data be secured, stored, et cetera? There are many questions that go unanswered. Not the least of these, however, is the question of how much longer the American people acquiesce to unconstitutional and crushing government action. We need to open up America now. I call on our Governors to free their citizens immediately.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, The vote we took on March 27, 2020, may be the most monumental vote during our tenure in Congress. The amount of money we committed our nation to is, in itself, epic. The causes of this legislation--the coronavirus and government reaction to the threat, which has placed our economy into a recession--are equally momentous. The President has wisely acted to limit the spread of the outbreak, and he and Senate Majority Leader McConnell tried to negotiate in good faith with House Democrats. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer chose instead to derail the process. As a result, we have a bill before us that is loaded down with more negative provisions than positive ones. I have spent the past few days imagining what could have been, had the Democrats decided to act as honest brokers. Could we have provided the liquidity and necessary interim relief for the families and businesses of Main Street USA for less than $2 trillion? Most certainly. And we should have found ways to help them because these businesses needed our support, because state and local governments have shuttered them and placed many Americans in economic peril. Could we have acted more swiftly? Without a doubt. Could we have taken the time to repair the unemployment compensation portion of the bill that Senators Scott, Sasse, and Graham noted will incentivize people not to work, because the compensation for unemployment will be superior to their wages? Might we have produced a bill that didn't spend millions of dollars for non-essential, non-emergency-related funding to institutions such as the Kennedy Center, NPR, Smithsonian, Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities? Could we have done this without strengthening the hands of unions in the private sector? These are all painful hypotheticals to think about as we look at the enormous sums of unnecessary spending in this bill. To offer merely a few examples, we gave $88 million to the Peace Corps, which fired over seven thousand volunteers in March. We spent millions more for refugee assistance, election security, and the Department of Education. Some of these efforts may be worth funding, but they certainly have no place in an economic relief package. We currently have a structural deficit of approximately $1.2 trillion--which, coincidentally, is about equal to the discretionary spending of Congress. This proposal dwarfs in spending, in one day, what we spend on discretionary projects in one year. Some economists forecast tough times ahead for GDP growth. If our amazing economy, structurally sound just a few weeks ago, has slower growth while we are more than doubling our structural deficit for the current fiscal year--not counting the input of the Phase 1 and 2 relief packages, and excluding the proposed Phase 4 and 5 packages--we could move into an upside-down position in the ratio of national debt to GDP. Such a situation would likely precipitate a sovereign debt crisis. The President is highly concerned about whether our economic cure may be worse than the sickness. I suggest that the temporary gains this bill provides are outweighed by the acceleration of our already unimaginable national debt, which even before the spending package exceeded $23 trillion. Lastly, I am disappointed that the bill: Grants checks to millions of Americans who do not immediately need them and likely will not spend them. Does not expand Health Savings Accounts. Does not go nearly far enough to deregulate the healthcare industry or the rest of the economy. Grants far too much discretion to the federal bureaucrats to pick- and-choose which companies outside of the airline industry warrant relief, allowing for government to pick economic winners and losers. Places so many strings on small business assistance that the resulting ``loans'' are better categorized as mandates. President Trump asked us all to come together during this national emergency to pass relief that would truly help our country return to prosperity. It's a shame that Democrats chose to leverage the outbreak to include their agenda instead of focusing on the need of the nation. Congress failed to consider historical examples of relief proffered to American citizens. We can learn of the ineffectiveness of direct payments by examining the record of direct stimulus payments on behavior. The federal government has sent direct stimulus payments to individuals or households on three separate occasions, in 2001, 2008, and 2009. The 2001 and 2008 direct stimulus payments were tax rebates of varying sizes offered to the overwhelming majority of individuals or households filing an IRS tax return in 2000 or 2007, respectively (which accounts for approximately 86 percent of the population, both in 2008). In 2008, the year for which we have the best data, $96 billion was distributed to 83 percent of filers (individuals or households at the highest income levels were not eligible for a rebate). The 2009 direct stimulus payments, unlike the 2001 and 2008 payments, were not meant to be nearly universal; instead, they were directed primarily to the predominantly poor or elderly populations who may not have filed taxes in 2007 (or 2008). Stimulus checks in 2009 were paid directly out of various Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Railroad Retirement, and VA accounts, instead of from the Treasury. 55 million individuals received $14 billion from this stimulus. The maximum tax rebate in 2008 was $1,200 for joint filers, $600 for others, and an additional $300 per dependent. The 2009 stimulus payments were $250 per recipient. A 2010 National Bureau of Economic Research survey (Sahm, Shapiro, and Slemrod) found that only 23 percent of individuals or households receiving a 2008 stimulus check indicated they would ``mostly spend'' it. 24 percent of those surveyed indicated they would ``mostly save'' the money, and 53 percent said they would ``mostly pay off debt'' with the funds. The study also found that about 26 percent of families with incomes above $75,000 planned to spend the 2008 rebate, as compared to about 19 percent of lower-income families. Congress did not even discuss the ramifications of the direct payment program, ``Economic Impact Payments.'' The advocates for direct payments exhibited hope and ignored the economic reality revealed in past efforts. A number of my colleagues and I put forward a number of alternatives to the boundless spending package that would have provided immediate and lasting relief without causing potentially long-term harm to our economy. Only a few of the following proposals were incorporated into the CARES Act. All of them have advantages and disadvantages, but they all warranted far more consideration than they received: Payroll tax holiday: This is the original Trump administration plan. The advantage is that it helps individuals who are the biggest aggregate contributors to the economy. On the other hand, it does less to (directly) help poorer workers, workers in tip-dependent industries, and retirees. Temporary deregulation ``Require every agency within one month to identify and suspend significant regulations that will reduce cost in the American economy--both compliance costs and economic social costs. Upon approval by the President, such regulations (except those needed to protect human health and safety) shall be suspended until the President (or Congress) determines that the suspension is no longer needed to provide relief of the economic crisis. Notice and Comment and other APA provisions shall not apply to the suspension of the regulations, but shall apply to the re-establishment of the regulations. (This will reestablish the President's goal of eliminating two regulations for every new regulation.)'' From Club for Growth's Policy Options for the Senate in Replacing the Pelosi/Mnuchin Coronavirus Stimulus with Economic Freedom that protects the American Economy: Prepayment of tax refunds: Give every household a refund of $5,000--roughly equal to the average refund for the 2019 and 2020 tax years combined. This refund could gradually be recouped through the withholding of future refunds or by setting surcharges once the economy improves (perhaps after 2022). Idea from the American Enterprise Institute: Reduction of the pass-through tax rate: The businesses that are going to be hit hardest during the corona virus crisis are small firms of fifty or fewer employees, which make up a majority of businesses in the East Valley and most other parts of the country. We could advocate for your ``Small Business Prosperity Act'' (H.R. 4947) or even more aggressive measures. Modification of the net operating loss (NOL) assessment: The TCJA eliminated ``carrybacks'' and permitted unlimited ``carryforwards'' of NOLs instead. New policy could once again allow businesses to carryback to more profitable times, or, alternatively, it could allow firms to draw down NOLs by making them refundable. Elimination of paid-leave mandates: Senator Johnson tried unsuccessfully to amend the second coronavirus relief bill to strip its paid-leave mandates. His argument was that most small business owners are primarily concerned with preserving liquidity and guaranteeing their future solvency. Paid-leave mandates could inadvertently force some of these rattled small businesses to lay off workers permanently. Most senators who opposed the second coronavirus package did so on these grounds. Protection of industries from regulatory takings: Allow businesses forced to close or pare back operations (i.e. airline companies, restaurants) due to government mandates a reprieve from regulatory takings via temporary, interest-free loans provided by the Treasury. Expansion of tax deductions and/or credits for individuals who work from home: The coronavirus may spur more permanent changes in workforce behavior. In addition to expanding existing tax deductions for individuals who work from home, policymakers could make them more flexible to account for any ``gig'' work that individuals may be forced to take on in the short-term. Expansion of tax deductions and/or credits for individuals who start a business: Some entrepreneurial individuals may see the current crisis as an opportunity to leave their current jobs entirely and start their own businesses. Pausing of foreclosures/evictions/repossessions for homeowners, business owners, and car owners: State governments are already starting to take the lead on this issue in many places, and the Trump administration has started to act at the federal level through executive order. Expansion and streamlining of the SBA disaster loan program: ``The Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loan program for those impacted by the coronavirus should be immediately made available nationwide, eliminating the complex and time-consuming local certification processes. The SBA also should be given the authority to streamline its disaster-loan approval process for amounts below $350,000 in order to provide emergency capital more quickly. This should include removing the requirement that small businesses demonstrate that they cannot access credit elsewhere before turning to the SBA. These loans may be used to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable, and other bills that can't be paid because of the virus's impact. The interest rate is 3.75 percent for small businesses and 2.75 percent for non- profits.'' From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Additionally, because the relief packages, Phases 1, 2, and 3, all were ostensibly passed to provide relief due to the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak, I and my colleagues recommended some of the following measures dealing with health policy. Be forewarned that my Democrat colleagues will attempt to reinstate Obamacare and its plethora of regulations. The policies set faith would be helpful in addressing the virus outbreak and would make the entire medical system more favorable to consumers and providers: Expansion of Health Savings Accounts: We should make it even easier for consumers to use pre-tax dollars on a wide range of services. Some new guidance has already been released by the IRS in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak. Reduction or elimination of FDA regulations on non-invasive medical devices: This reform should already be implemented for smart devices (such as Fitbits), glucose kits, and other comparable items. It could be expanded to include DIY COVID test kits. Clarification and codification of Trump administration efforts to ease telehealth restrictions: President Trump has already begun to lift restrictions for Medicare patients, but not for other populations. Waiving out-of-state medical licensing requirements: This reform is already happening slowly on a state-by-state level, but could be more aggressively championed--or mandated--at the federal level.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, the vote we take today may be the most monumental vote during our tenure in Congress, and the amount of money we are committing is, in itself, epic. I have heard folks from both sides, and particularly the other side, talk about this is all for the families and the working people, and yet I find myself saying, if that is the case, we might have produced a bill that didn't include millions of dollars for nonessential, nonemergency-related funding such as the Kennedy Center, NPR, the Smithsonian, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the National Endowment of Arts and Humanities. Could we have done this without strengthening the hands of unions in the private sector? Sure. But we give $88 million to the Peace Corps, which fired over 7,000 volunteers just 10 days ago, hundreds of millions more to the IRS, refugee assistance, election security, and the Department of Education. These may be worthy or not, but they certainly have no place in an economic relief package, and it is a shame that they are in here. The President is rightly concerned about whether the cure here, the economic cure, may be worse than the sickness. We incentivize small employees to keep their----

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The recurring theme that I have heard today is that we should be doing more to fix FISA. That is not unlike what James Madison described in the Federalist Papers when he described parchment barriers between the various departments of government, meaning the three branches of government, afraid that all of it could be sucked into the vortex of power--those are his words--of the legislative branch. And here we are discussing parchment barriers for those who have basically abused the FISA process so far. We are putting more parchment barriers in place, but they don't mean anything. They don't mean anything if you never see someone prosecuted. So let's talk about one of the things that has been touted, a lengthening of the time of sentencing from 5 years to 8 years if you are found to commit abuse. How about contempt proceedings that are being put in here? But do you know what? We know FISA was abused. We know that people lied to the court, and we know something else. The Inspector General recommended criminal charges be filed on people. These parchment barriers make no sense, have no strength and no efficacy when we don't see someone indicted, charged, or convicted. To say something is criminal in nature doesn't matter when you don't prosecute them. If you want to deter somebody, you must see prosecution so, that way, you get specific deterrence for that individual or general deterrence to the rest of the people who are inclined to commit bad acts. The flaws in this bill are that we don't see application of any of these reforms. So we can tout them all we wish--a whole litany of them--but until you actually hold people accountable, this bill has no efficacy. For that reason, I will be opposing.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Emilie Ma, a young student from my district who has been named an honoree in Arizona by the 2020 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. She was recognized for volunteering her time to help families struggling with poverty. Ms. Ma assists with charitable efforts for low-income families at the Native Health Center. She donates her time to a club she founded at her school named the Modern Health Organization which provides services to patients with mental and physical needs. Ms. Ma has been an example to her peers, inspiring them to care for others and their communities. We must encourage and support the kind of selfless contributions young citizens like Ms. Ma make in the lives of others. We all need more empathy. Everyone can work together to help the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers, like Ms. Ma, are inspiring examples to all of us and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of U.S. Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost. After serving our nation for 25 years, she is retiring this Friday. A native of rural Kansas, Chief Provost first joined the U.S. Border Patrol on January 8, 1995, and was assigned to Douglas, Arizona. Despite the significant culture shock, Chief Provost remained in southeast Arizona another ten years. In 2006, she was transferred to Yuma, where she served for an additional five years. As an Arizona resident, I am grateful for the 15 years she spent keeping our border secure and our communities safe. Chief Provost went on to hold several leadership roles throughout her career, serving the El Paso and El Centro Sectors, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and was appointed Chief of U.S. Border Patrol in April 2017. Every American should be grateful for the men and women who serve in the U.S. Border Patrol. Safeguarding our nation's border can be dangerous and grueling work. But I hear time and again from border- region residents that their work is vital. Chief Provost describes her background as ``pride-in-country and service-to-country.'' She is a great example of and for the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. I thank Chief Provost for her many years of service and leadership of the agency, and I wish her well in her retirement.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Edward Wang, winner of the Congressional App Challenge for Arizona's Fifth District. This competition is offered to middle and high school students nationwide in search for an original app that is programmed to provide a service beneficial to society. Mr. Wang's app, ProAssign, embraces the App Challenge's mission: Inspire, Include, Innovate. ProAssign inspires students to improve their math and problem-solving skills by using a modern resource. Mr. Wang's submission includes each student's understanding of mathematics by assigning additional practice problems to strengthen their skills. His app enables teachers to innovate their teaching methods by modernizing the learning environment to better relate to today's students. I have no doubt that Mr. Wang will continue to inspire our nation's youth to imagine bold solutions to the educational challenges of the twenty-first century. I am honored to have such talent and leadership in my district.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington (Mr. Newhouse). I appreciate his leadership and work on these very important issues. I am grateful to have a few minutes to speak and to address some of these issues that confront us as a nation and confront us in the Western part of this country, particularly in Arizona. Land management and species management are critically important issues everywhere in this country, especially so in the West. Nationwide, the Federal Government owns one out of every three acres. But when you go to the West, Madam Speaker, it is one out of every two acres. In fact, in my State of Arizona, only about 20 percent of the total land area is in private hands. Federal holdings actually exceed the size of the State of Virginia. Of course, Federal control over land means that bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., rather than knowledgeable State and local officials get to set the rules, and that certainly is the case when it comes to the Endangered Species Act. ESA listings, in theory, are meant to give short-term support for species recovery. They are not supposed to turn into permanent classifications. However, as we have been hearing a litany of stories in this Special Order tonight--and as everyone who participates in this country knows--the reality is far different. In fact, less than 2 percent of species have been removed from the ESA list. Another significant problem is that current Fish and Wildlife Service policies make it far easier to list a new species than to examine the current list for potential removal. Excessive ESA listings place enormously costly requirements on private landowners and even State and local government agencies. For this reason, I introduced the LIST Act in the last Congress to greatly speed up the rate in which recovered species may be taken off the ESA list once the Secretary of the Interior receives objective data that the species in question has recovered. I am pleased to see that my good friend from Montana, Representative Greg Gianforte, is championing the LIST Act this year. It is a great piece of legislation. Meanwhile, I am aiming to reform the ESA from an entirely different perspective with a new bill I introduced last week that I am calling the American Sovereignty and Species Protection Act. I would bet that most Americans would be surprised to learn that the ESA currently allows the U.S. Government to buy foreign land--that is right, non-U.S. land, land in foreign nations--to protect endangered species in other countries. While this may be a well-intentioned policy, it is tragically naive. Remember that just because a Department of the Interior official purchases foreign land with the hope that it will be used to protect an endangered species, it does not mean that a foreign government will see things in the same way. Because the U.S. does not have sovereignty over the internal affairs of other nations, and exerts especially little influence over the developing nations in which so many endangered species live, I would much rather see taxpayer dollars used to advance domestic priorities. The American Sovereignty and Species Protection Act, the LIST Act, and all the other ESA modernization efforts we have been talking about today in this packet of bills will help us to scale back bureaucratic overreach and still ensure that critically endangered species are protected. Both aims are achievable. As the Western Caucus' chief regulatory officer, I will work with great leaders like those who have spoken and like our host today, Dan Newhouse from Washington, to ensure that our goals are met. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Newhouse for his leadership and for yielding.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and appreciate him sharing his time with us, and Representative Smith for his tireless work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I am immensely grateful to live in Arizona, a State that prioritizes the protection of the unborn. During my tenure in the Arizona State Legislature, we passed dozens of pro-life bills. In fact, Arizona was recently named one of the top three pro-life States in the Union by Americans United for Life. I appreciate the efforts of pro-life advocates across my district who have worked tirelessly to help countless women choose life for their unborn babies. The Arizona March for Life is taking place this weekend in Phoenix, and I wish them great success. You see, pro-abortion advocates are the Luddites of our time. They deny the reality of what science has repeatedly demonstrated about the unborn. There is nothing that we do in Congress that will have efficacy if we choose to and fail to protect the most innocent among us. This Congress, I introduced H.R. 2742, the Abortion Is Not Health Care Act, to prevent abortions from being considered a tax-deductible medical expense. I have also cosponsored nearly two dozen bills seeking to protect the unborn, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, and the Heartbeat Protection Act. As we are here tonight, I can't help but think of when my wife was pregnant and we expected each of our children. Even without today's technology, we knew that each of those children was special, a unique individual, alive and helpless, dependent upon us, and that we had a responsibility for their safety and well-being. How can this Nation, founded under the principles and understanding of God's direction and hand in the formation of this country, how can we expect the affirming and continued blessings of the Deity, whom we all revere, if we continue to sacrifice on the altar of selfishness these unborn children? Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to end this practice.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's comments. I want to add one comment. When you consider the aid that was the subject of this issue where people said that he withheld aid as a quid pro quo, the one thing that America has not heard enough of is this: the aid was released in perfect compliance with the law. It was released in the time constraints required by the law. In fact, it was released 3 weeks prior to its being required to have been released. That has not been said enough, nor has it been understood enough. So that charge has always been bogus. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).