Chip Roy

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding. My friend was talking about rigging the rules. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are all too happy to have district judges rig the rules to stop the President of the United States from being able to defend our country. Just last week, within close proximity to my house in Dripping Springs, Texas, 47 individuals who are affiliated with the gang Tren de Aragua were found by ICE. Right down the road in suburban Austin, Texas, 47 people, including 9 children, were found in what was a stash house, moving narcotics through it. This is the same gang that killed Jocelyn Nungaray last summer. This is the same gang that was torturing and driving fear into the hearts of the people in Aurora, Colorado, in the apartment complexes that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge. These are all the same people who are being allowed to vote, the same people that we were elected in November to remove from the country. The President of the United States as Commander in Chief in defending the United States and as the Chief Executive is carrying out the laws to remove dangerous individuals from the United States of America. Then, an activist district judge in the District of Columbia decided that, in his view, he had to step in. He had to step in to try to assert his jurisdiction where it did not belong to try to stop the President of the United States from removing dangerous gang members who are killing Americans. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the United States Supreme Court said: Stop. You don't get to do that, Mr. District Judge in D.C. If you are going to do this, you have to do this in Texas. Mr. Speaker, that was the whole point. Just today, we had another ruling out of the Supreme Court slapping down yet another activist judge. What are we doing, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) asks. What are we doing as Republicans? We are putting forward language today that would stop rogue district judges from carrying out nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders and who are trying to effectively legislate from the bench. Mr. Speaker, we are not alone in that position. The Biden administration's solicitor general in 2024 told the Supreme Court: ``A court of equity may grant relief only to the parties before it.'' In 2022, that same solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to address nationwide injunctions. In 2022, Justice Elena Kagan spoke out against the ability of a single judge to stop implementation of a policy across the country. Lo and behold, we are advancing bipartisan work to address a bipartisan problem that Democrats have very clearly identified. The only difference now is that Donald Trump is in the White House instead of Joe Biden.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding additional time. Mr. Speaker, again, Republicans have brought forward a rule containing a bill that addresses a problem that Democrats have identified as a problem, to say that the parties before the court are the only ones to whom it should apply and allows for a mechanism to achieve nationwide injunctions through a three-judge panel. Mr. Speaker, we are also bringing to the floor a bill that will say that only American citizens should vote in American elections. The controversy--oh, my gosh--the bloodletting, that we might say in the United States House of Representatives that only American citizens should be able to vote in American elections. Yet, that is what we are doing. Republicans are responding to an American people who are tired of the previous administration that was allowing illegals to come into our country, kill our citizens, vote in our elections, and undermine our country. We are addressing their concerns, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to address it. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule, and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding me time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would note for the American people that the Republican majority is bringing before the body two important measures this week. The first measure is to ensure the integrity of our elections, to ensure that only American citizens can vote in American elections, a fairly commonsense principle, which enjoys 80 percent-plus approval among the American people, that would ensure in a straightforward way that noncitizens may not vote in our elections. It is that simple. The second measure we are bringing forward is a piece of legislation that we are actively debating right now in a committee that I am co- chairing, the Committee on the Judiciary, and I will go back to that committee forthwith, in which we are having witnesses before the Committee on the Judiciary discussing the extent to which we have judges that are taking unilateral action under what are called temporary restraining orders, or injunctions, to thwart the efforts of the administration's actions as a direct result of the election in November to carry out the agenda for which the President was elected. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan problem that has been something where you have judges that will act unilaterally as a single-district judge, and the question is: What do we do about it? We have had Democrats who have said that we should change it. We have had Republicans who have said that we should change it. We are trying to change it. We are trying to say that a judge can take action on the parties before them, but nothing more, and then have that go up through another procedure, and then allow an appellate panel or a three-judge panel or the Supreme Court to fast track it, so if they decide there should be an injunction, there can be. Mr. Speaker, let me put it in plain speak for the American people. We are putting measures on the floor to ensure that only American citizens vote in American elections and to ensure that judges don't make the policy for America but the elected leaders do, whether it is the executive branch, President, or the Members of Congress, and that there be a process to ensure that the Constitution, the laws of the land, are being protected. That is what the majority in this body is putting forward. We can listen all day long about what we are hearing today regarding proxy voting. The American people who I know and represent and talk to expect us to show up. Right now, across this country, Americans are showing up to work. They are going in, and they are doing their plumbing work. There are electricians showing up to work. There are builders who are standing out in the sun. They are picking crops. They are working hard. They don't get to take a pass. They don't get to not show up. Yet, we were elected to represent the 750,000-odd Americans each. We were elected under the Constitution of the United States, and we are supposed to show up in Congress; that is what it means. We are supposed to be here. It is why the institution exists. It is why this floor exists. Mr. Speaker, there have been countless reasons why there would be cause for us to want to allow Members to have some sort of flexibility, such as people who are sick, or our friend, Steve Scalise, who was shot. He was shot, and he didn't ask for any special dispensation. He fought cancer, is still fighting cancer, and as majority leader is standing here on this floor every day doing the job. New dads. I am a dad. My daughter and my son ask me to show up to things. I missed my son's 4-H presentation last week. I missed my daughter's 4-H event this last week. I have missed countless family engagements. My wife carries the burden of making sure that our family can function back home in Texas, but I signed up for the job. That is what I did. I signed up for the job. When Members let this happen, it will not just happen for mothers or fathers. It will be for everybody, and then we will have proxy voting where you will have pressures brought to bear that will fundamentally change this institution. No, we should not allow this to occur. No, we shouldn't have a discharge petition brought to the floor, which does violence to the Constitution, does violence to the body, and does it with no ability to amend it. The way the rule is drafted, there would be no amendments and no ability to debate it.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding additional time. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing on the floor today is right and proper under our rules. It is to say that we should have a full-throated debate on something that would fundamentally change the people's House, nothing more, nothing less. We should do that. This is something that has been debatable. It was debated by the Founders. It was debated by them and rejected. It was debated and rejected in the Articles of Confederation. It was debated and rejected in the Constitution. We are now staring at the result of having set aside tradition and precedent by embracing proxy voting during COVID. It is trying to be expanded beyond that. We should not do that.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the New Braunfels Noon Lions Club on their 100 dedicated years of service to the New Braunfels community. Originally chartered as the Lions Club of New Braunfels on April 10, 1925, and later known as the New Braunfels Noon Lions Club, this organization has been an integral part of the community for 100 years, embodying the spirit of service and leadership. Lions Clubs International is the world's largest service club organization, with more than 1.35 million members in over 220 nations and geographic areas, united by the motto ``We Serve;'' the Lions focus on five core pillars of service. Preventing blindness and improving quality of life for those who are blind or visually impaired, ensuring access to food for all in the community, reducing the prevalence of diabetes and enhancing the lives of those afflicted, supporting programs that assist children with cancer, and protecting and restoring the environment to promote community well-being. Recently, the Noon Lions volunteered at elementary schools in Comal County to provide free vision screenings for thousands of elementary school children. In the coming months, the Lions will travel to Belize and partner with the Belize City Lions Club to provide vision screening, meals to those in need, and support for the city. I know the Lions will be a beacon of light and hope and they will represent Texas well during their trip abroad. Over the past century, the New Braunfels Noon Lions Club has exemplified the Lions' mission by making a profound impact in the local community through service, leadership, and philanthropy. They have made a lasting impact on the community by contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to local causes, funding its charitable work through dedicated volunteer efforts at various fundraising activities throughout the community, and fostering a spirit of patriotism and community pride. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the New Braunfels Noon Lions. Here's to 100 more.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. So here we are again. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who constantly always talk about the need to support a CR to ``keep the lights on'' now find themselves in the curious position of not wanting to have the lights on because they don't like what is happening. So they don't want the lights to be on because you have got people in the executive branch who have taken seriously the election mandate that was given to the President of the United States to end the absurdity of nonstop wasteful spending and the ridiculousness of expenditures like $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru. That is the kind of stuff that makes the American people's heads explode. There are hundreds of these examples. I can sit here and list them. The fact is this stuff is getting exposed in real time. The American people are seeing it, and now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to run from it. That is why they don't like this bill. That is why they want to have a shutdown. After all of these years of decrying the possibility of a shutdown, you are seeing all over the news today talk about the possibility of a Schumer shutdown. What you are talking about there are news article after news article such as The Hill, February 11, ``Democrats step up talk about using shutdown as leverage against Donald Trump'': ``A Democratic Senator who requested anonymity . . . said . . . the March 14 deadline may be the best `leverage' they have,'' and The Guardian, February 15, ``Democrats in Congress see potential shutdown as leverage to counter Trump.'' I can insert into the Record dozens of these stories because the fact of the matter is the gig is up. It is much like how the American people were able to see the absolute and rampant corruption of our education system during COVID. When everything was shut down, they were watching their kids and they saw these screens, and they said what on Earth are they being taught? Suddenly the American people saw the reality of our broken education system. They saw the fraud that was perpetrated by Anthony Fauci on the American people in shutting down their way of life. Now, you have got Democrats who are being exposed for having continuously funded this largess and this bureaucracy that is completely indefensible. The American people are tired of having their tax dollars taken and dollars being borrowed by an endless stream of borrowing by this Congress. Now, you have got a Congress that is willing to work with the President to stop it, to stand up and say this is enough. What are we putting in place? We are putting in place, oh, the horror, a spending freeze. Oh, can you believe that the Federal Government might need to tighten its belt and have a spending freeze? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to bring out these parades of horribles, that somehow this is a massive number of cuts because only in Washington is that a cut. You have got a spending freeze and holding basically spending in check for 2024. We have a bill that, by the way, pulls out earmarks, which are often replete with special wish lists. By the way, that is both sides of the aisle. We have got a bill here that is going to hold spending in check to allow us to do our job for the fiscal year '26 appropriations cycle between now and September. By the way, it was Republicans who passed 5 appropriations bills off of the House floor last year and 12 appropriations bills out of committee last year. The previous year it was Republicans who passed 7 appropriations bills off the floor and all 12 out of committee. The Democrat-led Senate passed zero. Do you want to know why we are where we are right now? It is because our Democratic colleagues in the Senate passed zero appropriations bills, not one. So we came in here, and now Republicans have control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, and now we are trying to get things moving in the right direction, and our Democratic colleagues don't want to have any part of it. We are putting forward a commonsense measure. I understand why some of my conservative flank fiscal conservatives have concerns about a CR. I don't love CRs, but when you can have a CR that extends spending at 2024 levels for the next 6 months and empowers the President to be able to continue to do what they are doing, shining the light on spending restraint, shining the light on waste so that we can do our job and implement that--and, by the way, I will say that to both sides of the aisle. Both sides of the aisle need to take in that information and implement it when we do appropriations this year. We will move spending down, eliminate the waste. We will try to do something about the fact that in 2019 our entire budget was $4.5 trillion, and today it is $7 trillion. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no answer to that besides, oh, magic tax cuts. You could literally confiscate the wealth of the wealthiest 1 percent of America and not dent what we have got in terms of $36 trillion in debt. You would kill jobs and destroy the economy in the process. That is the only answer my colleagues have to $7 trillion in spending. The fact of the matter is, this CR is responsible. It is fiscally appropriate. It will leave the lights on so the President and DOGE and Elon and Russ Vought of OMB can do their job, and I hope that my colleagues on this side of the aisle will support the rule.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sudden religion my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have found on spending restraint and the need to cut spending. I look forward to all the proposals that my colleagues will put forward on reducing significant amounts of spending and waste, fraud, and abuse. I will look for that press conference they will no doubt have some time this week. I would also note that when we talk about continuing resolutions, what my colleague just failed to mention was the fact that literally every single Democrat voted for the CR that we just had in December, like literally every single Democrat except for one who I think maybe took a ``present'' vote. The fact of the matter is it has nothing to do with that. The fact of the matter is for those of us who do not like CRs as a general principle, the fact is because Democrats literally wouldn't pass an appropriations bill out of the Senate, we are left doing the cleanup work of trying to figure out how to move forward while we have an administration that isn't at war with its own people when the previous administration was blatantly disregarding the well-being of the American people to have wide-open borders letting fentanyl and letting all manners of evil come into our country leading to the death and destruction of the people that I represent, people like Jocelyn Nungaray who lost her life to the hands of the Tren de Aragua because Joe Biden decided it was more important to let millions of people into this country in violation of our laws endangering the people. That is why our bill has additional funding for ICE to make sure that we have got the beds to undo the damage that the Biden regime has carried out on the American people. Those are the actual facts. The fact of the matter is, no, you don't want to have a CR to continue the funding under Joe Biden because Joe Biden was at war with the American people. Now, we have a present administration that is trying to do the job that they sent him there to do: secure the border of the United States; hold back spending; eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; get this economy going again; get the regulations out of the way of the American people; and do the job they want us to do.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding. My, my, how times have changed. How many times have we been sitting on the floor of the House listening to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that a CR is the greatest thing since sliced bread; we must have the CR? That is because when some of us were saying: Wait a minute, Mr. President, wait a minute, President Biden, maybe we should actually secure the border of the United States instead of letting millions of people flood in and kill Americans and let fentanyl flood into our communities. So when we wanted to secure the border and we dared to say the funding should actually reflect that and we threatened to actually have a fight on spending, then my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: CR, we have got to have a CR, our precious CR. Mr. Speaker, here we are. What are we doing? Our colleagues oppose the CR. Why? It is because we would have spending frozen for 6 months down about $7 billion, but, importantly, allow DOGE and allow our friends in the administration to continue to expose the absurdity of Federal spending. How about $1.5 billion to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion at Serbia's workplaces; $70,000 for a production of a DEI musical in Ireland; $2.5 million for electric vehicles in Vietnam; $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia; and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru? This is what our Democratic colleagues are fighting for, to continue to fund absurd programs rather than do the commonsense work of what we are trying to do to have more beds for ICE, secure the border of the United States, ensure that our defense is funded, and ensure that we are able to hold spending in check so we can actually have a chance of saving this great country.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 21) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the lead author of this legislation.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 21.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act protects one of our most vulnerable populations; innocent children. I am proud that at the beginning of the 119th Congress, we are taking this step toward protecting life and the fundamental rights of our most vulnerable American citizens. We are all too familiar with the horrors of abortion and the unchecked power of the abortion industry. We know it is simply common sense to provide lifesaving care to those babies who survive an abortion. In 2013, Jill Stanek testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary about the horrific realities of being a nurse and seeing children being aborted alive and left to die alone in a dirty utility closet. I can hardly believe that those words are coming out of my mouth standing here on the floor of the House of Representatives, in this, the beacon of hope for people around the world. She said: I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of holding a little abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died, a 21- or 22-week-old baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome. That is hard to believe. One of my guests for the inauguration, one of my dear friends from Austin, Texas, a somewhat well-renowned musician and songwriter, brought his son who has Down syndrome and is such a blessing to this world. That child, as well as this child that was left to die alone in a dirty utility closet, was and is a fellow human being, a fellow American whose right to life should have been protected by the law. Congress cannot stand by and allow this type of suffering. We have both a moral and a constitutional duty here. This legislation is simple: The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act requires that infants born alive under an attempted abortion receive the same protection under the law and degree of care of any newborn, combined with, by the way, the penalties associated with those who would ignore their duty under the law. Mr. Speaker, it is a commonsense measure. Unfortunately, as evidenced by comments from many of my Democrat colleagues, not everyone believes that a child born alive should be protected. In 2019, then-Virginia Governor Northam stated: ``The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,'' said the Democrat Governor of Virginia. This blatant disregard for human life has no place in the medical profession in our country. Last Congress, unfortunately, only one Democrat voted in favor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and another voted ``present.'' My Democrat colleagues send a clear message to the American people that these innocent lives are not worthy of protection and those who intentionally let infants die after birth should not be held accountable. If a baby American, a fellow American, is lying on a table dying and we cannot, as Congress, as the leaders of this country and the leaders of the free world, cannot say that under the language of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, under the language of the Declaration of Independence that animates our Constitution, and under the privileges of immunities--the roots of which are found in English common law that create the bedrock of our entire justice system--then we need to make sure that that child is protected even and especially because of its defenseless nature. Mr. Speaker, that is our duty. That is why I rise in support of this legislation. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I would note another abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden, testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2015. ``You wouldn't know it by looking at me today, but in August of 1977, I survived a failed saline infusion abortion. . . . I know where children like me were left to die at St. Luke's hospital--a utility closet.'' Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach) for 2 minutes.

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, our heart goes out to our colleagues who have suffered personal tragedies. Unfortunately, none of the things that were just ascribed to this bill are true. The bill does none of those things. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my friend and co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus.

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the powerful words of my friend from North Carolina, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for those who were not here at the beginning, I would repeat the testimony of Jill Stanek. She testified before the House Judiciary Committee after seeing the horrific reality. She was a nurse, and she saw a child being aborted who was alive and was left to die alone in a utility closet. She went over and held the little survivor for 45 minutes until the baby died. Again, the baby had been aborted because the baby had Down syndrome. I want to remind Members that Virginia Governor Northam said: ``The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired.'' We are talking about a fellow living American baby. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about abortion. We are talking about a child. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder).

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri.

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

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my colleagues like to dismiss this as if it is not a real problem. Of course, those who have suffered through it, including the baby whom I described who was being held as it was dying for 45 minutes after such a grotesque procedure, beg to differ, as do the 143 babies whom the CDC, which is hardly a paragon of pro-life propaganda, writes that between 2003 and 2014 at least 143 babies died after being born alive. This is hardly a fiction. This is hardly something that we should ignore. Certainly, these are babies who are deserving of equal protection under the law. Our fellow Americans deserve protection. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of strong women on this side of the aisle who beg to differ, including the lead author of the legislation. I would note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to focus on the main point, which is ``born alive.'' We are talking about, again, a fellow living human being, a fellow American who is alive. My colleagues don't want to address that because they know the horrors of that will not be accepted by the American people. We are just simply saying that when you have a living human being, it should be protected and be given the same equal protection as any other American. The fact of the matter is this is real life that we are dealing with. Mr. Speaker, 284 babies were reported to have been born alive between 1997 and 2024. Florida alone reported 14 babies born alive in 2023. This is a real issue. We are just simply saying that these precious babies, fellow Americans, deserve protection because they are alive. Under the Hippocratic oath, doctors should care for these living, fellow Americans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was just handed by my pro-life, female legislative director information here about pregnancy centers. Pregnancy resource centers nationwide serve millions of pregnant women and new mothers each year. These centers provide services and resources often at no charge and include ultrasounds, pregnancy testing, STD testing, diapers, clothing, and educational programs. Private and public adoption agencies assisted approximately 115,000 adoptions in 2022. These are organizations and entities that want to protect life. Again, I will note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not address and do not want to address the simple purpose of this bill: protecting a living American from being allowed to die without having medical treatment provided to that child. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about jail and we are going to talk about who might be pardoned, then I am proud that President Trump seems to be on the verge of pardoning a large number of American citizens who have been put in jail at the hands of a weaponized Department of Justice against American citizens simply carrying out their First Amendment rights to speak out in defense of life. For example, Lauren Handy, 31 years old--by the way, an active, progressive activist for human rights--was put in jail for 57 months. I am glad that it seems that President Trump is on the verge of pardoning Lauren Handy. Even though I disagree with her on a whole lot of issues, I was proud to sit with her and meet with her when she was being targeted for prosecution by the weaponized Department of Justice under Joe Biden to be put in jail because she is pro-life. I think great things are going to happen. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.