Chip Roy

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Texas for yielding me time, and I very much appreciate his service. I apologize that I am here on the floor in opposition to a rule in his first week as chairman of the Rules Committee. I have great respect for him. The gentlewoman was just essentially implying that for some reason this is somehow Donald Trump's fault. Ukraine was invaded by Russia under the watch of this President. That is the truth. This incompetent President has led to the situation that we sit in right now. People are dying in Ukraine, yes, but the problem is they are being funded with American debt. There is no skin in the game for the American people. We are not talking about tax increases. We are not doing anything to say that we are going to pay for this stuff as we rack up a trillion dollars of debt every 3 months. The truth is, Americans are dying, not just Ukrainians, at the hands of wide-open borders, while literal hostiles flood into our country, fentanyl pours into our streets, and people are chanting, ``Death to America.'' The response by Republicans is to pass a $1.7 trillion, cap-busting, spending bill under suspension of the rules, handing the keys to the NSA and intel to continue spying on Americans. Now, we are on the floor under a rule to give another $100 billion to fund war, unpaid for, with zero border security under a rule which Republicans should oppose because it is a process predesigned to achieve the desired predetermined outcome, with no border security. The individual votes on Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and a sweetener bill for TikTok are belied by the fact they are being packaged together as an amendment to the Senate-passed foreign aid bill. This was all precooked. It is why President Biden and Chuck Schumer are praising it. The problem is, there were 9 amendments handpicked by leadership to be made in order despite 300 amendments having been filed. Speaker Johnson said in January: ``If President Biden wants a supplemental spending bill focused on national security, it better begin with defending America's national security. We want to get the border closed and secured first.'' To that I say, amen, and I would say to Speaker Johnson, where is that?

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding. The gentlewoman is right, in part, in that we are here for two reasons. Yes, this bill will not become law--there is no question about that-- and it will not become law for two reasons. The first reason is that our Democratic colleagues refuse to address the crisis at the border, and in fact, want to perpetuate it, encourage it, and cause more of it. The second reason it is not going to become law is because Republicans continue to campaign on securing the border and then refuse to use any leverage to actually secure the border. That is the reason; those two reasons right there. That is why this will not become law. Let's be very clear with what we are dealing with here right now. We know the numbers. We can talk about the numbers, the 7 million that have been released into the country, the 2 million plus got-aways, the extent to which we have had a thousand pounds of fentanyl pouring across our border every month for the last 6 months, the 24,000 Chinese nationals, the 85 percent of whom are adult single individuals that have come across this border since October 1, which is more than the entirety of fiscal year 2023, and certainly more than the 381 in the last year when the policies of President Trump were in place The reality is that we are being put in danger. The American people are getting killed. Laken Riley is dead because of policies of the Biden administration, specifically the parole policies that release people into our country to kill Americans. That is what has been happening. Yet, we are going to do nothing about it. We have legislation right now that would fix the problem in significant part. H.R. 2, we passed it a year ago. It is a great bill. I support the bill. I support what is in it. It changes the policies, frankly policies that President Obama and Jeh Johnson asked us to change, like TVPRA and Flores. It changes the policies of abuse of parole and asylum by this administration. We should get it signed into law. The only way to force Democrats to do it is to use leverage, and we are not going to. Despite the fact that the Speaker of the House repeatedly has said in January at the border, a trip I didn't take because I knew full well what would happen, it would be a show trip. That is exactly the truth. If President Biden wants a supplemental spending bill focused on national security, it better begin with defending America's national security. We wanted to get the border closed and secured first. He said in a letter in December, supplemental Ukraine funding is dependent upon enactment of transformative change to our Nation's border security laws. Well, here we are today with a sham vote. Let me be very clear, the people saying that we stopped H.R. 2 in the Rules Committee and didn't allow it to get connected to or allowed to be attached to the Ukraine bill, they are lying. That is not true. It was a separate rule, a separate vote designed as cover, cover for Republicans to try to vote for a Ukraine funding bill without securing the border of the United States. Yes, I do agree with that point, that is the truth.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Texas Lions Camp in Kerr County. The Texas Lions Camp was incorporated as a 501(c)3 by the State of Texas on April 4, 1949. The polio epidemic was rampant during this time, and the Texas Lions were looking for ways to give children affected by polio a place where they could experience some normalcy in their lives. Congress passed two resolutions that authorized the sale of excess federal land surrounding the Kerrville Veterans Hospital. One of my predecessors, Congressman Ovie Clark Fisher, was instrumental in the passage of this legislation. Then-Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson was also an early supporter of Texas Lions Camp. Mr. Bill Mickelsen, a Lion from Kerrville, traveled tirelessly to Washington, DC to advocate for the ``Texas Lions League for Crippled Children'' camp in Texas. Mr. Mickelsen and his friend J.C. ``Buddy'' Murray created a detailed scale model of the Camp and eventually constructed the buildings. However, one of the strings attached to the sale of five hundred and four acres was that the Lions had to raise $100,000 within six months to guarantee construction. In pursuit of these dollars, the Lions established their ``life membership status.'' A Lion was Governor of Texas at the time, Allan Shivers. He broadcasted over the radio a call for donations to the Camp. Mr. Jack Wiech served as the first president of Texas Lions Camp in Kerrville. He went on a speaking tour across the State to drum up donations. As the six-month deadline loomed, the Lions were still $20,000 short of their goal. Mr. Sealy McCreless of San Antonio wrote a check that pushed the Lions over their goal for the Camp fundraiser. The next step was to begin construction and raise $150,000 to cover those costs. The Lions hit the road again for a second fundraising campaign. Mr. Herb Petry, the Lions Clubs International president at the time, said the Camp for special needs children ``is the best example of Lionism in action.'' Mr. Petry went on to say that ``what is being done in Kerrville under the banner of Texas Lionism must be pleasing in the sight of Him Who first taught us to serve, to be our brother's keeper, and to put the Golden Rule into practice.'' Mr. Mickelsen worked tirelessly for fifteen years to construct the Texas Lions Camp based on his original small-scale model. Famous Kerrville names, including Hal Peterson and Howard Butt of the HEB Grocery Company, donated resources to round out the construction and supplies for Camp. Over the years, the Camp adapted to allow other special-needs children to participate. Children living with blindness, hearing and speaking disorders, and various crippled limbs all enjoyed Texas Lions Camp together. This defied the original prognostications of psychologists in the 1950s, who believed children with varying disabilities could not get along. However, they learned to help each other and combine their strengths to thrive. Several hundred adult blind were also trained at the Camp through a contract with the State of Texas for a couple decades into the 1980s. Every summer, children with physical handicaps such as diabetes, down syndrome, polio, missing limbs, blindness, and other disabilities are accommodated every year at a weeklong camp session at no cost to their families. Over 82,000 children have attended Texas Lions Camp since it opened in 1949. The Camp motto is ``All Can Do!'' Campers experience a zip line, climbing wall, ropes course, fishing, boating, swimming, archery, arts and crafts, miniature golf, and much more. Therapeutic horseback riding was added in the 1980s and became a favorite pastime for campers. A more recent addition is the family camping experience, allowing the families of kids with special needs to experience Texas Lions Camp. On a more personal note, my father, Don Roy, attended the Lions Camp in Kerrville when he was recovering from Polio in the 1950s, and still talks about the positive impact it had on him and the other children. I am grateful to the eight hundred Texas Lions Clubs International that work tirelessly to provide funds for children with special needs to attend Texas Lions Camp.

Mr. ROY

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

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, to be clear, this amendment is about reporting requirements. However, on the point of the warrant, after the rampant abuses by the Federal Government, it is clear that we should have a warrant requirement under 702 to protect Americans from the querying of incidental communications collected en masse, under a broad reign of power, to target foreign entities. That is the truth. This is the FBI that targeted Catholics, put pro-life progressive activists in jail, and targeted President Trump. The proponents give up the game, saying openly the need to target U.S. persons, right here on the floor. The only thing that makes this warrantless collection of millions of Americans' international communications ``lawful'' is the government's certification that it is targeting foreigners and only foreigners. If the government changes its mind and wants to go after an American, it should have to go back and get the warrant that it skipped on the front end. This is not that hard. By the way, the argument that we would need 2,000 judges to filter through warrant requirements begs the question. Which is it? The proponents' own data indicate they would only get a hit for 1 to 2 percent via metadata. Some of those will have exceptions under our warrant amendment that we offered, so it would probably be less than 1 percent; so the 2,000 judges argument is straight up false. It is just not that hard. If you want to go after an American, if you want to look at their information, get a warrant. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding. I will just note that I certainly appreciate the intent of my friend and colleague from Texas. Obviously, we want to go after cartels, and we want to make sure we can stop the flow of fentanyl into our communities that is killing and ravaging Texans and Americans across our country. The problem here is it is unnecessary. They can go certify right now. They can go right now and certify a whole other class. We don't need this law to do that. That is the important part. We don't need this amendment, and we don't need to risk expanding it. Be that as it may, here is my real problem. Just today we have information where we had a terrorist on an Afghan watch list who was released into San Antonio, Texas. ICE just walked away from it, and now we have somebody on the terrorist watch list sitting in San Antonio, Texas. So am I supposed to say I want to grant more power to the intelligence community and more power to the government that is releasing terrorists as we speak onto the streets of Texas? It defies any kind of logic. They have the tools to do what they need to go after fentanyl without expanding FISA, which is being abused against Americans. By the way, Mr. Chair, you need the warrant requirement in order to protect against expansion of FISA.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, pretty much the entirety of the debate that has been done here has been focused on the warrant requirement, right. The reason that we have this particular amendment before us right now is simply to just be able have more reporting and more understanding of what is happening in the FISC. But there is always constant resistance by the intelligence community to looking under the hood. Because it is always the case that they want to use the fear. ``Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against danger real or pretended from abroad.'' James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, May 13, 1798. The fact is, the Founders knew precisely what would occur, that the government, in the quest to have power in the name of stopping foreign adversaries and in the name of fear, would use that power against our own citizens. That is what is occurring. That is what is happening. We have before us real and obvious abuses--278,000 of those abuses, going after the American people. And our response is a bunch of technical stuff that chases the actual core problem. Our friends don't want to get into peeling back the hood of what is happening in the intel community because our friends are the intel community. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the amendment that I have put forward here requires the FBI to report to Congress on a quarterly basis rather than an annual basis the number of U.S. person queries conducted. We simply want to have more information. We simply want to have the ability to look at this and understand whether the FBI is actually conducting these the proper way. We think quarterly is more efficient and more effective. By the way, we extended it, it does not kick in for 1 year. The FBI was complaining it was too burdensome. The FBI couldn't get this done. They got a $200 million new headquarters, but they couldn't figure out how to get this done, so we gave them 1 year. Great, so you have a year; quarterly reporting. It also grants the chairs and ranking members of the Committees on Judiciary and Intelligence in the House and the Senate, the ability to go to the FISC. Now, the problem is the chairman is going to say they oppose this. I know this because they put out their propaganda last night saying: This amendment would result in an unprecedented expansion of access to details on the most sensitive and highly classified current intelligence operations being undertaken by the government to numerous congressional staff which raises significant counterintelligence concerns. We can't have congressional staff in the FISC. No, no, no, that would be terrible. We don't want to have Article I be able to go over and get in front of the FISC and be able to see what is happening and protect American citizens. We would rather the intel community in all of its infinite wisdom be able to make all of the determinations about the security and safety of the American people. By the way, we have all the provisions in the language that say that it is up to the intel world and the FBI and all the security people to set the circumstances and all of the requirements under what the congressional staff would have to have in terms of clearances. However, to say that we can't have congressional staff be able to observe the FISC, to be able to understand what is happening there, and be able to come back here so Congress can know what is happening to protect the American people is facially absurd. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would point out that on this issue one of the concerns that we have is ensuring an adequate and fair hearing on the issue of the warrant amendment. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) raised the issue as did the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), the importance of warrant protections for American citizens. It cannot be overstated the extent to which, at our founding and throughout our history, it has been critical to place that constitutional barrier between the authority of government being used in the name of defense and in the name of security in a way that tramples on the rights and the security of the American people. That is what is at issue. That is the conundrum we face. For all of us that wish to protect our country, we know first and foremost we must protect our civil liberties or there is no country to protect. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

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

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize what we have in front of us, particularly with respect to the foreign intelligence surveillance issue. That is where we have, I think, the most debate. The fact of the matter is, for the average American watching this, they are going to be confused as to what exactly we are doing because it is a complex issue. I started this rule debate by quoting James Madison, who in 1798, I will repeat, wrote to Thomas Jefferson and said: ``Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad.'' I think that is the question that is before us right now. It is the balance that a nation struggles with, if you are a republic like ours, a republic built on the back of liberty and our constitutional protections, that is trying to balance the need to stop evil abroad from attacking our people with protecting civil liberties at home. What we have, for the average American to understand, is a big pot of collected information that is, in the words of the intel community, directed outward. That large pot of information is directed toward some 230,000 people, individuals and entities abroad. As I said earlier, we don't know who they are. We are not briefed on who they are. When we try to go into that kind of level of briefing, it is often cloaked in the intel world. They just say this is dangerous and important stuff. The Judiciary Committee chairman, for example, doesn't know who is on that list of 230,000 people. From that list of 230,000, who we don't know, and which can expand or shrink at the whim of the intel community, we then take that information and communications with any of those individuals, if you are an American citizen, you can get swept up and viewed by the intel community. That is where the abuses took place. I have heard some of my colleagues saying: You are asking for a secondary warrant when we say that the warrant amendment here is critically important. That misses the point that you have got an intelligence-driven apparatus to collect information abroad that then will sweep in communications by Americans citizens, or U.S. persons, into that database. Those communications can now be seen and can be viewed. As I noted, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report released last year said: ``Ordinary Americans may be in contact with section 702 targets for business or personal reasons even if the Americans have no connection to, or reason to suspect, any wrongdoing by their foreign contacts. . . .'' That is the problem. That is why the Judiciary Committee, which is the committee with primary jurisdiction, put in place additional protections in the form of a required warrant if you are going to look at the information of those American citizens. That was the wisdom of the very broad, bipartisan 35-2 vote in the Judiciary Committee. That was removed. The bill now put on the floor, the bill before us, now we are forced to proceed to a bill by virtue of a rule whereby we are not sure whether the issue at play, the warrant requirement, will be supported. Now, that might be fine. You say we have an open process, but it wasn't really an open process. It was a structured rule. There were provisions that were sort of cooked up to achieve the result. That is what we are looking at. In truth, there are amendments that have been part of the rule that are intel amendments which will expand FISA, which will expand the reach, and by all accounts, more likely than not, will pass. Then there are the provisions that some support that would constrain the power, for example, the warrant requirement or the ``abouts'' language which would limit the use of the more generic ``abouts,'' so you have to target the specific individuals. Then there is the enhanced reporting, which happens to be my amendment. Those provisions are meant to constrain government. The conundrum that you see, that you are going to see play out on the floor is: Do you support the rule to proceed, to move forward, under the hope that the warrant amendment will be passed? Because the sword of Damocles that is hanging over our heads is that this will expire and thus there will be pressure to pass a simple reauthorization for 5 years. That is the truth. We will see what transpires. It is my considered judgment that we ought to try, as a body, to stand behind a warrant requirement to make sure we protect the American people. The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 1125 Offered By Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 12.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the concerns that we are looking at here, I think boil down to questions that people assert when they say, ``lawfully collected information.'' Therefore, you don't need a warrant to search the 702 data for United States citizens' information. I think that is really at the crux of the debate going on. The rule that we have before us, which takes a product to respond to and make reforms and changes in response to some of the concerns raised, but then takes the critical and core component of warrant requirement and puts it off as an amendment subject to debate when there has been now some public pressure put on opposing the amendment. That is the conundrum that you are seeing unfold, for the American people to understand why there is some hesitation here to proceed, when we are proceeding with reforms that don't get to the engine of the reform, reforms that might make some improvements but those improvements are in the periphery. They ignore the core problem, that fundamental issue as to whether or not you must have a warrant to look at the information of American citizens. That is it. That is at the core of it. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about things that are significant. Just the tip of the iceberg: Searches by the intel community and the FBI included 141 Black Lives Matter protesters; two Members of Congress; journalists; political commentators; victims who contacted the FBI, people who came to the FBI offices to perform repairs; individuals on online dating services. Now we have in this bill a carve-out for Members of Congress. We get a heads-up: Hey guys, you have been queried. Why do we get something that 330 million Americans don't get? Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee reported out a rule for four pieces of legislation: H.R. 7888, Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. This legislation reauthorizes title VII, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for 5 years from the date of enactment. This bill is far from perfect, but we are going to have a lot of debate on that bill in just a moment in the rule and in 2 hours later. I will come back to that in a moment. There are three other pieces of legislation. First, H.R. 529, Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act. This bipartisan legislation enhances Customs and Border Protections' air and marine operations mission by extending Custom's law enforcement authority from 12 to 24 nautical miles of the United States coast. This will help CBP combat unlawful activity in coastal waters at a time when we have significant problems with respect to our borders. H. Res. 1112, denouncing the Biden administration's immigration policies. This resolution denounces President Biden's open-border policies. It calls on the administration to immediately put in place policies that will end the crisis at our southern border. This is an important message. It is an important statement, but I hope this Congress will speak with one voice against an administration that refuses to enforce the law. This resolution is one statement along those lines. H. Res. 1117, opposing efforts to place one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza. This resolution affirms that Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, has the right to defend itself against Hamas and makes clear that the House of Representatives opposes efforts to place one-sided pressures on Israel to implement an immediate cease- fire. This resolution is necessary because regrettably, embarrassingly, this administration took a seat, sat down, abstained, abstained in the face of the horrors that we saw unfold on October 7 to our friend, Israel; by sitting down when the United Nations Security Council called for a cease-fire, and pushing on Israel to walk away from its efforts to combat what Hamas has been doing to the people of Israel. We should speak with clarity as the Congress of the United States that we stand in solidarity with the people of Israel, and this resolution is one way in which we can do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for hosting a forum here on the floor for our colleagues to be able to talk about the important issues with respect to Bidenomics, such as you can even use that term as anything other than creating and inflicting pain on the American people through a big spending, highly regulatory inflationary environment that is killing the average hardworking American family. That is the truth. My colleague from Utah brought a number of our other colleagues down to make that point very clearly, in addition to making the point that I have come to the floor of the House to underscore and reiterate. That is the importance of the United States of America standing side by side, shoulder to shoulder, with our friend, Israel. We are not. That is the plain and simple truth. We are not standing side by side with Israel at a time when she most needs it. Three days ago was April 7. That marked the 6-month timeframe since the brutal attacks of October 7. October 7 in Israel has become much like we describe September 11. As we know, through both what is publicly available and those things that we have seen privately in terms of the information available, the videos that we have seen, the horrific slaughter of human beings in Israel, Hamas slaughtered children, raped women, burned whole families alive, and took hundreds of innocent civilians hostage. An estimated 1,200 Israelis were killed on October 7. Those numbers are still numbers that we are trying to track down. An estimated 130 hostages of the initial estimate of 250 are still believed to be held in Gaza. To be very clear, that includes Americans. Americans are right now being held hostage by Hamas in Gaza. Ninety-one Israelis are dual citizens, and eight Thai nationals, one Nepali, one French-Mexican, but six Americans. Instead of unequivocally backing Israel and the fight against Hamas, a United States-designated terrorist group, I want to be very clear, the Biden administration has been undermining Israel every step of the way. Last November, on the floor of this body, the people's House, the Representatives of this body passed, on a bipartisan basis, funding for Israel. We did so immediately. It is something I am proud of. I am not shy to criticize Members of both sides of the aisle for the shortcomings of the people's House, but we came together on a bipartisan basis, and we passed, I think it was, about $17 billion in funding for our friends in Israel just over a month after the vicious attacks against them. That bill would have funded their needs, shown that we would stand next to Israel, and importantly, it was paid for. It was paid for out of the expansion of the Internal Revenue Service, which most recently was found by the IRS' own inspector general to have 63 percent of the audits that were added are for people who make less than $200,000. Mr. Speaker, 63 percent of the audits were for people who make less than $200,000. By the way, that is what we said would happen, if you expand the power of the IRS the average American, the average hardworking family, would get targeted by the bureaucrats at the IRS. However, our Democratic colleagues and the President of the United States--a Democrat, radical progressive Democrats--are choosing the Internal Revenue Service, are choosing to target you, the hardworking American family, are choosing to side with Hamas over Israel. That is what is happening. So instead of America standing up together united and standing right alongside Israel, our Democratic colleagues and the administration and in this body and in the Senate give lip service to standing with them, and instead, are trying to undermine them. Again, I want to be very clear. Republicans in the House passed off of this floor with Democrat votes legislation that would fund Israel that was paid for--so we are no longer just spending money into oblivion--by taking away some of the increased expansion of the IRS that the IRS' own inspector general has acknowledged and reports as being used to target hardworking, middle-class families. That is the truth. That is the distinction. But it goes a lot further than that. The Biden administration is trying to tie the hands of Israel. They are taking active steps to undermine Israel. President Biden told reporters that Israel's military operations in Gaza were ``over the top'' and the bombing was ``indiscriminate.'' President Biden told protestors: ``. . . I've been quietly working with the Israeli Government to get them to reduce and significantly get out of Gaza. I've been using all that I can to do that.'' That is the President of the United States. On March 25, just a couple weeks ago, President Biden's representatives at the United Nations green-lighted, by abstaining instead of voting--by abstaining instead of voting--on a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire without any connection to the release of hostages. Can you imagine the leadership of our country where they could have a veto exercise in the United Nations Security Council, they chose not to exercise that, abstained, walked away, refused to stand up, and in essence, turned their back fully, not just on the nation of Israel but on every Jewish American who knows family and friends, and has their heritage connected to the great State of Israel. This President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle turned their backs on Israel. That is the truth. There is no debate on that truth. It is literally what happened. Now, by the way, the administration is all too happy to continue to throw billions of dollars to the United Nations. This is when I give a little wake-up call to my colleagues on this side of the aisle for continuing to fund a government at war with our people and at war with our values by giving more funding for the United Nations. It is this administration that is throwing money at the United Nations--I think this last bill we moved was $3.5 billion. Let's keep in mind that the United Nations General Assembly, the paragon of virtue, has passed 153 resolutions condemning Israel. They have passed zero on China, zero on Cuba, zero on Turkiye. I can keep going down the list, but they have passed 153 resolutions condemning Israel. Anybody with eyes can see what is happening. The prime minister of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu was correct when he said: ``Just as the United States would not agree to a cease-fire after the bombing of Pearl Harbor or after the terrorist attack of 9/11, Israel will not agree to a cessation of hostilities with Hamas after the horrific attacks of October 7.'' Every Member of Congress, the President of the United States, every Member of the Senate, we should be standing up shoulder to shoulder backing Prime Minister Netanyahu, backing Israel with their unequivocal right to defend themselves, their unequivocal right to root out Hamas from the hostile forces that have been attacking them and to not allow the international community to gaslight the world into saying that Israel is slaughtering civilians, because it is simply not true. The press and the international community will throw out numbers of the casualties in Gaza, but what they don't tell you is that a large number of those casualties are, in fact, enemy combatants. They are literally operating like divisions, like a military, but they hide because they are cowards. Hamas are cowards, and they hide under schools, and they hide under hospitals, and they build tunnels all through the city, all through the streets, making it as hard as it has ever been in the history of warfare for a sovereign nation, Israel, to defend itself against evil, terrorists embedded in the civilian communities right underneath the streets of Gaza. But what is amazing is that what will be studied for years to come is the extent to which Israel has bent over backwards, has worked to minimize the casualties. I don't have the most recent data, but I would tell you that it is something in the ZIP code of, I think, 19,000-ish casualties of civilians and about 13,000 terrorists or enemy combatants. If you don't know how ratios work out in the world of combatants, this is actually an historic low. History will judge this as an extraordinary feat by Israel to attack those who levied the most heinous attacks on their people and are holding hostage--I will remind people--six Americans. History will view this as an unprecedented success in modern warfare to root out and target evil and try to avoid civilian harm. Just to give you an example, I just told you there were roughly 19,000 civilian casualties to about 13,000 enemy combatant casualties. Mr. Speaker, there were 19,000 civilian casualties to about 13,000 enemy combatant casualties that I believe the data reflects that we see going on in terms of Israel and their engagement with Hamas in Gaza. Here is a point of reference: According to the United Nations, civilians usually make up around 90 percent of casualties in war, which would be a 1-to-9 ratio. I mean, think about that. Think about the extent to which that is what the United Nations--the paragon of virtue, that has had 153 resolutions condemning Israel--the United Nations says the ratio is normally 1-to-9. And Israel has got it at something in the ZIP code of like 1-to-1\1/2\. While you have the enemy not marching in a line of red coats, not getting in the field and just marching at you as enemy combatants but hiding as the cowards that they are in the tunnels under the schools and the hospitals and the businesses and the communities in Gaza. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber and in the Senate should be ashamed of themselves as should the President of the United States for walking away from Israel, going to the United Nations, abstaining from your role in the Security Council to stand aside Israel while buying into the nonsensical lies about what Israel is doing when they are actually doing probably the best job in the history of humankind to root out and target the enemy combatants and the terrorists who are embedded in the communities of Gaza. It is an extraordinary feat. It is something we should hold up as a model of success and then stand alongside Israel. And what we should do is send over the $17 billion that we already passed off the floor of the House and sent to the Senate which is paid for by shrinking the IRS; an IRS which as I already pointed out is targeting hardworking American families as the Inspector General of the IRS noted. Seek the truth. Figure out what is really happening. I notice that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) has joined me. I have been talking about the extent to which we should be standing alongside our friends from Israel, and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland. His remarks are particularly meaningful as one who proudly wore the uniform of the Armed Forces of the United States. I appreciate him for his service in the military, as well as a Member of Congress. Mr. Speaker, he says it exactly right. I think it is really critical to understand that it is disgraceful--I don't know what other way to put it--it is disgraceful for the American President to pressure Israel instead of Hamas. But that is what is happening. If we truly want to end the humanitarian suffering that war necessarily brings, the answer is never, and is not appeasement. It is not. It is the unequivocal support for Israel finishing the job. Everything else is a distraction. The American people--I know the Americans I represent, the Texans I represent, I assume the gentleman's constituents--they want us to stand with Israel on a bipartisan basis. That means pressuring the Senate to take up the bill that we already sent them that is, in fact, paid for, that we sent in November, pressuring the Senate to bring up that bill. By the way, for their part, Hamas can end this war immediately by accepting the fact that their side has lost the conflict, that Israel is going to exist, and that America is going to stand next to her. Because as long as we are in this body, we are going to be fighting to ensure that this country stands side by side with Israel, notwithstanding the fool-headed decisions of the current administration. Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad pledged that the October 7 attacks were just the first time; that there will be a second, third, and fourth. Will we pay a price, he says? Yes, and we are ready. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs. Are we awake? That is the truth, and it is not just Michigan on our soil, by the way. In Houston, Texas, this last week, there were individuals chanting ``death to America.'' It is coming to our shores, it is on our shores because a weak administration, a weak Congress is allowing it and encouraging it. Calls for a cease-fire are called for Israel to surrender to Hamas and to surrender to terrorism. Those are the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he is completely correct. A cease-fire will only allow Hamas to rebuild a planned another October 7. That is the truth. Mr. Speaker, I close with one point here. I am never afraid to call out my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I stand behind a speech I gave before Thanksgiving saying: What have we done? Name one thing. But I want to say this: The debate for the soul of this country is happening on the Republican side of the aisle, and it is a debate that is being carried out on full display for the American people to see it, and it started with the Speaker's debate 15 months ago, and it has gone through a number of unbelievably important changes that we have been trying to make in this institution and we are not going to stop. We are not. Last year, we were able to pass the strongest border security bill in history. I am proud of that as a Republican. It went over to the Senate, and it died at the hands of Democrats. We were able to pass a responsible increase in the debt ceiling with reforms that would have made this country stronger, more prosperous, with less inflation. Unfortunately, side deals got done and that got sidetracked, but it was a giant step forward. This body impeached for only the second time in history a sitting cabinet member, Alejandro Mayorkas, for his complete and utter failure to secure the border of the United States and his dereliction of duty. I am proud of that. I am proud that this body has done that. I proud that we stood up and sent over legislation to the Senate that funded Israel, that took that money and paid for it out of the IRS. I am proud of that. When Republicans stand united for victory, stand united for freedom, stand united athwart our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and an administration that would undermine our country and undermine liberty and walk away from Israel and fund open borders, when we are united against that, we win, and we lead, and people follow. When we, instead, cower down and say, Oh, we have to do something to get something done, just for the sake of it, then that is just unity with no purpose. I am proud of the Republican Conference when we are united in purpose to defend the liberty of the American people. I am proud today that we had a debate right here about the difficult decisions of foreign intelligence surveillance so we can go after bad guys, like the bad guys that want to hit Israel and hit us, but to do so while we are respecting the constitutional protections and the liberties that the Founders understood were critical. We do not have a country that is worth preserving if we are going to burn the Constitution while we try to defend it. We must stand together to defend civil liberties while we stand together to defend our country. The American people expect no less. We should stand side by side with Israel. We should unite to make sure that we can continue to carry out surveillance against bad actors while protecting civil liberties. We should stop spending money we don't have. We should secure the border of the United States. We should continue to do the great things this Republican Conference has been able to do when we are united and standing against an administration led by radical progressive Democrats that want to undermine the American Dream, destroy our sovereignty, leave our borders open, undermine our children's safety, put criminals on the street, side with Hamas over Israel. We can stand athwart that if will unite to do it. That is my call. That is what I believe we must do. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) for joining me, and I yield back the balance of my time.