Vicky Hartzler

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, going door to door in my first campaign, a sweet, elderly lady invited me in for iced tea. As she discussed my race, she shared that she had never missed a chance to vote since she was a young girl. One day, her mother had hitched the horses to the wagon, pulled up in front of the house, told her to get in, flicked the reins, and they were on their way to town. With determination and pride, her mother announced, ``Today, for the first time in our country, we get to vote. We must always exercise this privilege.'' And that girl did, every election, for over 74 years. As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of this Chamber passing the 19th Amendment to our Constitution, giving women the right to vote, we must all reflect on what this right to vote truly means. I am grateful for this privilege not only to vote on election day but also to stand here and represent the good people of Missouri's Fourth District and cast their vote here in Congress. We live in the greatest country in the world. Let us always remember those who secured our freedoms and honor their legacy by exercising the right to vote.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5, a deceptively named bill that is anything but equalizing. In fact, this bill legalizes discrimination, government-imposed, top-down discrimination against those with time-honored views of marriage and gender. This bill should be renamed the ``Inequality Act,'' as its policies at the State level have already been used to eliminate safe spaces for women, irreparably harm children, trample parental rights, undermine the free exercise of religion, and dismantle female athletics. As a mother, teacher, and former track coach, I am deeply concerned about the implications of this bill on and off the playing field. Title 9 of the Civil Rights Act, the provision guaranteeing girls the same educational opportunities as boys and which launched competitive female sports into the arena, is rendered irrelevant and outdated under the Inequality Act. Under H.R. 5, high school female athletes will miss competitive opportunities because boys take home the medals. Selina from Connecticut trained hard, set goals, and persevered, but she couldn't overcome the biological advantage men have over women when two biological boys who identify as female outpaced her in a recent girls' track meet. On average, there is a 10 to 12 percent performance gap between elite males and elite females in athletics. The gap is smaller between elite females and nonelite males but still insurmountable. It is no surprise that men are taking home the gold in women's sports. In future Olympics, it would only take three biological males who identify as female to prevent the best female athletes from reaching the medal stand and eight to keep them off the track entirely. If we continue down this track, how long will it be before nations recruit men identifying as female to out-medal other countries and ultimately uproot the ancient tradition of the Olympics? To put in this perspective, Olympic, world, and U.S. champion Tori Bowie's 100-meter lifetime best time was beaten 15,000 times by men and boys. In another case, Olympic, world, and U.S. champion Allyson Felix's 400-meter lifetime best was outperformed more than 15,000 times by males. In case after case, men identifying as women are outcompeting, outrunning, outfighting, and outcycling women. Welcome to the brave new world of women's sports under H.R. 5. The importance of Title IX is found not just on the field. As Duke law professor Coleman testified before the House Judiciary Committee, ``Tens of thousands of girls and women are now eligible for college scholarships, ensuring educational opportunities that for many wouldn't be realistic otherwise.'' Unfortunately, H.R. 5 erases these educational opportunities, further disenfranchising women. Women-only scholarships would be a thing of the past if this bill passes. Mr. Speaker, either we want a level playing field for American women or we don't. I remind my colleagues that next week marks the centennial anniversary of this Chamber's historic passage of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote. It is an honor and a privilege for me to stand here on this House floor 100 years later celebrating this milestone. I find it eerily ironic that today many of my colleagues will exercise their 19th Amendment right to turn back the clock on women and girls across this country. A vote for this bill is a vote against women. Members from both sides of the aisle, especially those who claim to be pro-women and pro-child, need to stop this devastating legislation. The future of our girls' rights, privacy, protection, and athletic potential depends on it.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation, H.R. 5. Contrary to what has just been said on the floor, this bill does not end discrimination. In fact, the Equality Act imposes top-down, government-led discrimination against all Americans who hold a differing view of human sexuality and gender. This grossly misnamed bill punishes everyday citizens, silences free speech and viewpoint disagreements, and discriminates against people of faith. In reality, this bill should be called the women's inequality act. The policies of H.R. 5 have already been used to trample female athletics, eliminate safe spaces for women, harm children, terminate parental rights, and undermine the free exercise of religious freedom. The legislation also provides for a universal right to abortion, compromises taxpayers' safeguards against funding abortion, and eliminates conscious protections for healthcare providers that do not want to participate in an abortion. As a former track coach, I am deeply committed to providing women and girls with a level playing field. Title IX, however, becomes irrelevant under the women's inequality act. Vulnerable women seeking haven in homeless women's shelters will be revictimized under H.R. 5. This is already happening. In California, women who were sexually harassed in the shower by a biological male were threatened with expulsion from the women's shelter. In Alaska, a women's shelter is being sued for sending a transitioning individual to the hospital instead of letting him sleep 3 feet away from rape victims. This is absurd. Under H.R. 5, women-only spaces will be a thing of the past. This bill also places children at risk of medical experimentation and bleak futures when they are given the right to hormone blockers and sex change operations. Most children, 98 percent of boys and 88 percent of girls, who question their gender identity will grow into their birth gender after passing through puberty. Parents who dare to oppose doctors using off-label drugs that may sterilize their child, or performing life-altering surgical procedures, will be considered abusive and neglectful. This has already happened with an Ohio couple who lost custody of their daughter. For the first time ever, H.R. 5 waives the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, enabling unhindered government discrimination against the faith community. It also actively prohibits the religious community from partnering with the Federal Government. Catholic schools will no longer be able to participate in the National School Lunch Program. Jewish synagogues will lose Federal grant funding to protect against terror threats, and houses of worship will lose FEMA disaster aid unless--here is the catch--they abandon their core teachings on morality, marriage, and sexuality.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, Members from both sides of the aisle, especially those who claim to be pro-women and pro-children, need to stop this devastating legislation. The future of women's rights, privacy, protection, and athletic potential depends on it.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for hosting this important Special Order today. The United States is currently facing a very real and dangerous threat from the People's Republic of China. The Chinese Government is not just using a whole-of-government approach but, rather, a whole-of- nation approach to achieve global influence. Today, I would like to focus on two areas of concern: Chinese military development, and its influence operations targeting U.S. academia and research. China is rapidly modernizing its military in order to improve its anti-access/area denial radius, power force projection, and nuclear capabilities, with the goal of complete military modernization by 2035. Investments in nuclear and power projection capabilities have expanded China's reach beyond the Pacific region and into other parts of the globe, demonstrating its desire to conduct offensive operations. Here are a few facts about China's military capabilities: China has the largest navy in the region, with more than 300 ships. To put this in perspective, the United States currently operates 289 ships. China's first aircraft carrier will likely enter the fleet this year, and its second aircraft carrier is already under construction, paving the way for China to have a multicarrier force. China operates the third largest aviation force in the world, with more than 2,700 total aircraft. Its first fifth-generation stealth fighter entered service in February of last year. China maintains a stockpile of nuclear weapons and continues to modernize its arsenal. China has claimed to successfully test its first hypersonic aircraft. China is using the S-400 missile defense system, strengthening its A2/AD radius. These capabilities, coupled with territorial and maritime disputes in the South and East China Seas, pose serious concerns for the region. Not only do we have a commitment to our allies, such as Taiwan and Japan, but the Pacific is the most heavily trafficked region for trade and commerce. Aggressive maritime and military actions by China, such as building man-made islands, not only threaten regional stability, but also global stability. China is also expanding its military operations beyond the Pacific. In August of 2017, China opened its first overseas military base in Djibouti and is actively seeking other overseas military basing opportunities. According to a recently released Department of Defense report on China's military activities, China has sought to expand its military basing access in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and the Western Pacific. China's improving military capabilities, evolving focus towards expanding its operational reach, and establishment of overseas bases will increase China's ability to sustain operations abroad and enhance deterrence. In order to combat China's military modernization aggression, the United States must continue to nurture our relationships with partner nations and protect our technological and military edge here at home. This brings me to the second area that I would like to discuss: China's influence operations that target and steal sensitive U.S. information. One of China's largest targets in the United States is our Nation's academic institutions. According to the Department of Defense, almost a quarter of foreign efforts to steal sensitive information happen through academic institutions. China targets U.S. universities by exploiting our student visa program in order to gain access and steal sensitive, proprietary, and classified information. Many of these universities are conducting research on behalf of the Departments of Defense and Energy. What is even more alarming is that, under Chinese law, citizens are required to provide data, information, and technological support or assistance to the Chinese Government upon request. This means that China can intimidate and coerce its citizens to provide information. This information is then funneled into China's military research and development. The Chinese Government is also using members of its military to collaborate with researchers across the globe. The report entitled ``Picking Flowers, Making Honey: The Chinese Military's Collaboration with Foreign Universities'' revealed that, over the past 10 years, China's military, also known as the PLA, has sponsored more than 2,500 military scientists and engineers to study abroad in countries worldwide. An analysis of peer-reviewed articles coauthored by PLA researchers found that they collaborate with researchers in the United States more than any other nation. These individuals often mask their PLA and Chinese Communist Party ties, allowing them to work at top universities without the schools' knowledge of military affiliation. In addition to stealing sensitive U.S. research, China has established more than 100 Confucius Institutes across the United States. These educational institutions are funded and run by the Chinese Government and teach Chinese language, culture, and history to American students. FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before Congress that China is actively using nontraditional methods, such as Confucius Institutes, as outposts of Chinese overseas intelligence and influence operations. Mr. Speaker, I have only highlighted two issues of concern. There are many other concerns that I hope my colleagues will discuss today. In order to address the challenges posed by China, we need a whole- of-nation approach. This is not just a military concern. We need our universities and constituents to be aware that China is active in all corners of the globe, including the United States. Mr. Speaker, I thank these gentlemen for bringing us here today to shed light on this very important topic on the challenges we face from China.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege and a personal blessing to recognize my friend and today's guest chaplain, Dr. Tom Leuther, and to welcome him to the United States House of Representatives. Dr. Leuther is the pastor and founder of the Family Worship Center, alongside his wife, Vicki, in Columbia, Missouri. Together, they minister hope to hundreds of families and provide a Christ-centered education to children from kindergarten through eighth grade at the Family Worship Center Academy, which they established in 1997. Pastor Leuther has been a leader throughout his life, attaining his Eagle Scout badge in 1973 and his doctorate of pastoral theology in 2010. He is well respected in the community and is a sought-after speaker nationwide. I have been blessed to get to know Dr. Leuther and Vicki over the past several years. They are truly a special couple. I appreciate their love of the Lord, love of the families in their community, and love of our country. I am thankful that Pastor Leuther could be with us today, and I know that the Lord will bless us as a result of his prayer. May the Lord continue to bless this caring leader and the entire congregation at the Family Worship Center.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of H.R. 639, the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System Task Forces Act. I want to thank the gentleman from the North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Craig) for their kind remarks about this bill and their support. I also want to thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for bringing the bill to the floor today, as well as my colleagues Gerry Connolly and Blaine Luetkemeyer for cosponsoring this legislation and the International Association of Fire Chiefs for endorsing the bill. My bill, as has been said, is a commonsense technical correction that makes clear that Federal employees can serve on FEMA Urban Search and Rescue teams. Over the past three decades, FEMA has developed the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System, which consists of a network of task force teams of dedicated volunteers who respond quickly when disaster strikes. Currently, 28 task force teams across the country utilize their unique skills and resources of local volunteers to act as a force multiplier for disaster rescue missions. These teams train constantly for a variety of situations, including rescuing survivors from collapsed buildings or giving airlift rescue operations. They are ready to deploy within hours of being called up in response to floods or tornadoes, and they can be pre-positioned in advance of covering disasters, such as hurricanes. I am proud to represent Missouri Task Force 1, based out of Columbia, Missouri. In September, they received a call to deploy to North Carolina to pre-position search and rescue resources for Hurricane Florence. As the team prepared to deploy, one of their members, who had spent years training and working as a dog handler on the team, was forced to stay home not because of a physical inability or family conflict, but because he works out of a regional office for a Federal agency as his normal day job. Due to a new interpretation of Federal statute, a willing, able, and trained volunteer who could have helped save lives was forced to stay home. Unfortunately, FEMA has interpreted the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System Act of 2016 to mean that Federal employees are not allowed to serve on Federal task forces, despite the fact that they did for years. This goes against congressional intent. The 2016 legislation codified non-Federal employee benefits and liability protections, but failed to specifically list Federal employees. This was not intended to mean that FEMA should preclude Federal employees from participation. Since passage, FEMA has issued mixed guidance on several occasions on whether Federal employees can serve, and this has created confusion and frustration for our dedicated search and rescue volunteers. My legislation is a commonsense solution to resolve this problem by simply clarifying that Federal employees can serve on these vital task forces. Congress must resolve this issue swiftly so our dedicated volunteers can respond at full strength when the next disaster strikes. So once again, I want to thank my colleagues who have spoken in support of this, for those who have cosponsored it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 639.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. The Violence Against Women Act was originally enacted to strengthen law enforcement's ability to help women suffering from domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and to bolster their efforts in preventing future violence. I fully support VAWA's original intent; however, this rule and the bill under consideration no longer focus on the women suffering from violence. Instead, H.R. 1585 has been politicized. This bill was written to use women to overhaul several unrelated areas of law, such as unemployment benefits, housing requirements for nonwomen populations, and the Second Amendment. In short, the original intent of this measure, to protect women from abuse, has been hijacked. Not only does this legislation lose focus on the matter at hand, which is women suffering from violence, it fails to prioritize a woman's right to privacy, to safety, and to healing from sexual violence. Specifically, H.R. 1585 continues a misguided policy adopted under President Obama, forcing domestic violence survivors to share female- only shelters with men. Unfortunately, we have already seen litigation in women shelters caused by this type of problematic policy. For example, as was mentioned by my friend from Arizona, the Naomi's House women's shelter in California is facing a lawsuit on behalf of nine women who were sexually harassed by a transgender individual. Staff at the shelter did not take any disciplinary action due to the fact that, as a Federal grantee, they are required to take in transgender men who identify as females. The women suffering from sexual violence were not only subjected to additional sexual harassment, but were threatened to be removed from the shelter if they refused to share a shower and coexist with the transgender individual. In a similar case in Alaska, the city of Anchorage is investigating the Downtown Hope Center, which is a faith-based, nonprofit organization. The reason? They are allegedly violating a local law because they provide shelter to only women. Anchorage is trying to force the Hope Center to house transgender- identifying men alongside women in its overnight, shared-sleeping facility. However, part of the Hope Center's mission is to provide women suffering from rape, physical abuse, and violence a safe place to sleep at night without the presence of men. I would ask my colleagues: How does this policy advance our goal of helping women suffering from abuse when it denies them a safe place to heal? The answer is: It doesn't. These new housing provisions not only diminish the Violence Against Women Act, but also enable more violence against women. While there are many other concerns with the VAWA language, I will mention just one more. A 2018 Government Accountability Office report found that Planned Parenthood received nearly $300,000 from VAWA formula grants during 2013 through 2015. This is extremely disheartening, considering there have been several undercover investigations and news stories suggesting that a number of Planned Parenthood affiliates have not been reporting when clients are victims of statutory rape, child prostitution, or sex trafficking. Mr. Speaker, while I fully support increased protections for battered women, this bill is not the answer. It further victimizes women, and it uses them to advance other political causes. We need to send this bill back to all seven committees of jurisdiction to address these concerns so that a VAWA law can once again focus on alleviating suffering from violence. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Rock Bridge High School Bruins boys basketball team of Columbia, Missouri, for winning the Missouri State Championship Class 5 Basketball Championship in Springfield. In winning the school's first boys basketball state title, the Bruins exhibited a never-say-die attitude, staging a comeback after being down by eight points heading into the final quarter against Christian Brothers College High School. The Bruins came close last year, bowing out in the semi-finals, but this year's team would not be denied. The long hours of practice paid off, as Rock Bridge came roaring back in the final quarter to win 63-59 and bring home the championship. This season finale is a testament to the great coaching of Jim Scanlon and the dedication and hard work of all the players, whose determination and teamwork brought home the victory. So congratulations to the Rock Bridge High School Bruins, state champs from Missouri's Fourth District. We are proud of you and we wish you continued success.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about a sharp, young patriot from my district. She worked hard, earned straight A's, and was accepted into law school to join the JAG Corps. She, however, was denied entry into the military because she had bunions on her feet. She is an amazing woman and a long-distance runner, but DOD's policy was clear that, due to the risk of future surgery, she could potentially be temporarily undeployable and, so, was denied entrance into military service. She did not meet the physical-mental-medical standards. Another constituent was denied service because he had asthma. He, too, wanted to serve his country, but the health risk outweighed the benefits to the military. He did not meet the physical-mental-medical standards. DOD's military exception standards state: Individuals must be free of medical conditions or physical defects that may require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization. Our all-volunteer military is the greatest military force in the world, and we must allow it--we must allow it--to make the best medical and military judgment about what medical conditions should qualify or disqualify an individual from serving. We should not carve out exceptions for an entire population. Military service is a privilege, not a right. That is why Secretary Mattis reviewed and issued a new policy on transgender service and the medical condition of gender dysphoria. The policy is not a ban, and it allows transgender servicemembers to serve in their biological sex. The Mattis policy does not kick anyone out of the military for being transgender, nor does it give preferential treatment to transgender persons. All persons, unless grandfathered or granted a waiver, must serve in their birth gender. It is a fair policy, allowing transgender individuals to serve openly as long as they are willing to serve in their biological sex and they can meet the medical behavioral standards. This resolution we are voting on today is riddled with inaccuracies. First, as I just stated, the policy is not a ban. Second, it claims there is a global medical consensus that transgender care is effective, safe, and reliable. That is not true. RAND, the Mayo Clinic, CMS, and others have all determined that there is not enough quality evidence to be able to say that. And there are valid concerns. There are costs as well. The Department of Defense announced already that they have spent $8 million on those individuals who have identified as transgender last year, and that money has been spent on psychotherapy, on sex change operations. That is money that could have been spent on bullets, body armor for our troops. Third, the resolution claims there is not an adverse effect on military readiness. This is false. The individual readiness of those undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria will be impacted. It takes over 260 days just to recover from the surgery. Individual readiness directly impacts the readiness of our forces, so the diagnosis and treatment for transgender personnel takes them away from their jobs for an indeterminate amount of time. This lost deployment time means someone else will have to step forward and go in their place. This is unfair. The military has valid reasons for excluding people with certain medical conditions from service. It is not the job of Congress to dictate what medical conditions the military should accept. We should not degrade the efficiency and lethality of our Armed Forces. This resolution is riddled with false claims, and I urge my colleagues to oppose its passage.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Chair, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 7. It is a deeply flawed bill that offers false promises while empowering lawyers and bureaucracy, not empowering women. In fact, I agree with my colleague from Wyoming who said a minute ago it should not be called the Paycheck Fairness Act; it should be called the pay the trial lawyers act. If there exists residual bias and discrimination against women in the workplace, it is wrong, and it needs to end. Since 1963, equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land under the Equal Pay Act. Let me say that again. Since 1963, equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land. It is currently illegal for employers to pay different wages based on gender, and as the bill sponsor just said, there are currently mechanisms to address any wrongs that may be there. While I appreciate the sentiment of the bill before us, I cannot support its flawed approach. The pay the trial lawyers act does not build on the Equal Pay Act. It does not offer women new protections against discrimination in the workplace. Instead, it encourages lawsuits against employers by offering the prospect of unlimited monetary damages. The pay the trial lawyers act also creates an impossibly high burden of proof for job creators defending themselves in lawsuits. Furthermore, the pay the trial lawyers act handicaps job creators, including women-owned businesses, by adding onerous compensation reporting requirements. The Federal bureaucracy will heap yet another burden on hardworking Americans if this passes. So, Madam Chair, the pay the trial lawyers act does not build on the Equal Pay Act's success. Instead, it encourages lawsuits, hurts job creators, and empowers lawyers. Sadly, it also misses an opportunity to truly help women. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this deeply flawed bill.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I missed the vote on Roll Call No. 119. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea''.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, today I raise my objection to H.R. 1, the so-called For the People Act. This act should really be called the Fund the Politicians Act. It is a Federal takeover of our election system. It opens up our precious election system to fraud, and it violates free speech rights. This bill would allow for the funding of politicians' campaigns. They would be given a 6-to-1 match with government money for their campaigns. I don't believe Americans want their money going to help pay for more robocalls from politicians that they don't even support. It also will give $25 to citizens to give to a campaign of their choice. What a terrible use of our tax dollars. It also opens up our system to fraud by requiring that they have to allow for online registration, same-day registration, and it nullifies all the State protections. No Secretary of State was even consulted about this bill. And finally, it violates our free speech rights by requiring the publishing of the names and addresses of donors to organizations who may speak about a candidate. This bill is terrible. Every vote should count, and no government money should go to line politicians' campaigns.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Police Chief Lyn Woolford of the Ashland, Missouri, Police Department for being voted America's Favorite Crossing Guard. Chief Woolford was recently selected the winner of a contest sponsored by Safe Kids Worldwide, a nonprofit organization that works on behalf of families and communities to keep children safe from injuries. As a result of this competition, the Ashland School District will receive $10,000 to improve pedestrian safety. Chief Woolford can be seen every schoolday guarding intersections near Ashland's schools to make sure that children get across the road safely, and the children--many of whom, along with their parents, voted for him online--love him. It is not unusual to see Chief Woolford wearing colorful hats and outfits as he guides the children safely across the road. It might be a bright chicken hat or a multicolored parrot hat. No matter the hat, the mission is the same: to brighten the children's day and to see that they get to school safely. Through his actions, the children have a community role model and a beloved friend in their local police department. Ashland Police Chief Lyn Woolford epitomizes the service of our law enforcement officials and deserves our thanks and appreciation. Congratulations, Chief Woolford. You truly are making a difference.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership in bringing this subject up here to the floor, to the American people, and to our colleagues. It is deeply disturbing to see what is happening across this country, as life is no longer valued and babies are allowed to be killed, their lives snuffed out in the final moments before they are born and after they are born. Like my colleague from Kansas before me, I was shocked when I turned on my TV, very similarly--and I am sure there are people all across this country who did that--to see the Governor of New York sitting at his table signing this bill and having all these women celebrate it and then even having a building in New York City lit up in honor of this celebration. But what were they celebrating? They were celebrating not only the demise of human lives in late-term abortion, when, as Dr. Marshall said, they could be born alive in a hospital and given medical care, and have a productive, full life; they could have permission to have that life snuffed out; but then to have the death, perhaps, of the woman as well, at the hands of that procedure. A lot of people are unfamiliar of how a late-term abortion is done and what these individuals in New York were celebrating. It is graphic, but people need to know what happens. The woman's uterus is dilated, and forceps are put in there, and a limb of the baby, in the womb, is grabbed hold of. Steel forceps grab hold. They find a leg or they find an arm. They clamp down, and they pull and they pull until it rips off, and they pull out the leg and they put it in the tray. And they go in again and they find the other leg. They pull and they rip it off and pull it out. And then they go in for the arm, and then they pull that out. They pull out the other arm. And then they go in and crush the skull and suck it out. Now, if this doesn't turn your stomach, America, I don't know what does. And that we could be celebrating this in parts of the country is just not only tragic, it is barbaric, and it has to be stopped. So that is why, here in Congress, we are trying to pass the Born- Alive Infants Protection Act, to stand up and to say, we are better than this as a country. That is not what America is about; that our Founders established this country and the basic rights of all who are created by our Creator, and that is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We want to make sure every American can live out that American Dream, the ones who have the privilege of being born and the ones who, right now, people are celebrating, unborn. We want everybody to have that opportunity of life. I call on all my colleagues and everyone across this country to rise up and say, now, now is the time that we stop this, and we set up a new path for America that values every life. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for leading this.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, January 23, 2019, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on roll call No. 46: NAY; on roll call No. 47: NAY; on roll call No. 48: YEA; and on roll call No. 49: NAY.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, January 22, 2019, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on roll call no. 44: YEA, and on roll call no. 45: YEA.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, January 24, 2019, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on roll call no. 50: YEA, and on roll call no. 51: NAY.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Central Methodist University Eagles men's soccer team of Fayette, Missouri, in Missouri's Fourth Congressional District, winner of the NAIA men's national soccer championship. Head coach Alex Nichols and the Eagles capped off a superb 22-2-2 season with a penalty shootout victory over Missouri Valley in the championship finale in Irvine, California. This national soccer championship is the first ever for any team sport for Central Methodist University. It is the culmination of steady progress that saw the Eagles move from a top 30 ranking three seasons ago, to a top 20 ranking two seasons ago, to a top 12 ranking last season, and, finally, to the number one spot this past season. I congratulate the Central Methodist University Eagles on winning the national championship. Your hard work, dedication, and determination paid off and left an example future teams will strive to follow. Well done.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, it is a sobering time to be here because we are in the 24th day of a government shutdown, something that none of us wanted, and something that could be fixed very, very quickly. I am hopeful that it will. We have heard some speeches tonight from individuals calling on the President to open up the government. But the reality is that the House, in December, voted to fully fund the government, and all of the Democrats voted no, and the Senate voted no. So here we are. We voted to keep the government open, and we provided border security at the same time. We need to do that. Tonight, I think it is important that we have a discussion with the American people about why we think it is important to secure our border. Can we do both? Can we find $5 billion in an almost $4 trillion budget to secure our border? Can we open our government and make sure our government employees have the funds that they need to pay their bills? Absolutely, we can do that. I am ready to work with those on the other side of the aisle. I find it so interesting how they have changed their position. I just want to review with everyone listening tonight about the position of some of those who are now, all of a sudden, voting no. During the previous administration, all 54 Democrats in the Senate voted to double the length of a new border fence with Mexico, double the number of border agents to 40,000, and spend $40 billion on border security. All the Democrats in the Senate, in the last administration, voted for $40 billion for border security just a few years ago. Before that, in 2006, 64 Democrats in the House joined Republicans to pass the Secure Fence Act to build 700 miles of fencing along the border. In the Senate, when we had 64 Democrats join the House to pass it, to build 700 miles of fencing, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Chuck Schumer all voted for it. Then Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer voted in favor of the 2007 DHS appropriations bill, which included $1 billion for fencing along the southwest border. The same Speaker who said it is immoral now voted for money for fencing just a few years ago. I find that interesting. And Chuck Schumer voted for it, and he said: ``Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced that we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress on dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who are here now and on rationalizing our system of legal immigration.'' Then he said: ``Any immigration solution must recognize that we must do as much as we can to gain control of our borders as soon as possible.'' This is the same Chuck Schumer who now thinks that we shouldn't have it, but just a few years ago he did support it. So why are we fighting to secure our border? It is because we care about people. There is a drug crisis in this country, and the drugs are coming across our southern border into our States. I know they are in Missouri. We have to stop it. I had the chance, in October, to go to a port of entry down in Arizona, the Nogales-Mariposa port of entry just south of Tucson. What I saw there was eye-opening. What I saw is that we are at war there. It is a war between the drug cartels and our dedicated Border Patrol and Customs officials down there on the ground. Just last year, they confiscated 1\1/2\ million pounds of drugs, and they talked about how they had no idea how many more millions of pounds they didn't stop, but we know. All of us here tonight who talk to our law enforcement at home, who talk to our families who have lost their children due to a heroin overdose, who talk about how much cocaine and meth is in our communities, those are the drugs that they didn't catch. Last year, 72,000 Americans died from a drug overdose. Now think about that. That is more who died of a drug overdose than died during the entire Vietnam war. It is more people than last year died, in total, of car accidents and homicides. If you put all of the traffic fatalities and all of the homicides together, it doesn't equal the number of people who have died from drug overdoses. We have to stop this. Part of the drugs coming across is fentanyl. They caught 1.2 tons of this deadly drug. That is enough, they tell me, to kill every person in the United States. It takes only 2 milligrams of fentanyl to overdose, so that could kill that many people. In 2018, Customs and Border Patrol seized enough cocaine to fill more than 141 1-ton pickups. I wanted to make this poster because we all know what a pickup looks like, and you think of a 1-ton pickup. If you can picture, here are 141 of these 1-ton pickup trucks full of cocaine. That is how much that our Border Patrol caught. We don't know how much more they didn't catch. Also, they caught enough methamphetamine to fill 124 pickups, 124 tons, and over 3 tons of heroin. In fact, 90 percent of the heroin in the United States comes across the southern border. Now, we have an opioid crisis in this country, and I am doing everything I can in my district, and I know many of us are, doing what we can to address the opioid crisis. Heroin is a type of opioid; fentanyl is a type of opioid; and 90 percent of that is coming across our southern border. What that ends up being is it ends up impacting people. Here is a poster of some people who have been impacted by the drug crisis we have in our country. This mother and son, on the far right-hand side, she was addicted to meth, gave birth to her little boy, and he was drug addicted at birth and went through withdrawal. The young man in the middle, Eamon, he passed away, sadly, due to a heroin overdose. And Kristin and her daughter, Reese, she lost custody of Reese because of her drug addiction. She is trying desperately to get off drugs, but she has lost custody. We have a crisis in our foster care system now because of the drug problem. We are having trouble finding enough individuals to become foster parents. There are so many children who have been taken away from their parents because of their drug addiction, and it is not safe for them to be home. We have a drug crisis, and we have tons, literally tons, of drugs pouring across our southern border. That is why we have to find $5.7 billion in order to secure our border. But it is more than just the drugs. It is also our safety. It is our security. Just last year, our Customs and Border Patrol interdicted 17,000 individuals who had a criminal record. That is how many they caught with a criminal record. But, sadly, there are a lot of people who make it across, who are here in our country because we don't have a border, and they end up hurting our families. Just last month, our hearts broke for Officer Singh and his family, a police officer from California who did it right, who came here legally from Fiji, and whose dream was to become a police officer. He went through the training. He learned English, his third language. He went to the police academy, driving 4 hours every day for months in order to complete his police academy. He was so proud to become a police officer, and he was a good one. He was respected; he was amazing; and he was brave. He was a legal immigrant we are so proud of. Then, sadly, right around Christmas, he was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant, someone who had come across the southern border. And you wonder why we think it is important to secure the border. It is because of heartbreaking stories like this. It is because of families who are losing their children to drugs. That is why we have to find the money, and we can do it. My colleagues and I tonight want to share why this is so important, and why it is important that we get this done now. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller). She is new, but we are so thrilled that she is here. I would like her to come and share a little bit on this very important issue from West Virginia's perspective.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments tonight. It is a serious matter before us right now as a nation. That is why we are having this conversation tonight. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), and I thank him for being here this evening. I think he is the first person, certainly tonight and the other night we had a discussion, from California to be here, so I appreciate him coming. I would like to hear about what he thinks about where we are at and what we need to do.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman; he makes a great point about the safety of the individuals who are coming here. Because we have this open border, it is incentivizing people to make this very dangerous trek. Doctors Without Borders has reported that 30 percent of the women who make this trek, who have given their money to coyotes to bring them here, are sexually assaulted. Now, that should be upsetting for anyone. That is another reason I believe we need to close the border and then enable and help and work with individuals to come here legally. I think the gentleman makes a great point, too, that there is a lot of negotiation that could take place right now if the Democrats would be willing to sit down. We do have the DACA situation. We do need more workers. We do need to work on our visas. We need to reform our immigration our laws so that individuals like Police Officer Singh and others who want to come and contribute can come here easier. We all have an immigration story, and I support legal immigration. So let's sit down. Let's talk about the changes that need to be made to our immigration system, but let's also secure our Nation. Madam Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Allen) to share his thoughts on this matter, on why he thinks it is important that we secure our border.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman makes some excellent remarks. The 300 deaths a day due to overdoses, the opioid crisis with 90 percent of the opioids coming across the southern border, that is why we have got to secure the border. I agree; we have a humanitarian crisis. There are 60,000 illegals caught a month trying to cross our border. In Missouri's Fourth District, we don't have very many towns that even have 60,000 individuals. That is a lot of people per month coming across. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), my colleague. I thank the gentleman for coming tonight, and I look forward to hearing what he has to share about this important topic.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, that is so powerful. I thank the gentleman for sharing Christopher's story. I can't imagine how helpless that made him feel to stand at his casket, at his funeral, and to realize that we here in Congress have passed a lot of bills dealing with opioids to address this, but it is still flowing across our borders. We need to do more. So I thank the gentleman for sharing that story. We do need to work in a bipartisan fashion. These bills that Representative Walberg talked about were passed in a bipartisan fashion, over 70 bills. Democrats and Republicans came together last year and said: This is a crisis. Let's send this. Now we need to complete that. We need to complete and stop them from coming in to begin with, in addition to continuing to provide money for people in treatment and our law enforcement and mental health issues and those other things, to go after the opioid crisis. But we need to stop them flowing here to begin with. So I thank the gentleman for sharing that. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington). He is right there at the border in the State of Texas, along the edge. I thank the gentleman for being here tonight and would like to hear what he has to say about this topic.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for sharing those heartfelt words and those statistics. They really matter. I totally agree with the gentleman that our number one job is to keep America safe. The number one job is to keep America safe. That is why we want to find $5.7 billion to build the wall and reopen government. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) to share his thoughts on where we are at today.