Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of five students from the Noah Webster Charter School in Mesa, Arizona. Madisin Bauer, Brody Kelly, Lucus Martin, Kelly Conboy, and Logan Carter were elected by their peers to lead the Wildcat's student government in the 2019-2020 school year. To qualify for the election, each student was recognized by their teachers for outstanding leadership skills and exceptional moral character. Over the next year, I have no doubt that these young leaders will excel in service to their school and one another. I look forward to hearing about their experiences as they plan town hall-style meetings, run pep assemblies, and organize community projects. These students' willingness to serve gives me hope for our future. Our country needs people of all ages with hearts of servants to represent and lead Americans who need a voice. I am honored to have such talent and leadership in my district.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced the Abortion Is Not Health Care Act. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Service's treatment of out-of-pocket abortion costs as a medical expense. This bill was drafted after receiving feedback from my constituents that they no longer wanted their tax dollars to support the abortion industry. It is unfathomable to me that my Democratic colleagues in Congress continue to not only condone the practice of abortion but allow taxpayer dollars to subsidize this abhorrent practice. For years, the pro-abortion movement has marketed abortion as a form of reproductive healthcare, but it is time for us to be honest with ourselves. Healthcare is primarily a restorative function, one that helps our bodies and minds to heal from disease or ailment. Under no circumstances should healthcare include the intentional taking of life. The Abortion Is Not Health Care Act is a small step towards ending the Federal Government's treatment of abortion as a healing medical practice. I am happy that several of my colleagues and many pro-life groups, including March for Life, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Center for Arizona Policy, Arizona Right to Life, and others have endorsed this bill. As Members of Congress, we have a duty to protect life. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to uphold the call for human dignity at all stages of life, including while still in the womb, and support the Abortion is Not Health Care Act.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and my colleague from Florida for leading this Special Order this evening because I am not quite sure that we talk enough about China here on the floor of the House. If you look at any time horizon, short-term or long-term, China is the most serious challenge to our Nation's interests. There are other challenges, to be sure, but let's take a look at what China is about. Geographically, it is similar in size to the United States. It is economically enormous, with more than $12 trillion GDP, which is second only to ours on an annual basis. And on this point, it is important to remember that they hold $1.1 trillion worth of U.S. debt. They are militarily mighty. The PLA, People's Liberation Army, is the largest force on Earth, with more than 2 million personnel. Gigantically populous, with more than 1.4 billion people, it dwarfs the size of our own Nation's 325 million people. Is it possible that those numbers indicate a stronger China than is actually the case? Perhaps. After all, hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens who don't live in the nation's most prosperous cities are still living in poverty and probably will continue to do so for some time to come. It is also true that China's military today, while large in number, does not have the advanced capabilities of our own military. But these shortcomings are almost certainly temporary, and we should assume that China will continue to close these gaps relative to our own Nation's power. So what should we do? I want to highlight four areas of concern, vis- a-vis China. First of all, the South China Sea. Perhaps most, importantly, we need to push back on any Chinese efforts to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese lake. They have been doing this for decades now. China is rapidly modernizing its naval capabilities and builds man- made artificial islands near the Spratly archipelago. Well over $5 trillion worth of commerce passes through the South China Sea each year. We must continue to unequivocally assert U.S. rights to fly, sail, and otherwise operate in these international waters, and we also must make sure that our allies do, as well. Taiwan, we must continue to reject China's efforts to bully Taiwan into accepting a ``one-China'' policy. Taiwan has been a great friend to the United States for the past 40 years that the Taiwan Relations Act has been in effect, and it is a key strategic partner. It is uniquely positioned to buffer China's eastward expansion into the Pacific. We need to continue to strengthen our critical relationship with Taiwan. Huawei and other Chinese technology companies jeopardize the security of our Nation's telecommunications network. I strongly support the Trump administration's efforts to prevent Huawei from participating in U.S. 5G modernization efforts, and I hope that Secretary of State Pompeo will be able to convince our Western European allies to do likewise. Finally, I will talk about trade. This subject is very much in the news today. I am cautiously optimistic that the Trump administration's carrot- and-stick approach to trade negotiations will bear fruit, even if the tariffs are painful in the short term. At the very least, I appreciate the fact that we finally have a President who is willing to confront the Chinese about decades' worth of bad behavior. China has been a notorious currency manipulator ever since it began to modernize its economy in the late seventies. It also shamelessly rips off our Nation's intellectual property. We simply can't engage in mutually prosperous trade with China if that nation refuses to play by the rules. My last remarks on trade are important because they highlight an important point that I hope does not get lost in this discussion: Our Nation can and should aim for a mutually beneficial relationship with China. In fact, our two nations can continue to grow rich together. Just because China will be our geopolitical rivals in the coming years and decades does not mean that they will necessarily become our enemies. But having said that, we must not be under any illusions about China's great power ambition, and we must not give an inch when China challenges our own Nation's prosperity or our interests. Mr. Speaker, I encourage our Members in this body and I encourage the administration to continue to do all we can to push back on China's unfair trade practices and attempt to turn the South China Sea into a lake controlled by China, thereby manipulating trillions of dollars worth of trade.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, if this unanimous consent request cannot be entertained, I urge the Speaker and the majority leader to immediately schedule the born-alive bill so we can stand up and protect the sanctity of human life, and I ask others to join in that request.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and I ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Gosar, and I appreciate his leading the Western Caucus Special Order hour of the day and all that he does, and the members of the Western Caucus, on these issues. President Obama attempted to implement the Paris Agreement domestically through an executive order he issued in September 2016, but the Paris Agreement was never ratified by the United States Senate as is constitutionally required for a treaty to exist and, therefore, is not a legally binding treaty. In June 2017, President Trump announced that the U.S. would cease all participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which is fully in its power to decide because, again, U.S. involvement is not legally binding. I applauded that decision then; I continue to applaud it now, and this is one of the reasons why. This Paris accord has little efficacy. It will not save the world. Even if we take at face value the assumption that climate change poses an existential threat to the planet, U.S. compliance with the Paris Agreement, or even a full embrace of a far more expansive Green New Deal, would do little to avert that result. The U.S. is no longer the primary source of global CO2 emissions. In fact, between 2005 and 2017, our Nation has reduced CO2 emissions by 862 million tons, and market forces are increasingly pushing us toward using cleaner and more efficient fuels. Meanwhile, during roughly the same period, China increased its emissions by 4 billion tons and India by 1.3 billion tons. It is extremely unlikely that either China or India are going to fulfill their requirements within the Paris Agreement. But even if they and every other country in the world, including the U.S., were to comply, we would still only succeed in reducing global temperatures by less than one-half of 1 degree Celsius by the year 2100. That is according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Like the Green New Deal, H.R. 9 is nothing more than cynical partisan messaging. I urge everyone in this Chamber to vote ``no.''

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his comments. We are here today because a Member of this body issued a series of anti-Semitic statements, and I couldn't help but think of what justice means and what mercy means. Well, we want to temper justice with mercy. So the first time we come to understand that maybe the depth of what was said was maybe accidental; the second time maybe less so; and certainly the third time, we now have a pattern. We begin to wonder how we extend mercy when justice cries out against one who is anti-Semitic. It doesn't help that the Democratic leaders have attempted to rationalize and protect this individual, whether it is appearing on the cover of a national magazine, whether it is saying: ``She did not understand the full weight of the words.'' One wonders what more needs to be done to try to eradicate anti-Semitism from this body. Some have said that to specifically condemn these statements and remove her from her committee assignment would stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. But the problem with that argument is this: The comments made were not directed at Israel, were not directed to policy, were not directed towards the American-Israel relationship. They were, instead, directed to Americans with the allegation that they have a dual loyalty, which is an ancient anti-Semitic cliche that has been used to target the Jewish community throughout history. How about this in the future? If a Member of Congress desires to criticize Israel or criticize American policy towards Israel, maybe they can do so without resorting to an anti-Semitic rhetoric that is inflammatory, unnecessary, and, frankly, it is hateful. So we stand here today and we look at a resolution condemning hatred of any kind. Who can disagree with that? I don't. I don't disagree with that. But what I will say is you cannot temper justice any longer with mercy, with rationalization. Sooner or later, you have to face what the awful truth is. And if someone is going to persist in making anti- Semitic, hateful statements, to bury that is inexcusable.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) for yielding me time. Let me just tell you that this really is a monstrosity of a bill, the ``Democratic Politician Protection Act.'' You see, H.R. 1 was referred to 10 committees, but only one marked it up; 100 pages of this bill fell within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. We had a hearing but we didn't get to mark it up, which I think was designed--who knows why it was designed, but we couldn't expose all the flaws of this bill. Let me talk about two of them right now, because these both are patterned after the Arizona law, oddly enough. The Independent Arizona Redistricting Commission in Arizona, passed by the voters, upheld by the United States Supreme Court, and guess what. We are not going to qualify under this bill. That redistricting commission produced, actually, a Democratic majority, so we have a blue majority in the house now. But I tell you what, the registration numbers all were for the red, but the IRC in Arizona changed that. But guess what. Under this bill, it is not good enough. It is going to be taken out of the hands of the State and put in the hands of the Federal Government. That is a violation of the Constitution and the spirit of electoral law and redistricting throughout the country. Let me talk about this, having heard now that this is going to be not from taxpayers but from lawbreakers who are going to fund this. Arizona has something called the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. I was there when that came out, funded ostensibly by lawbreakers who, oddly enough, are taxpayers. They are taxpayers. And guess what else? Arizona's courts have said they are taxpayers and that the whole scheme was problematic. That is what is happening with this particular bill. It is rife with problems throughout, but these two problems really are dilatory to this bill. I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, since the United States has a very mobile population--roughly 40 million Americans, or 14 percent of the United States population, move each year--voters rarely inform elected officials when they move, and voters can often be on the voter rolls in two or even more different States at one time. Unless States have an efficient way of communicating with one another, it is possible that they may not be able to identify an individual who is on the rolls in two different States. This bill, H.R. 1, makes it more difficult for States to use systems provided for under the National Voter Registration Act and under HAVA. Under current law, States can send out cards and go through a process, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Ohio in 2018. What my amendment does, simply, is require that new State residents applying for a driver's license notify the State if they intend to use their new residency for the purpose of voting; and if so, the amendment would mandate that the new State notify the applicant's previous State of residence so its chief election official can update voter lists accordingly. The amendment protects voters who are only making temporary moves to another State, while enabling States to more efficiently manage the voter registration file for the vast majority of applicants who are making a permanent move to a new State. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I tell you that H.R. 8 will do little more than further burden law-abiding gun owners. Without an unconstitutional Federal gun registry, this bill is impossible to enforce. There is no gun show loophole. Federal law is the same regardless of where a firearm sale takes place. Federal law requires all firearms dealers to be licensed and to initiate a background check before transferring a firearm to a nondealer, regardless of where that transfer takes place. As for nondealers, Federal law prohibits transferring a firearm to anyone known or believed to be prohibited from possessing firearms. That is already the law. According to DOJ, less than 1 percent of criminals in State prison for firearm crimes get their firearms from dealers or nondealers at gun shows. According to ATF, 6 percent of Federal armed career criminals got their firearms from dealers or nondealers at gun shows. Online sales loophole: There is no online sales loophole. The Federal law is the same regardless of how people communicate about selling or buying a firearm. Federal law prohibits anyone, licensed firearm dealer or not, from shipping a firearm to a person who lives in another State unless the receiver is also a dealer. Dealers must document all firearms they receive. H.R. 8 also fails to include many of the realistic exceptions to the new background check requirements for private transfers, such as transfers between law enforcement officers outside of their duties, transfers to concealed carry permit holders, transfers to museums or licensed collectors, transfers to Active Duty military, and many more. H.R. 8 includes an exception to the background check transfer if the transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. But that transfer is only allowed for the length of time that it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. It doesn't even define those terms. What about a false alarm? Does it extend to domestic violence fears if the person is not getting attacked immediately? Gun rights groups have argued that without a definition, this provision would only provide protection in instances where it is likely too late for the victim to make it out safely. Finally, H.R. 8 would not have prevented any of the recent high- profile shootings. In those cases, the shooter either passed a Federal background check or stole the firearms they used.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, and I appreciate his focusing on the interest, because he is right. In just a few short years, we will be spending more of our budget on interest than we do on defense; and then a couple of years after that, more on our interest than we spend on Medicare. Think about that. Think about where we are headed because of our profligate ways. In the first chart he showed, I was struck, as I remembered growing up in the Cold War era. Madam Speaker, I think those of us who grew up in the Cold War era remember that contest between us and the former Soviet Union and the amount of money spent by both sides. It is dwarfed by the spending that we are embarking on today as a percent of our GDP. That is where we are. That is where we have come. So it continues to be a problem in so many ways and on so many levels. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado, Mr. Buck, and I appreciate him raising that important issue, that it is an oddity, isn't it, in Congress, that somehow we segregate money. We segregate money and say, oh, well, this money doesn't matter so much. But it becomes fungible when you are looking at the accumulation of debt that we are heaping upon our future generations. I appreciate the gentleman bringing that to our attention and reminding us, and I would just say, I appreciate his voting record, because I have watched it closely, and he is a man of his word when he says he has been fighting to balance the budget and reduce our deficit since he got here, because his voting record is actually true to that, and I appreciate that very much. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), for his comments and his efforts and his willingness to stand on this important issue and recognizing--and promising to people and responding to that promise; because I can tell you, when I first considered even running for Congress, one of the things that motivated me was this horrific debt, which I have watched explode even more since I got here; not because I am here, but in spite of my efforts. So, today, we are preparing to introduce our resolution, which will be later this week, Senator Perdue, his cosponsors, my 50 original cosponsors--more than 50 original cosponsors. And we recognize that, as of today, the national debt is more than $22 trillion. You have heard that. Can you hear it enough without taking action? The resulting total interest expense for the fiscal year 2019 is $192 billion. $192 billion. Interest does not sleep. It doesn't take a holiday; it doesn't take a vacation. Interest accumulates without ceasing until you pay your debt. Our national debt as a percentage of GDP is 104 percent. The last time a Federal budget was balanced and was signed was 1997. Our total Federal tax receipts for fiscal year 2018 were $3.329 trillion. But somehow--and we all know how--our Federal outlays totaled $4.1 trillion, with a deficit of $780 billion. And we know how. We know how that happened. We look to each other in this body. Since the last time Congress balanced the Federal budget in 1997, Congress has failed to maintain a fiscally-responsible budget and has relied on raising the debt ceiling. How many times have we raised the debt ceiling? It is almost more than you can count. Congress failed to pass a balanced budget for fiscal year 2019 and failed to restore regular order to the legislative process by not allowing Representatives to offer and debate amendments. When we have regular order, it permits the House to separately debate and adopt all appropriation bills in a timely fashion and facilitates congressional oversight on Federal spending. Estimates are Medicare will run out of money in 2026, Social Security in 2034. As my friend from Virginia, Mr. Cline, said: Congress' ineffectiveness has caused the U.S. credit rating from Standard & Poor's to drop from AAA to AA+. Without a targeted effort to balance the Federal budget, our credit will surely continue to fall. President Trump's National Security Strategy highlights the need to reduce the national debt through fiscal responsibility. Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that: ``Any nation that can't keep its fiscal house in order eventually cannot maintain its military power.'' Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned that: ``Our continued plunge into debt is unsustainable and represents a dire future threat to our economy and to our national security.'' Former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, and Chuck Hagel warned: ``Increase in the debt will, in the absence of a comprehensive budget that addresses both entitlements and revenues, force even deeper reductions in our national security capabilities.'' And former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen warned: ``I believe the single biggest threat to our national security is debt.'' And so what must the House do? First, we have to recognize that the national debt is, indeed, a threat to our national security. We must realize that deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous. We must restore regular order in the appropriations process, and we must commit to addressing the fiscal crisis faced by the United States. I mentioned it before, but when you are spending a pot of money and you have limited resources, regardless of how great those resources are--I mean, we have had record tax revenue for the last 14 months, record revenue, more than any time in the history of the United States of America, and we still outspend that revenue. As we do so, we have to borrow money, because we have created a structural deficit. So, foundationally, we put ourselves in a position where we have to borrow money; and when you have to borrow money, you have to pay interest. As you have to borrow more money, which we do, you are going to start crowding out what you can spend those limited resources on. Who holds our debt? One of the biggest holders of our debt is also one of our greatest potential adversaries, and that is China. China has been, for the last 25 years, expanding their military, building a blue- water navy, expanding their capacity for rockets and missiles, and also taking in our debt. This places us at risk if we are ever in a conflict, which I pray we never are. I hope we never are. But if we are in a conflict with an adversary who holds significant amounts of our national debt, we are at risk. And you have to acknowledge that. What has helped us out so far is the fact that the U.S. dollar is the international medium of exchange in international transactions, economic transactions. If we were to lose that, the ability to borrow funds to sustain our unsustainable spending would go away. And I bring that back to China. China has ambitions to make its own currency a regional currency of exchange. They would like to replace the United States dollar as the international medium of exchange as well. What else is an actual physical problem when you have the kind of debt and deficit spending that we have is that you cannot pay to replace and maintain your internal infrastructure, and we see that today. Bridges, roads, airports, all of these need maintenance. They need upkeep. They need expansion. We need new roads. We need new highways, but we can't pay for it, because we are going to be in a position of being overextended. That places us at risk, because you do need internal infrastructure. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for taking time to come down and give us his insight on this monumental problem. One of the things that he talked about, Madam Speaker, is that we have got to take care of our processes, our procedures. He is right. It doesn't matter whether it is Republican or Democrat; our processes have been broken. I can't even begin to tell you. I have been here a little over 2 years. I bet you we have done a dozen and a half short-term spending bills, continuing resolutions. I bet it is that many. It seems to me like that many. I think we did three government shutdowns last year. I don't know when the next one is going to be. It wouldn't surprise me if it was 2 weeks from now, whenever it is. But the reason we do those things is because our budget process fails. I remember sitting in a meeting and I heard someone say: We have got a 10-year budget plan to balance our budget. And I heard somebody else stand up and say: Well, I have been here 10 years. Ten years ago, I was told we had a 10-year budget plan, so we ought to be up to snuff. We ought to be balanced by now, because it is 10 years since that 10-year budget plan. I think it was Mr. Yoho who said that. Madam Speaker, I yield back to Mr. Yoho.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to lead this Special Order tonight as we consider the national debt as a security threat to the United States of America. I thank Senator David Perdue for his leadership. He introduced a concomitant resolution in the Senate. I also thank the more than 50 Members of this body who are original cosponsors to this resolution. I also thank the more than one dozen conservative groups that endorsed this resolution and have come to understand that a structural deficit that nears a trillion dollars every year, a national debt that exceeds $22 trillion, is indeed a threat to our national security. Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, when the gentleman from Texas talks about the crowd-out effect, that is what we see as one of the threats to our national security. When you look at the spending that is being bloated and plussed-up and increased, the ramifications of borrowing more and more money for an insatiable appetite to spend the Federal revenues and beyond to the tune of almost a trillion dollars a year--and it will continue to rise, make no mistake about that, unless we do something--it will ultimately crowd out spending for things like the military, spending for things like transportation and infrastructure, spending for any discretionary item. We are on that fast track today, so I appreciate my friend from Texas talking and discussing the crowd-out and the impacts on our future and our future generations. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams).

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, Congressman Williams from Texas, for his willingness to take a strong stand on this. I am particularly impressed by his reference to President Trump's National Security Strategy, which specifically mentions a portion of it is to bring down our national debt, to try to become a better fiscally situated nation. That will help our national security, now and in the future. This is exactly what President Trump is talking about. That is what we are talking about. That is one of the issues that we have before us today. I am grateful to my friend, the gentleman from Texas, who brought that forward and is supporting this important resolution. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield to my friend from Maryland (Mr. Harris), the great congressman.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Florida, when we look at that and the promises constantly, this is getting to my point: The process needs to get back to regular order. It needs to get back to 12 individual bills--this is what we talked about--12 individual bills that go through a process where there is debate; there are amendments; there is discussion; and there is accountability. Nothing provides more accountability than bills that have single subjects; nothing provides more transparency than bills that have single subjects; and nothing allows the American people to see what we are doing in Congress like single subjects. So when you take 12 subjects, which are your budget bills, and you combine 3 or 4 of them into a minibus and 6 or 7 into an omnibus, and you say vote on these things--usually we are given just a short period of time to read those things and analyze them anyway; usually they come in under some closed rule or some highly structured rule--well, you are preventing a couple of things: Number one, we are not going to get to a balanced budget because, ultimately, what you are also preventing is accountability, because when the American people can see how you voted in a single area on a single issue, they know whether they agree with you or not. They know whether you should be doing that, and they will let you know. They give you the feedback. That is the accountability that we need if we are going to balance this budget over time and correct our course. Now, there is an economic theory called path dependence. Sometimes it is called increasing returns. Kenneth Arrow wrote a lot about this, and what it boils down to is this: It is an analysis, really, of why decisionmakers make suboptimum decisions and then persist on the course even after they know it is a suboptimum decision. Well, what typically happens is regimes and institutions are built up. There is feedback, and people will persist on that because they are building up regimes and institutions; and, ultimately, they have propelled themselves so far down, they are what we call locked in. To exit that path, the cost is so high that they don't want to exit that suboptimal path and move to a more optimal path. But I am here to tell you tonight that as long as we stay on this suboptimal path where we don't have these 12 budget bills, we don't get back to regular order in budgeting, as long as we do CRs and then claim that we have done a normal budgeting path when we have created cromnibus bills or omnibus bills or minibus bills, we are not going to be able to exit the path that we are on. If we are going to sustain this Nation, we are going to need to exit the path that we are on and move to a more optimal path. That is really what this resolution is about. It is encouraging people from both sides of the aisle. I am not blaming one side or the other. I am just saying that if we are going to get this done, everybody in this House has to look internally. Everybody in this House needs to say: What are we doing with our process? Everybody needs to recognize that if we continue on this path, at some point there is no more path to run down. We just heard from a series of speakers that the numbers go up and, at some point, you reach a tipping point, and that tipping point says you cannot go forward. I would rather we move over to a suboptimal path now and pay that price, which is typically a short-term, corrective price. In the scheme of things, it may take longer than just a short- term, but we have to move over because, if we don't, our choices are taken away from us. I will tell you that if we would have gotten on the path 2 years ago, we would have had more choices and more options. Every day we go further down this path, the fewer options we have until the end. Mr. Yoho is correct, and all of my friends who have spoken tonight were correct, and the more than 50 cosponsors here, they are all correct: If we don't do something, it will be imposed upon us. If it is imposed upon us, we won't have control. We will not be able to handle this in a way where we hurt the fewest people, where we can feather the landing as much as possible, where we can maintain our economic status, where people can still find jobs, and where people can achieve the American Dream that they perceive that they want to achieve. Those things get taken away from us because, ultimately, this country is built on individual freedom and individual accountability. If we have to take that horrible measure of receiving something like our debts being called in, or we can't find lenders, or the cost of our loans--imagine if the cost of our debt today would just move up a couple of points--imagine what that would look like. If we can't do this of our own volition, we will be subject to someone else's will and the very essence of the American Dream--individual freedom and individual accountability--will go away. And why? Because that accountability will be foisted upon us by coercive forces. Madam Speaker, I conclude tonight with gratitude to the 50-some-odd men and women who have signed on to this resolution. I implore all in this body to join myself, to join me, to join Senator Perdue and those who have signed on and sponsored a companion resolution in the Senate, and let's make the hard choices today so that we might preserve the freedoms for our children and grandchildren. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for leading this Special Order. Madam Speaker, I want to speak to two specific aspects of this. First of all, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1, the sweeping unconstitutional attack on the electoral system that it represents. It would federalize our electoral system and usurp the authority of States and their citizens to manage their own elections by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional restrictions that interfere with their fundamental democratic rights. H.R. 1 would restrict freedom of speech and undermine Americans' constitutional rights under the First Amendment by increasing the power of the Federal Government to regulate and control political speech. It would criminalize a vast range of legal activities, increase government censorship, and impose an enormous administrative compliance burden on candidates that would make it harder for everyday Americans to participate in our political system and even run for office. It would also weaken important safeguards to ensure the integrity of our electoral system and guarantee that every American vote is counted and protected. This could expose future elections to greater risk of cyber manipulation and mass voter fraud. It could limit the ability of election officials to ensure that only eligible voter votes are counted and cripple the effectiveness of State voter ID laws. Now, I have to speak to an issue that particularly impacts those of us who live in States that have independent redistricting commissions. I live in Arizona. Many years ago, our voters said: We don't want the legislature designing the congressional districts and the State legislative districts anymore; we want an independent redistricting commission, so they voted for it. So we have a five-member commission: two Republicans, two Democrats, and an Independent. They design the congressional districts. This bill would take that away from them. It would bring it back to Washington, D.C., after creating an unelected board that would then design these districts for States. Now, I ask you, why would that be better than the independent redistricting commission in Arizona that was approved by the Arizona voters? It doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't make sense to my constituents, I can tell you that. We struggle enough. We struggle enough with the independent redistricting commission with Arizona appointees. Imagine if we have no connection to the appointees. I am also always amazed at people who don't get to Arizona and don't realize the vastness of that State. It is a unique State: 7 million people--5 million of them in one county, one metropolitan area; 1 million in another county; and then another 1 million sprinkled throughout this vast State. That takes local knowledge and it takes local experience to create those districts, there is no doubt about it. The Arizona Constitution is filled with the criterion on how to redistrict in Arizona. This would usurp the Arizona Constitution. H.R. 1 is fraught with many, many problems. I have just gone through a couple of them for you tonight. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for his leadership on this, his fight, and I appreciate him sharing time with me tonight.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I applaud and give my thanks and gratitude to the gentleman from Washington for his efforts in leading this today, and to the Congressional Western Caucus and the members who are exposing what is really not a Green New Deal, but really is a green socialist manifesto. Here is what we need to understand about this. This is so broad and expansive, as Mr. Newhouse has said, it will, basically, invade every aspect of every American's life, and it will cost tens of trillions of dollars to implement. How will we pay for that? We are going to pay for that with crushing new taxes on individuals, families, and companies. We are going to destroy the current foundation of our entire American economy. There will be more borrowing, not just from the public sector, but from the private sector. The public sector is in trouble because the Federal Government just hit $22 trillion of national debt. The question is, what will the impact of this be on the environment? It would do little to solve the alleged problem of carbon in the atmosphere because the United States is no longer the primary source of carbon emissions. Between 2005 and 2017, our Nation has reduced CO2 emissions by 862 million tons. Today, the U.S. is responsible for only 15 percent of global CO2 emissions. During roughly the same period, China increased its emissions by 4 billion tons and India by 1.3 billion tons. Needless to say, the GND doesn't explain how we would compel other nations to change their behavior. But domestically, as I have said, we are going to emasculate our economy. The coal, nuclear, natural gas, petroleum, and air travel industries will be wiped out, and all of the industries that support those industries. That means hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs almost instantly. At the same time, the Green New Deal, or the green socialist manifesto, is going to guarantee a wage. It is going to guarantee income for everyone. As Representative Ryan said, we can't green the economy without the power of the free market system. He is right. That is the ultimate point of what I want to say today. We know that science doesn't support the green socialist manifesto, but we know something that is really critical to understand. This proposal, which today is so vast, so encompassing, and so primitive in its creation, is also so destructive to our economy and multiple industries, multiple sectors of our economy, that I would say there is only one way that you can implement such an outlandish and reckless idea, and that is to use the awesome, overreaching power of government to not just induce, but to coerce implementation of this faulty idea. In its scope, breadth, and depth, this plan is authoritarian in nature. It will require government flexing its muscles to mandate activities and forbid other actions in every American's life. We can't afford this plan. This plan will not provide what it says it is going to do. Moreover, in a free, constitutional Republic, you can never allow this kind of socialism to be combined with authoritarianism.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Walker for holding this Special Order. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know I continue to be astonished that our Democratic Members--our colleagues--turned a blind eye to what is happening in this country because of what is going on on the border. Unlike many in Congress, I have been down to the border multiple times. I grew up just a number of miles--60, 70 miles--from the border myself. I have been down there many times. A couple of weeks ago I took eight Congressmen with me. We toured the border. We met with multiple ranchers, and their story is very similar. We got to talk to one guy-- four home invasions, more than 15 burglaries, endless vandalism, and trespassing daily. He was not unique. Another family has set up their own cameras and sensors so they can see. We watched them. We watched the people coming across. This is hour after hour of footage. Do you know what? These were young men coming across with carpet slippers so you couldn't see their footprints. I didn't see the moms and children coming across. I saw the young men carrying bundles of drugs across. On Monday the ``Washington Examiner'' published an article detailing the fear of border residents living in New Mexico. They, like those in Arizona, Texas, and California have been burglarized. They find groups of illegal aliens squatting in their barns with bundles of drugs on their land. But they won't call the authorities because they fear retaliation from drug cartels. Many of the people we met with said: we will meet with you on condition that you don't reveal us meeting to the press because every time the press reveals something, we are retaliated against by drug cartels. Yesterday at the end of a Judiciary Committee hearing about gun violence, after going on a screed--a demagogic tirade--about the importance of protecting every life, this Member said that every life is valuable. I agree with that. But she is valuing some over others. Why wouldn't she focus on policies that would help the lives of all Americans through border security? In 2015, a young man from my Congressional District, Grant Ronnebeck, was shot and killed by an illegal alien. Not only should that murderer not have been in possession of a firearm, he shouldn't have even been in the country. He had been deported before, yet he comes back because the border is porous. For some reason, no Democrat is willing to ensure that criminally violent aliens like Grant's killer aren't released back into our community. I introduced a bill called Grant's Law to ensure no criminal alien can be released from custody. I can't get a single cosponsor from the other side of the aisle. Two weeks ago 250 pounds of fentanyl and 400 pounds of additional drugs were interdicted in Nogales. That is the number one sector for drug seizures in this country. Forty percent of all drugs that are interdicted are in the Tucson sector. Just today, in the Ajo region, 300 people crossed--today--2 hours ago. I am told by experts that we only interdict 15 percent of dangerous drugs and fewer than 50 percent of the people who are crossing. Mr. Speaker, I call out for my colleagues across the aisle: Help us. Help this country. I am telling you: Walls work. We have to stand with the President. I stand with the President. I stand with the people of America. I stand with people in my district. I stand with the people who believe and understand that we have to get border security and the most foundational and fundamental thing we can do is build a wall.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss, briefly, some of the accomplishments of the Trump administration that were pointed out in the State of the Union Address the other day. I think it is imperative that we recognize that over 5 million jobs have been created in the last 2 years, over 300,000 in the last month alone. The economists had predicted and projected 170,000 jobs, and yet almost twice as many jobs were created. There are now a record of 157 million Americans employed in this country. The unemployment rate has remained at or below the 4 percent for 11 straight months. That hasn't happened in almost 50 years. There has been half a million manufacturing jobs since President Trump became President, and there were more manufacturing jobs created in 2018 than any single year in the last 20 years. We have seen the judiciary be restored to, in my opinion, normalcy, with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and more than 40 Federal judges confirmed just this week.