Andrew Ogles

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, most Americans would be surprised and disgusted to learn that Iran has been given approximately $50 billion in a sanctions relief package by the Biden administration. More to the point, it was done in exchange for a promise from Iran that they wouldn't produce weapons-grade uranium. That is it. That is all we apparently got. Think about the implications of this deal. The Ayatollah, who embraces chants of ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel,'' can produce even more deadly long-range missiles, but that is fine by Joe Biden. How about highly enriched uranium? Somewhere in Foggy Bottom, Antony Blinken is nodding his head: Sure, why not? The Ayatollah can put his country on the cusp of the nuclear threshold and hold it over us as a constant threat. He can continue to pocket billions of taxpayer dollars made available by the so-called adults in charge at our State Department. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, civil. On October 7, Iran sponsored the murder, rape, and torture of innocent civilians. Civil. I do not trust Iran with nuclear material. Civil. They raped little girls. Civil. I should think not. This is a no-brainer, Mr. Chairman. This administration--whether due to side deals, incompetence, or just selling out America--is bringing the world's most grievous, grotesque sponsor of state terrorism closer to nuclear capabilities. Mr. Chairman, I am from the South. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Iran should be punished for what happened in Israel. Hamas should be driven into the sea. Respectfully to my colleague, we should take extraordinary measures to send a message to the world that this will never happen again. Iran must pay and pay dearly. This is but a first step. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, the world is in a precarious place. We see the CCP making moves in the Pacific against Taiwan. Russia has made a move against Ukraine. Iranian-backed terrorists killed innocent civilians. There should be no relief for Iran. There should be no sanctions relief for Iran, for they are not civil. They do not belong at a seat at the table with the rest of the world. They need to be driven into the stone age, where they belong and how they behave. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, while Hamas terrorists were brutalizing Israeli citizens, Hamas' top leadership was celebrating from a penthouse in Doha. Qatar claims to be our ally. They want to hold a special place with the United States. We have a forward operating base there. While they are claiming to be our friend, they are literally housing, aiding, and abetting terrorists from Hamas, roughly a dozen who are worth billions, flying on private jets, drinking champagne, and partying while Israeli citizens are being slaughtered. Qatar has the opportunity to stand with the United States, stand with the innocent people of Israel who were murdered. This sense of Congress simply urges that Qatar should condemn Hamas, turn over Hamas leadership to U.S. and Israeli custody, and pledge never to facilitate the transfer of covered Iranian funds to Iran. Mr. Chairman, there is a direct link between the money that was wired to Doha and terrorism. Iran has said they will use the money however they see fit. It is time for our allies or so-called allies to be our allies. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, a thief that robs your house, then 2 days later mows your lawn, is still a thief. A country that houses terrorists is still an accomplice. It is a fact. While they are giving over or assisting with the release of the hostages, they have the opportunity to give over the Hamas leaders who planned and orchestrated the attack, but will they do it? Of course not, because they are guilty. Qatar reportedly gives Hamas between $360 million and $480 million per year. To my friend, I wonder how many of those dollars from Qatar given to Hamas bought bullets, bought antitank mines, paid for the training of the soldiers that raped children. I wonder how many of those millions of dollars built the training camps in Gaza. When the militants, the terrorists went in, they were well armed. They were well trained. I wonder how many of the millions of dollars Qatar gave Hamas to pay for that. Al Jazeera, the terrorist news network, has praised the attack. It is controlled by Qatar. If my child or children that I love stick their hand in the cookie jar, just because I love them doesn't mean that they will escape punishment. Qatar may claim to be our friend, but they just got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and perhaps they should be punished. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, with respect to Qatar's recent activities on the world stage, I will just say this: Qatar should not get a pass whenever it decides to stop playing law breaker in order to start playing first responder. I think it is a misnomer to think that without Qatar, that somehow negotiations wouldn't take place. The reality of the situation on the ground is the reason why Hamas is negotiating, because Israel is kicking their butt and is going to continue to do so. These negotiations would happen with or without Qatar. Qatar benefits from our Air Force base there. If my colleague from my own party thinks giving money to Qatar so that Hamas can rape little girls, then that is his choice, not mine. You can't pretend to be our friend when you are funding an organization that attacks and brutalizes innocent civilians. You can't have it both ways. It just doesn't work that way. You can't have your network praising the attacks. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, if I were to describe to you a group that has just seized a cargo ship and what Israel has since referred to as an Iranian act of terrorism, you might come to the conclusion that perpetrators can't distinguish between civilians and military targets. If I were to also tell you that the same group just earlier this week shot two ballistic missiles at a U.S. warship, you might come to the conclusion that these perpetrators are the enemies of the United States. Finally, if I told you that this group is guilty of kidnapping and torturing U.S. citizens, you might come to the conclusion that we need to wipe these people off the face of the Earth. You might think that the Biden administration would agree, but apparently it does not, and that is to the detriment of our national security. This is a sense of Congress that the Houthis continue to benefit from the Biden administration's unwillingness to unequivocally condemn. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Speaker, if Americans knew that the Biden administration was treating a state sponsor of terrorism like a major ally, they would be infuriated, but that is exactly what is going on with Qatar, a tiny but very wealthy country in the Persian Gulf. Qatar is a friend to anti-Semites. As the general stated, clearly, they must hate Israel and the Jewish people. They are one of the largest sponsors of state terrorism in the world. They regularly play host to leaders of Hamas and the Taliban. In fact, Qatar provided Hamas leadership with a venue to celebrate the horrific atrocities of October 7. Only in a world where Joe Biden is President would we be supporting a terrorist country as part of our foreign policy. Last year, President Biden designated Qatar as a Major Non-NATO Ally, a special designation given to about 20 countries, like Taiwan and Israel, and an honor meant to highlight an extremely close bilateral relationship. In a sense, we do have a close relationship with Qatar, far too close. Qatar has given over $5 billion--that is b as in bravo--to U.S. colleges, which makes them the number one foreign donor to our very own educational institutions. Researchers at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy have presented a strong link between the funding of U.S. universities by Doha and the active presence of anti- Semitic groups on those campuses. Needless to say, we should be extremely wary about the impact of these donations on our young people. For decades, Congress has allowed these donations to flow into our universities without any supervision or meaningful disclosure requirements. Meanwhile, American Jews are harassed on campuses or compelled not to reveal their Jewish heritage. Since the start of the October 7 war, 73 percent of Jewish students in the U.S. have been victims or witnesses to on-campus anti-Semitism. Qatar has the honor of hosting a major airbase outside of Doha. The presence of that airbase all but ensures their safety and that they will never be attacked. You would hope, at the very least, Qatar would try hard to ensure that it is not spreading anti-Semitism or supporting anti-American sentiments, but we have seen this anti-Semitism. We have seen it alive and well on Qatar's state-owned media outlet, Al Jazeera, or, as I like to say, AJTN, Al Jazeera terrorist network. Unfortunately, criticisms of Qatar come in muted in this town. Doha has certainly poisoned the well, purchasing the loyalties of university elites, influential think tanks, some of the best lobbyists that money can buy, and even politicians, which is why so many D.C. institutions whitewash Qatar's support for terrorism. On top of this, as I mentioned earlier, Qatar lets the leaders of Hamas and the Taliban stay at the most expensive hotels in Doha and provides up to $480 million, half a billion dollars, to Hamas to keep their military afloat. Qatar will tell you that this is going to nonmilitary uses, but we have heard throughout testimony today that money flowing to Qatar, flowing to Iran, is fungible. As the former chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, once put it, in Qatar, there are three buckets: terror financed by the government, terror financed through Qataris, and terror financing that Qatar doesn't stop. That is the former chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee commenting on something that has been known for decades, known in this town, that Qatar openly and actively supports terrorism. Let's look at a few more examples. In 2003, Congress was informed of Qatar's funding to charities that support al-Qaida, including the bin Laden-endorsed charity, the Qatar Charity. The same year, The New York Times also reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 and one of the terrorists responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans, fled to Qatar from Kuwait in order to avoid apprehension. We also know that Qatar has provided support for al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria, al-Nusrah Front. Qatar has provided support to numerous terrorist groups, including the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, and, of course, its most visible beneficiary, Hamas. What would you call a group that supports terrorists or a country that supports terrorist groups like al-Qaida, al-Nusrah, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas? You would call them a state sponsor of terrorism. That is what this administration needs to do. It needs to remove Qatar's Major Non-NATO Ally status until such time that Qatar denounces terrorism and any support for terrorism or terrorist groups. If they don't, maybe it is time to label them as a state sponsor of terrorism. Earlier today, this House passed, in a unanimous fashion, my amendment to call on Qataris to condemn Hamas, turn over Hamas leadership to the U.S. or Israeli custody, and prevent Iran from receiving any funds. If the Emir of Qatar were here on the House floor, I would tell him to pick a side. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. Enough equivocating. Let me be clear. I do not wish ill on Qatar. In fact, I am open to dialogue. To the people of Qatar, I wish them well, but I want to ensure that my country has partners it can trust. Qatar has demonstrated time and again its unwillingness to abandon its two-faced approach toward relations with the United States and with terrorists. Mr. Speaker, regarding the atrocities, what does Qatar have to say when a mom and her 10- to 12-year-old daughter were brutally raped, left naked, and murdered in their home? What does Qatar have to say when a baby was put into an oven, the father murdered, and the wife brutally raped? What does Qatar have to say? When women were being gang-raped, their breasts cut off, and the terrorists were playing with them, tossing them around like toys, what does Qatar have to say? When they were sexually abusing men and cutting off their genitals, what does Qatar have to say? When the pregnant mom, her mouth gagged, was being held while they cut the baby out of her womb, what does Qatar have to say? They blame Israel. They need to pick a side. For too long, they have been on the wrong side. Let me make one final note on Qatar, and it is in reference to a comment made earlier by my colleague from Texas. He mentioned Qatar's role in helping to release hostages from the clutches of the Hamas dogs, the terrorists of Hamas. Most Americans taken by Hamas on October 7 are still in custody. What has Qatar done? Many people, Israeli and otherwise, are still in Hamas custody. What has Qatar done? I would say they are stalling for time to allow Hamas to regroup, to flee, and to rebuild. It is time that families and children be reunited. We want every hostage released now. We pose a question to you: Do you think Qatar is the best intermediary for releasing hostages? I don't think they are. I am grateful for every hostage that has been released, but while Qatar is helping to release some hostages, they are also ensuring Hamas' preservation. I said earlier today that someone who robs your home and then offers to cut your grass 2 days later is still a thief. It does not change who they are. Given the level of financing Qatar provides Hamas on an annual basis, they could have at least compelled the release of all Americans. Let me mention briefly, Mr. Speaker, my Trust But Verify Act, which would delist Qatar's MNNA status, Major Non-NATO Ally status, until the President certifies that they are no longer providing support for international terrorism, and the President must recertify this every 90 days.

Mr. OGLES

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

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, $451 billion, that is the cost of the American taxpayer of caring for illegals who broke our laws and unlawfully entered our country. My amendment simply requires the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly submit an annual report, just a report, to Congress that includes the number of aliens that have been provided housing on federally managed lands and information regarding such aliens' countries of origin. This will be critical data, Mr. Chairman, and this amendment should have bipartisan support. This administration is extending an open invitation for foreign nationals to invade our country and undermine the sovereignty of the United States. As a reward, they are going to have their housing, education, and every cost taken care of. If these illegal aliens need a trip to the hospital, they don't need to meet a deductible because the American taxpayer pays for it. Between 16.8 million and 29 million illegals currently reside in the United States, an incentive for more to come freely. There were 341,000 apprehensions at U.S. borders to the north and southwest made in September. That is 1 month; setting an all-time record. There were 309,000 apprehensions calculated in October. Mr. Chairman, this has to stop. We are a sovereign Nation. We have a right to manage our lands. We have a right to say no. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge my colleague's comment regarding laws; that this bill, if passed, would essentially ban folks from being housed on Federal lands. It should also be noted that there are laws on the books that require our border to be secure, and, yet, this administration ignores those laws. This amendment requires accountability to the aforementioned. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, with this bill, part of what we are trying to accomplish is securing our border, securing our country. There are hard-earned taxpayer dollars being sent to house illegals. In New York alone, Mayor Adams has said that housing illegals could cost up to $12 billion. That is $12 billion that could be used for children in need, to educate our children, for children who are underperforming in school. That is $12 billion that the city of New York could use for our veterans. We have to prioritize Americans. We have to prioritize the security of our border. I was in Tucson in August, and I was in an area that was even then controlled by the cartel. Now, we hear because of the war, the shooting, the lawlessness in that very sector, that the Border Patrol has had to pull back. There is a war going on at our southern border, and it could be stopped, Mr. Chairman. It is time to close, to secure, our border. You have women and children who are being raped daily at our southern border, and this administration is doing nothing about it. I have had enough. All this amendment does is require a report. It requires accountability. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES

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

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

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits the funds appropriated by this act from being used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates. I have been proud to introduce this amendment in previous appropriations bills where they passed on a voice vote, and I am happy to do so here again. Policies involving mandatory mask implementation are about control, not about science. Tom Jefferson, not to be confused with Thomas Jefferson, is a leading epidemiologist who coauthored what The New York Times opinion section called--and again this is The New York Times--the ``most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses--including COVID-19,'' and found there was no evidence that masks made any difference. It found that wearing masks in public places ``probably makes little or no difference'' in the number of infections. It should be noted that mask mandates included any and all masks. This study looked at the gold standard of masks, the N-95, and even they didn't make a difference. When you paired masks with preventative measures, there was no difference. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I would agree to her point that there currently is no mask mandate and the fact that the COVID-19 emergency is over. However, what this does is prevent future administrations, Republican or Democrat, from taking and impinging on the freedom and liberty of individuals. Going back to Dr. Jefferson and his study that was quoted by the New York Times, it noted that the so-called science that infringed on the liberty by forcing masks was based off of nonscientific, nonrandomized trials, that the data was flawed. We allowed ourselves and our freedoms and our liberties to be infringed. Our Founding Fathers warned us that it is in times of crisis that the Constitution and the rule of law are most in jeopardy. I lost friends to COVID. I am not saying that COVID wasn't serious, but what I am saying is this does not give the government the right to infringe on your liberty. You have a choice. It is up to you to make it. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment. I thank my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that prohibits funds for the enforcement of the recommendation, the guidance regarding mandated use of preferred pronouns. On October 11, the Secretary of HHS issued guidance that would, among other things, compel employees to call other people by their so-called preferred pronouns. I think I speak for most Americans when I say that the concept of choosing your own pronouns, which is based on biological sex, just doesn't make sense. That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about a clear and present danger to the principle of free speech. Mr. Chairman, you have a right to be you. I have a right to be me. However, your choices should not infringe on my rights. Not only does the First Amendment protect against censorship, it also has been long understood to protect against compelled speech. Perhaps one of the most egregious forms of infringement and violation of the First Amendment is compelled speech, and I rise to stand against said egregious guidance in trying to get Federal employees to buy into this nonsense. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, people have a right to practice their religion fully. They are not told to confine their faith to an hour on Sunday mornings. In fact, most major religions in the United States hold as a matter of doctrine that a person cannot change his or her gender. I go back to George Washington before the Constitutional Convention in 1789 pointedly attending a Catholic mass. He reached out to the Jewish community and proclaimed religious freedom, the choices of blessings, that unwavering commitment to religious liberty, to freedom, is what we should be honoring. Our word as a Member of Congress should mean something. If we will not stand up for the Constitution, for your right to freedom of speech, for the rights of Americans, we have no business being here. Compelling speech, Mr. Chairman, is an infringement of the most egregious nature. It must not be tolerated. This idea of not having a hostile workplace goes both ways, Mr. Chairman. Again, bark like a dog if you want to. You are still Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, guidance. I think Ronald Reagan--and I will paraphrase--said the scariest phrase in the American language is, ``I am from the government and I am here to help.'' The last thing I want is more guidance from the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, you can bark like a dog, but I am not going to call you Fido. I am going to call you Mr. Chairman. That is what this is about. This is about infringement of speech. This is about the Federal Government trying to compel employees to buy into the fantasies of other employees, and that is not the role of government. Bark like a dog if you want, but you are still Mr. Chairman. Writing for the majority in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, Justice Robert Jackson affirmed this basic idea. He wrote, ``No official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.'' Forcing employees to call people by their preferred pronouns compels those employees to affirm that it is possible for a person to change his or her gender, to buy into this fantasy even if it does contradict science and/or their faith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES

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

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