Dan Crenshaw

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2476, the Securing American Nonprofit Organizations Act of 2019. The Nonprofit Security Grant Program provides critical funding to harden security at houses of worship, community centers, schools, and other cultural institutions located in Urban Area Security Initiative, or UASI, regions. This legislation expands the grant program so eligible entities not within UASI regions can also apply. These grants are used for target- hardening activities and physical security upgrades as well as for necessary security training. The unfortunate reality is that threats to religious institutions and other soft targets are not going away and, in fact, are increasing at an alarming rate. There have been a number of attacks, both overseas and in the United States, at places of worship. It is a stark reminder of the continued threat. The Nonprofit Security Grant Program assists the most at-risk organizations in hardening their defenses, while allowing them to remain focused on providing services and counsel in their communities. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do so. I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 1158, the DHS Cyber Incident Response Teams Act of 2019. H.R. 1158 authorizes cyber hunt and incident response teams to assist operators, free of cost, to identify unauthorized cyber activity while promoting the proper strategies to deter future threats. This legislation helps us stay vigilant in our efforts to respond to cyber incidents in both the public and private sectors as threats to our digital networks continue to evolve. I support this important bill, introduced by my colleague, Ranking Member McCaul, and I commend him for his leadership on this issue. I urge all Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 2539, the Strengthening Local Transportation Security Capabilities Act of 2019. This bill will provide important support to surface transportation security at a time when our transportation sector faces evolving threats. This bill ensures that the Secretary of Homeland Security will prioritize the assignment of intelligence analysts to fusion centers in areas with high-risk surface transportation assets to bolster security, improve coordination, and enhance information sharing. This bill underscores the critically important work of State, local, and regional fusion centers in protecting the homeland. These centers analyze current threats and push critical threat information to the front lines. It is important that Congress pass bills like this to strengthen the relationships among Federal, State, and local jurisdictions so that relevant threat information reaches the right people in a timely manner. I am pleased by the support of my Democratic colleagues for fusion centers and hope this will lead to quick passage of another bill, introduced by Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Rogers, H.R. 480, the Homeland Threat Assessment Act. Keeping transportation systems secure is part and parcel to protecting the American way of life and keeping America moving forward. I commend this legislation for raising the baseline on how the Department of Homeland Security supports the security of surface transportation systems, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2083. This bill will encourage the Department of Homeland Security to purchase uniforms and protective gear for its law enforcement officers from ethical manufacturers and sellers. To do business with DHS, contractors that supply frontline operational components must abide by the code of business ethics, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and any quality control standards deemed appropriate by the Secretary. These conditions will ensure that we are purchasing the very best products for our men and women on the front lines. The bill also protects the security of DHS law enforcement personnel by requiring that uniforms and equipment that bear a law enforcement insignia be properly stored and disposed of if they are unusable. This will help prevent law enforcement badges and patches from falling into the wrong hands or being used for nefarious purposes. H.R. 2083 will also help to promote small businesses by encouraging the Secretary of DHS to utilize small businesses for at least one-third of DHS uniform needs. Small businesses are the backbone of America, and this bill will help to ensure that the Secretary considers them for the agency's needs whenever possible. H.R. 2083 requires that the Secretary purchase uniforms at a fair and reasonable price. Further, the bill requires a study on the adequacy of uniform allowances to ensure that DHS law enforcement personnel do not have to pay out of pocket for the basic items they need to carry out their duties. Mr. Speaker, this bill goes a long way toward improving the process for procurement of uniforms for DHS personnel, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 2609, the DHS Acquisition Review Board Act of 2019. The Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General have both identified weaknesses in the Department's management of its major acquisition programs. Poor management of these programs costs the Department billions of dollars each year. GAO has placed DHS management functions, including acquisition management, on its ``High Risk List,'' programs that are highly susceptible to fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement or are in need of transformation. The Department struggles to ensure that major acquisitions are delivered on schedule, provide the capabilities needed, and do not exceed budget. In recent years, GAO has identified 9 out of 26 major acquisition programs that experienced cost growth or schedule slips. Cost overruns totaled $988 million, and schedules frequently slipped by an average of 6 months. GAO also determined that approximately half of major acquisition programs deployed capabilities before all key performance parameters had been met. It is essential that DHS establish better management tools to provide accountability in its major acquisition programs and ensure that problems are identified and addressed early. My bill requires DHS to establish mechanisms for accountability to better manage components' major acquisition programs by establishing an Acquisition Review Board within DHS. The board would oversee DHS' acquisition process, review major acquisition programs, and evaluate the use of best practices. The Under Secretary for Management will serve as the chair of the board, and the board would be required to meet regularly. The board would be responsible for determining if a proposed acquisition has met planning requirements necessary to move into the production and deployment phases. It would also oversee a major acquisitions business strategy. The board will review the cost tradeoffs, schedules, and performance objectives of the programs. As we seek to ensure the homeland is protected and DHS has the resources it needs to do its job, we must also ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2609, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I am, in its current form.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Much has been made of election security as of late, much of it for good reason. In the end, these concerns, the concerns that many Americans rightfully share, are built around the fundamental notion that our vote should count, our vote should mean something; and we should know that, when we cast it, it is sacred and unchanging. Our vote is a signal of what direction we want our country to move toward, and that vote is an element of trust that we place in the men or women elected to take it in that direction. We vote because this country is governed by the people, by the citizens of this country. We in this body humbly serve at their pleasure. The quickest way to erode a democracy, erode faith in our institutions, is to erode that trust, erode the notion that your vote truly counts. The truth is this is already happening. In places like San Francisco, Democrats have fought hard to ensure that U.S. citizens must share their civic duty, their vote, with illegal immigrants. The city of San Francisco has effectively canceled out the votes of its citizens and replaced it with illegals. When I say it out loud, it sounds like I am making it up, because what kind of government would cancel out the votes of its own citizens and replace them with noncitizens--but not just any noncitizens, ones who entered our country illegally. It is with this in mind, this sacred duty to protect our citizens, protect their vote, protect their voice, that I propose this motion to recommit. This motion to recommit would show the American people that, despite the deep and growing differences between us, we can at least agree that the people who vote for us are citizens of this country. Madam Speaker, this is a simple affirmation. It is an affirmation of the fact that the elected representatives of this body answer to the citizens of this country who voted for us. We will not stand by and let their voices be muted. We will not let their trust be eroded. We will not let our democracy be questioned. Last year, Congress voted on this very idea. Forty-nine Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with us. It should not be a partisan idea that the people who do not legally live in our country cannot legally vote in our elections. If you are not legally here, if you entered our country against the laws and wishes of our citizens, then you should not vote for representation in our government, diluting the voices of Americans. I am proposing this MTR not because it feels good, not because we want to attack anyone, but because it is clear to all of us that voter integrity actually needs to be defended. It has become clear because San Francisco is not the only municipality that has fallen into this radicalism. Other cities have done or attempted to do the same. The men and women in this body are here because we were duly elected as such. Our citizens expect much of us. They expect us to protect their most fundamental rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They expect us to respect their voice. Often, the only way they have to express that voice is through their vote. If we no longer agree to protect that voice, as we did last Congress--if we don't, in this moment, agree that their voice should not be canceled out but protected, then I worry a great deal about our democracy. I worry that radicalism has made its way into this sacred body, as it already has in so many other places across our great country. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Vote to protect the voices of your constituents. Vote to preserve the notion that our Nation's government is elected by--and only by--the citizens of this country. Anything less is a disservice to the very people who put us here. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for setting this up and for having me speak here today. I rise today to address the urgent issue of border security. There are two elements to the border debate. One is political, and one is policy. The political element consists of the circumstances regarding the shutdown, the negotiations or lack thereof, and the points of compromise from either side. The policy side is simply the question of whether or not we need a wall as part of comprehensive border security. Let me begin with the political gamesmanship. Democratic leadership has been running a victory lap this week because they ``won'' the shutdown. I keep wondering, what exactly did they win? If you think winning means a porous border with 400,000 people apprehended every year, then your definition of winning is different than mine. If you think winning means standing strong against any sort of negotiation or compromise that would have allowed Federal workers finally to be paid, then your definition of winning is different than mine. The President didn't cave to Democrats. The President gave compassion to Federal workers who needed it. If that is your idea of losing, then you and I have different definitions of what it means to lose. The truth is that the President has compromised time after time because, for us, this is not about who wins or loses the political game; it is about securing the border. First, the President agreed that a 2,000-mile, sea-to-shining-sea wall would be a logistical difficulty, so he agreed to 234 miles of fencing, a mere tenth of his original campaign promise. Then the President agreed to $5.7 billion in border wall funding instead of the originally requested $25 billion, a fifth of the original request. Democrats then said that they could discuss border security only if the government was open, so the President opened the government. At every turn, the President has reached out and compromised in order to get a deal done. And at every turn, Democrats scoffed at compromise. This brings us to the second element of this great debate, the policy element. Democrats have laughed at a wall. They call it medieval and ineffective, and they dismiss it without any rationale or reasoning. The reality is that walls do work, as every rational security expert acknowledges. Border agents overwhelmingly attest to this. After all, the President's plan came from the experts at the Department of Homeland Security. An integral part of this multifaceted plan is a 234-mile border wall. Everywhere we put walls, illegal crossings drop. Look at San Diego, El Centro, Tucson, and El Paso. The drop in illegal immigration and apprehensions after constructing a wall is enormous and immediate, yet Democrats pretend these facts don't exist. They point to common myths about how walls function. They like to claim people will just climb over or tunnel under them. Oh, yeah? Just like that? Well, I am a Navy SEAL, and I know better than most what it takes to infiltrate hardened areas. I would much rather be infiltrating a place with no barriers than one with a giant, 20-plus-foot wall. The planning considerations, training, and equipment necessary are considerable. And, yes, it takes a lot more than a tall ladder, especially when discussing huge groups of migrants like the ones we are seeing. The obvious truth is that walls make a difference and clearly mitigate movement, and we actually all used to agree on this. Democrats claim they are for security but would prefer a virtual wall with sensors, drones, cameras, et cetera. That is fine, and that is exactly why that technology is included in our plan, but to say we need only that technology is effectively asking our Border Patrol to chase migrants endlessly across large swaths of territory. It is one thing for a sensor to go off when we see a group of migrants go by. But guess what? When we see that go off, they keep going unimpeded. Asking our border agents to simply chase them down when there are literally hundreds crossing each day is complete insanity. This dishonest, so-called debate must end. We must start having serious discussions and secure our border because that is what the American people want. That is what it means to be with the people.