Chip Roy

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Please.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. This was kind of an impromptu colloquy, but I think this is the best of what we do in the House, and I would like to do it more often with you and other colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman who has served in IDF and who has served in our Armed Forces: You bear the scars of your service, and we thank you for that. You know well what the Israelis are experiencing every day. And I am glad that you and I stand here united, along with at least the majority of conference. I wish it was more of a bipartisan agreement of our duty in this country, our responsibility to stand with our friends in Israel, with whom we have an extraordinary relationship. That our joint efforts to stand athwart terrorists to build things like Iron Dome. To work together on missile defense technology has made this world infinitely safer. And that the most recent administration, the President Trump administration, deserves extraordinary credit, which it never gets in the press, for what was an unbelievable achievement with respect to Middle East peace and the direction we were headed. And that we are going to stand with Israel. That we are going to make that an unequivocal statement, that we stand with Israel, we are going to defend Israel, and we are going to make sure that we can work together in peace going forward for the betterment of this world and for our mutual relationship. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman for any closing thoughts.

Mr. ROY. Would the gentleman be surprised if I told him that on my first trip to Israel in 2014 May, I believe, that we were able to take a helicopter tour of the north end of Israel, as I described earlier, where the bulk of the population is, and fly up the Jordan River and go up to the northern part of Israel, and that we would have been able to experience visiting a hospital in Israel where Israeli doctors, Jewish doctors, were caring for at the time--the gentleman will remember in 2014 what was going on in Syria and the devastating toll that the Syrian regime was having on its own people--and that there were children and women and those who were being attacked in their own country in Syria who were receiving the best, top-notch medical care in the world in Israeli hospitals? Then, Israelis were secreting them back to Syria and not making it public so that there would be no reprisal taken against the Syrians because they had gone to get care in Israel. Would the gentleman be surprised by that, based on his experience and his service in Israeli Defense Forces?

Mr. ROY. I would say to the gentleman that my response is that I could go through a similar list, and the gentleman has done that perfectly well. What I was struck by in my time in Israel, and that was particularly in the summer of 2019 as I already described and May 2014, the extent to which the people of Israel were so grateful, one, for the United States' support in working with them on Iron Dome in order to have the technology, and not just Iron Dome, David's Sling and all the various different technologies that they are using to be able to live, to be able to live in less fear, and their ability, by the way, to build a fence, to build an infrastructure and border in order to prevent traffic and people coming in that might wish to do them harm, and the extent to which they would tell stories about loved ones that each and every one of them had lost in one of these suicide bombings or some other attack. How gratified they were that many of these things were things they were talking about in the past and that Israel was moving forward and being able to live in peace and to be able to live without fear of those kinds of attacks as much. I would just question whether the gentleman would agree that--I don't necessarily always believe in coincidences when we have an administration who refuses to even call Prime Minister Netanyahu for the first 40 or 50 days of the administration. We have an administration that was more interested in sitting down with Iran than sitting down with our friends in Israel, so that we might see that some of our enemies, our mutual enemies, are emboldened to engage in this kind of attack.

Mr. ROY. Well, the gentleman recounts something that I experienced, as well, and, more than that, a heartfelt description of the reasons that the Israelis were so thankful for our friendship and our support and their belief, I believe rightfully so, that the United States' relationship with Israel is a significant part of their ability to exist as a nation, particularly under the intense scrutiny and attack that they find themselves. Here we are, I think this Friday will be the 73rd anniversary of Israeli independence. I think I am right about that. I pulled it out of my head. That almost now 75 years is, I think, in direct connection to America's support. Of course, it has ebbed and flowed over the years, but that support and that particularly strong support with President Trump moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, I believe that the people of Israel rightfully recognize that support is key to their security and safety, if the gentleman agrees.

Mr. ROY. Well, I do agree with the gentleman. I might say to the Speaker, in order to be deferential to my friend's time, if I might ask how much time remains in the gentleman's half-hour?

Mr. ROY. I would agree with the gentleman. I would add a couple of other thoughts. I noticed today a tweet on May 11, which would be yesterday, by Supreme Leader Khamenei, ``Palestinians are awake and determined. They must continue this path. One can only talk with the language of power with these criminals,'' i.e., Israelis. ``They must increase their strength, stand strong, confront the enemy,'' the enemy being, of course, Israel, ``and force them to stop their crimes.'' Would the gentleman agree that Iran is certainly responsible and tied to Hamas, to the supply of rockets and technology that is being targeted toward our friends in Israel and that we must remember where Iran stands with respect to Israel and the United States?

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman. I would suggest that the gentleman made the point best earlier when he said, How would we respond in United States of America if this many missiles were being fired from Mexico? Where, by the way, we have cartels who are operating control of our border. If we had, literally--and here is some of the data. The gentleman quoted some data. Here is some from my staff: More than 1,500 missiles--possibly 700 already, I think the gentleman alluded to--in the last 72 hours, on average, every 3 minutes by Hamas; 200 of the rockets fired fell short of crossing the border and caused civilian damage; IDF targeting military PIJ and Hamas infrastructure, the operatives and the rocket launchers, an Iron Dome battery was operationalized from reserves. IDF forwarded an attack by an elite Hamas unit, which is trying to dig a tunnel into Israel. And now you have got the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Quds Brigade saying it will expand the ring of fire and target Tel Aviv, and after Tel Aviv with huge rocket barrage. This is the state of things in Israel. And to the gentleman's point, and I will yield back: No American would be sitting here today--if I am sitting here in Austin, Texas, or San Antonio, Texas, about 150 miles to the west and over to Mexico, if we had 1,500 rockets firing in on San Antonio or Austin, look, man, I would be grabbing my weapons and I would be heading down to the border, and we would be taking care of business. This is the reality of what we are talking about. So when I hear people saying Israel has a right to defend itself, Israel has a duty and a responsibility to defend itself, I support them fully. Mr. Speaker, I would yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for organizing this important topic of conversation. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for recognizing the law enforcement officers in her home State, much like the rest of our States, who put their lives on the line every single day to defend us, to protect our communities. This is an important week, obviously, for law enforcement. I think it is germane to the point that my friend from Colorado is making about canceling because this whole notion of canceling isn't just about corporations; it is not just about technology; it is not just about Amazon; it is not just about Twitter and Facebook. It is about canceling the very people who are, like our friend from North Carolina was just talking about, these law enforcement officers--canceling police officers, canceling law enforcement, canceling those who are standing up and defending us every single day. We hear it. I had a little girl in my home district in Austin who wrote a project for her school in which she was outlining how she was upset about how her father, her dad, who is a police officer, was being treated and how, when he would come home, he was despondent a little bit about the day because our law enforcement officers are being harassed, targeted, criticized, mocked, defunded. This is purposeful. This is happening every single day. We are literally working to cancel law enforcement. In Austin, Texas, they defunded police $150 million. Now, we have seen a 50 percent spike in homicides. There are homeless encampments all across the streets. We have 1999 levels of funding for the police department for a city that has grown by leaps and bounds since then. This canceling of law enforcement leaves us at risk, and it undermines the very security of our communities. But it is real, and it is happening in real-time. Twenty major cities have cut police budgets. $1.7 billion has been cut from police departments nationwide. But it is not just law enforcement. We are talking about that here because of my friend from North Carolina. But it is about corporations. We are sitting here in the people's House, in front of the American flag, and our Nation right now is increasingly run by corporations more than the men and women who are in this body. I mean, think about it. We hardly ever meet. We never amend. We never debate. We never do any actual give-and-take here on the floor. We get up and speechify a little bit. Meanwhile, corporations are deciding who gets to get their voice heard. Corporations are deciding, by the way, what election laws are warranted in Georgia or Texas, venerable corporations like Coca-Cola, Delta Air Lines, Major League Baseball. In the United States of America, baseball has been politicized. I can't even watch baseball with my son without having to figure out and worry about how he is going to be viewing America because Major League Baseball has decided it is more important to be woke and move the All- Star Game from 50 percent Black Atlanta to 10 percent Black Denver. Why? So they can go around patting themselves on the back in Colorado while they say: Hey, look at me. I am driving my Subaru, and I have an Apple sticker on my car. No offense to the gentleman from Colorado. Is that woke? Hank Aaron passed away this year. We could have celebrated his life with an All-Star Game in Atlanta, Georgia, and woke corporate Major League Baseball decides it is more important to make a statement about election laws in Georgia, which, by the way, the proposed laws differ very little from the laws in Colorado, as my friend from Colorado knows. But they wanted to make a statement through their corporate power and their woke corporate boards that are packed with all these elite Harvard Business School and Yale school of business types that are going into these corporate boardrooms and trying to tell us how to live our lives in little ole Texas or Georgia or Colorado. That is what we face with these corporations that are trying to tell us how to live. I appreciate my friend from Colorado giving us the time to focus on this important issue tonight. We have to reclaim our ability to live free in this country, and we ought to ask ourselves that question more and more: Are we truly free with wide-open borders and half a million apprehensions, $30 trillion in debt, and corporations telling us how to live our lives? Are we truly free in this country? I think we ought to ask that question over and over and over.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 175th anniversary of Fredericksburg, Texas. Fredericksburg was founded on May 8, 1846, by Baron Otfried Hans von Meusebach as the second prominent German settlement in the Texas Hill Country. Those brave settlers established a cordial relationship with the local Comanche tribes allowing the town to grow into what it is today. Now many years later, Fredericksburg has grown into the national spotlight for its wonderful attractions and rich German-Texan culture. Sites throughout Fredericksburg are near and dear to my heart. I love to visit Luckenbach dance hall with my family and listen to local songwriters cover Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson. I recommend visiting fields of bluebonnets and wildflowers in the spring and enjoying some world-famous peaches in the summer. While some of the buildings and faces have changed in Fredericksburg, the people are still the same hardworking, friendly Texans who helped mold the state. Fredericksburg is full of American history. Giants like Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz call Fredericksburg home. Admiral Nimitz led American forces to victory in the battle of Midway, regarded as the most important battle in Naval History. The beautiful National Museum of the Pacific War, named in his honor, resides in downtown Fredericksburg. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to pay tribute to the many figures who helped shape the history of Fredericksburg. I want to extend my thanks to the Mayor and city leadership who have worked with me on important issues throughout my first two terms, and to groups like the Gillespie County Historical Society who work hard to preserve the history of the region. It is an immense privilege to serve those who will continue to shape the future of Fredericksburg, Texas for the next 175 years. I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives will join me in congratulating the town of Fredericksburg on this historic occasion.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Maryland makes an excellent closing case in court, because he knows that this is going to be in court, because he knows that this is constitutionally infirm. He is trying to make the case that is going to have to be made in court on the losing side of the argument, because it is very clearly unconstitutional to add D.C. as a State by statute. And what we have here today is a simple question: Does anybody in this room believe that if Lubbock, Texas, had been set up as the Capital seat of the United States of America, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be arguing to give it the position of statehood? No, of course not. This city was set up by the Founders to be the Capital seat of the United States of America. It was not set up to be a State. And when my friend said that every other State has been added by statute, none of those have been specifically set up as the Capital seat of the United States of America. This should be rejected. It is unconstitutional. D.C. has never been a State. It shouldn't be a State, and it is not going to be a State.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Madam Speaker, I would note, for all of our friends and fellow citizens who are watching at home on C-SPAN, that you are seeing something go across your screen that says, ``Prohibiting Religious- Based Travel Restrictions.'' Well, to C-SPAN, I say: Be better. Don't take the talking points from my Democrat colleagues about what we are actually debating here on the floor of the House because it is not that. What we are talking about is a power grab by Democrats who, for some reason, want to continue to perpetuate the lie that there was ever a Muslim ban. It is literally not true. It is absolutely not true. No matter how many times they say it, it doesn't make it more true. For example, the gentlewoman referred to litigation. Let's look at what the United States Supreme Court said precisely about what President Trump did to try to secure the United States from terrorists. Let's remember what we are talking about. The President of the United States, President Trump, working to secure the United States from terrorists, the Court said: ``The proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion. Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently included in the proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. Yet, that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility, given that the policy covers just 8 percent of the world's Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks,'' as my friend from Kentucky just laid out. Madam Speaker, these are the facts. Do not listen to Democrat talking points being thrown on the screen on your C-Span. Do not listen to repetitions and lies about Muslim bans when it is not true. The facts are completely opposite of that. Let's also add one more point here. As we talk about this, our borders are wide open. As we talk about this, foreign nationals come in between ports of entry because Border Patrol is distracted, processing immigrants who come here because Democrat policies entice them to be abused by cartels while cartels have operational control of our border, while they create a narco-terrorist state in Mexico, and while they exist in the district that I represent, where children are in cars being driven by American citizen employees of the Cartel del Noreste, being taken to stash houses to be put into the sex trade. Then, we sit here and listen to this? This is what we are focusing on, taking away the constitutional authority of the President to protect us from terrorists while terrorists are able to come into our southern border between ports of entry because my Democratic colleagues and this administration flat out refuse to do their job to secure the border of the United States?

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Madam Speaker, 185 years ago today in San Jacinto, Texas, the great State of Texas won its independence from Mexico. General Sam Houston launched a surprise attack against Santa Anna, routed their forces, and then ultimately was able to negotiate with Santa Anna for his freedom the treaty that resulted in the founding of the Republic of Texas. As a proud Texan, I am sitting here 185 years later recognizing that my State, the State that I am proud to represent, is under siege. It is under constant siege on a daily basis by dangerous cartels, but worse than being under siege by dangerous cartels, it is under siege by a Democrat President who refuses to do his constitutional duty to secure the border of the United States. That is the fact, that this President, obligated under the Constitution, literally refuses to carry out and exercise his constitutional duty to defend our borders--our borders in Texas--where our communities are under siege, where our schools are overrun, where our hospitals are being inundated, where our ranchers are having people cross them, and where dangerous narcotics like fentanyl are pouring into our communities. This is what is happening to my State of Texas on this, the 185th anniversary of the battle at San Jacinto. One has to wonder whether the agreement that Texas made when entering this Union remains worth it when the State of Texas is under siege by an administration that refuses to defend our border. That is a question that we Texans are continuing to wrestle with, because it is the duty of this President and the duty of the Federal Government to secure the borders. I look at Texans who have lost loved ones at the hands of people here illegally. I look at families who have families destroyed by fentanyl and dangerous narcotics. And I look at trafficking of human beings into the sex trade in the State of Texas where stash houses are being run by cartels. Then I watch as my Democratic colleagues want to put up every roadblock to security and launch every single way possible to prop up cartels, prop up the ability of our border to be exploited, and refuse to actually do the job necessary to secure the border. It is incumbent upon this body to speak with one voice that we are going to defend the borders of the United States and do our duty under the Constitution while States are feeling the brunt every single day in very real terms.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.