Chip Roy

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. I thank the Speaker. Right before I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I want to appreciate his service, his service to the country, both in the military and now in Congress. I know he has a passion for this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my friend from Texas that I know he has a heart for immigrants who come to the United States of America. We both live in Texas. We both deal with an open border and we deal with the issue of immigration on a regular basis. Too often when you talk about cancel culture, if I dare to say that we should have a secure border in the United States of America and that I believe that is pro-immigrant, that that undermines the power of cartels, that makes it less likely that immigrants are abused, also protects us, protects us from the dangers of fentanyl. That is the kind of canceling that we see every single day. Oh, you want a secure border? You hate Brown people. It is as if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have some sort of monopoly on being able to say things about Brown people, and here I am trying to protect our border for the betterment of the United States and the immigrants who seek to come here, and somehow I am a bigot. The very structures put in place by the Obama-Biden administration are called cages for kids. And now what has happened? The Biden administration is having an uh-oh moment because their absurd policies of open borders are attracting people to come across our border. Now they are saying: Oh, no, what do we do with unaccompanied children? Well, who the heck could have seen this coming? Yet somehow we are canceled for believing in a secure border. The gentleman from south Texas, who I know has a heart for immigrants--

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for leading this effort. It is so critically important, obviously, to my great home State of Texas, but also to so many States particularly out West and, let's be honest, to all 50 States of the Union. This is so fundamental to who we are as Americans. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attacking the very natural resources and the very great strength that the United States of America has to set us apart from the rest of the world to be independent. We were blessed by the good Lord with unbelievable resources, resources that we can use for the betterment of mankind--our own people, the people in this country--for jobs, for affordable energy, and for prosperity, and to lead the world doing that. Unfortunately, we are seeing a massive attack literally in the first few weeks of the new administration: 28 executive orders. A huge number of which are obviously targeted at oil and natural gas, targeted at the lifeblood of our energy in this country. Madam Speaker, look at what we have been able to do with clean- burning natural gas as a result of fracking. We have CO2 levels that are down at 1990 levels. We have vastly exceeded what my leftist friends on the other side of the aisle want to follow, the social welfare state of Europeans down the road of fancy gatherings in Davos, and they fly in their expensive jets to go preach to the world about global warming. Spare me your preaching as you are riding around in these jets spewing out CO2 when we, through innovation in the great State of Texas and in our country, are creating clean-burning natural gas. We are creating jobs powering the world. And now the Democrat administration wants to come in and destroy jobs, destroy our leadership in the world, turn us over to Russia and Iran, and, oh, by the way, empower China to roll right over us while they spew out whatever they want to spew out because darn if they are going to actually do anything like agree to whatever is in the Paris Agreement. It is an absolute joke. It is a laughingstock what the Democratic Party is doing, saying they are standing up for the little guy in this country when they are going to drive up the price of energy, increase CO2, empower China, empower Iran, empower Russia, and harm jobs. They are going to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country even as we are coming out of the negative effect of the pandemic. We have an expression in Texas: Come and take it. It goes back to our history, our founding as a republic in Texas and Gonzalez, when Santa Anna wanted his cannon back, and we said: Come and take it. Well, my message to my Democratic colleagues is: We are going to drill and we are going to frack. Texas is going to continue to lead the world. And to my Democratic colleagues: Come and take it. We are going to stand up for this world being able to flourish. Not just America, not just Texas, but the world. We are exporting liquified natural gas around the world, making the world better. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so concerned about CO2, why would they undermine the very energy policies that are giving us the ability to drive the CO2 level down? It makes absolutely no sense. So I would just say to the gentleman, I greatly appreciate his giving us the opportunity here to highlight this. But this is just the beginning to my friends on the other side of the aisle. You roll in here with a new administration, roll in here thinking that we are going to just fundamentally alter our entire economy through executive order? We are going to say. No. We are going to say, Come and take it. That is what we are doing. That is what I am here to say.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, about a month ago, 3 weeks ago, I suspended my social media accounts, my personal social media accounts. I did so because social media is pretty much consuming the way we govern. And I will just say, why are we governing by sound bite? Why are we governing by looking back at what somebody said on Twitter or Facebook? This is a body that is called under the Constitution to meet on the floor of the United States House of Representatives--not by proxy, by the way--and to sit here and debate, and to debate the important issues of the day. A few weeks ago, I was proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to condemn what occurred on January 6. I joined with some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to disagree on the issue of objections. And then to have a Member on the other side of the aisle attack my former boss and friend, Senator Ted Cruz, and basically accuse him of being an attempted murderer? I asked that that statement be stricken and there be an apology for it. I didn't ask that somebody be stripped from their committeeships. I didn't ask that they be censured. I tried to engage with that colleague--have and will. And then this last weekend, I had a statement directed at me, accusing me of the worst kind of horrific act. Where is this body going to go, ladies and gentlemen? Now, we are here in the first few weeks of this Congress attacking a freshman Member, who is addressing the concerns of statements that I take issue with, that a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle take issue with, and you are going to unilaterally strip her of a committee assignment. This is not the people's House anymore. I made this statement yesterday on the budget reconciliation. I had a great conversation with the distinguished majority leader today about our need to restore regular order. And I would just ask my colleagues that we remove this. I made a motion to adjourn because we shouldn't be wasting the time of this body attacking a Member of this body. This will not end well.

Mr. ROY

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

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

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. I would just ask if we might be able to at least meet in private and have discussions about how to restore regular order and offer amendments on the floor because to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee that is great to debate it in committee, but I am no longer on the Budget Committee, so I would love to have the ability to debate on the floor and have regular order. And I just think if we could just have a conversation, sit in a room and figure out how we can do that going forward, no matter who is in charge of the Chamber.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri for yielding. I enjoyed working with him on the Budget Committee the last 2 years. I wish I was this time. Maybe we will do it in a couple of years. I enjoy working with the distinguished chairman from Kentucky, but I find it interesting that after 2 years on the Budget Committee I am finally seeing a budget resolution, because I sure didn't see one for the last 2 years. But here we are. We are on the floor of the House of Representatives, allegedly the people's House. Do I get to offer an amendment? Do I get to say a single word about what is in this $2 trillion bill? No, because this is fake. The American people are looking at the people's House. They are asking: What are we doing? We are surrounded by fences and razor wire. We are going through magnetometers. I am sitting here on the floor of the House with a $2 trillion bill larded up for political purposes that I never had a chance to amend, debate or have any discussion about besides 2 minutes or 3 minutes here with a prepackaged bill done in smoke-filled rooms, brought to the floor, and I am told to vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' push the green button, push the red button. That is what we have taken the people's House and reduced it to. We have $4 trillion that we have spent on COVID relief. With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are saying go big, we have spent $4 trillion. I have worked on a bipartisan basis with my friend, Dean Phillips, to pass the PPP Flexibility Act. We are all working hard to help the American people, but this resolution is a sham. When are we going to get in committee and vote and debate and roll our sleeves up and offer amendments? When are we going to do the work that we were sent here to do? The distinguished leader from Maryland has been here a while, respectfully. This place has changed. The gentleman from Maryland and I have talked about this. When are we going to offer amendments? When are we going to debate and vote on those amendments? That is what bipartisanship is, not throwing a $2 trillion reconciliation measure to use as pressure with the Senate to play games so that you can try to force the hand of the Senate to get the 60 votes, and then come down here and say: Oh, yeah, we have done something great with some budget reconciliation. Have we had any debate down here about what is actually affecting the people of this country? Or do we have a bunch of show speeches? When are we going to turn this body back into the people's House? When are we going to turn this into something the American people can be proud about, that we are sitting here debating something serious? Should we have $300 billion for local governments? Should we have some help for small businesses? Should we have something? Let's debate this out. No one over here wants to see their people suffer in the States that they represent. But we want businesses open. We want economic growth and opportunity. We don't want to point fingers. We have 30-something million vaccines distributed. Let's not point fingers. Let's take the work that has been done by the previous administration, by this body on a bipartisan basis, and let's move forward and get this country working again. China is about to roll right over us if we don't do our job, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ROY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROY. I am no longer on the Budget Committee. So will I have the ability to offer amendments?

Mr. ROY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, out of an abundance of caution, I decided to remain home due to several days of persistent symtoms. I could not get on a plane to vote on H.R. 335. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 18.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, today, I want to pay tribute to the members of the Customs and Border Protection who keep our nation safe, and in particular, their leader for the last 18 months, Commissioner Mark Morgan. As a Texan, I have spent countless hours with the courageous men and women of the Border Patrol who have confronted often insurmountable odds on a southwest border forsaken by Washington politicians and left to be operationally controlled by dangerous Mexican cartels. Mark has been an extraordinary leader of CBP--fearlessly standing up against those cartels, condemning reckless open border policies, guarding the American people from the various threats posed by China, and relentlessly fighting to defend our national security and with the patriotism and dedication appropriate for a career law enforcement officer. America is a safer, stronger, and better country because of his service, and I am honored to call him a friend.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. The President of the United States deserves universal condemnation for what was clearly, in my opinion, impeachable conduct, pressuring the Vice President to violate his oath to the Constitution to count the electors. His open and public pressure, courageously rejected by the Vice President, purposefully seeded the false belief among the President's supporters, including those assembled on January 6, that there was a legal path for the President to stay in power. It was foreseeable and reckless to sow such a false belief that could lead to violence and rioting by loyal supporters whipped into a frenzy. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues drafted an article that I believe is flawed and unsupportable, focusing on the legal terms of incitement and insurrection. Even noting impeachment does not require meeting a certain legal standard--the danger for open speech and debate in this body and for the Republic is high--if the House approves the article as written. The language will be used to target Members of this body under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It will be used to suggest that any statements we make are subject to review by our colleagues and to send us down a perilous path of cleansing political speech in the public square. Madam Speaker, we must end this. Let us condemn that which must be condemned, and do so loudly. But let us do it the right way, with deliberation and without disastrous side effects. We must end tearing apart our Nation by social media and sound bites. Let us stop. Let us debate. Let us sit down and lead this Nation together.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, today, the people's House was attacked, which is an attack on the Republic itself. There is no excuse for it. A women died. And people need to go to jail. And the President should never have spun up certain Americans to believe something that simply cannot be. I applaud House leadership of both parties for bringing us back to do our job, which is to count the electors and no more. The problem we face, though, is even bigger. We are deeply divided. We are divided about even life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The words which used to bind us together now, at times, tear us apart because we disagree about what they even mean. My constituents at home in Texas are genuinely upset. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have a constant barrage of those who wish to remake America into a socialist welfare State, efforts to attack our institutions, tear down statues, erase our history, defund our police. We have seen the debasing of our language. We teach our children that America is evil. We destroy our sovereignty, empower cartels. We attack our Second Amendment. We destroy small businesses through lockdowns. We divide ourselves by race. We can't even agree that there is man and woman. We extinguish the unborn before they even have a chance to see daylight. But at the heart of our path forward lies the essence of our Republic, its cornerstone. That we are a union of States bound together for common defense and economic strength, and more so bound together through federalism in which we may live together peacefully as citizens in this vast land agreeing to disagree, free to live according to our own beliefs and according to the dictates of our conscience. Now, many of my colleagues were poised this afternoon to vote to insert Congress into the constitutionally prescribed decisionmaking of the States by rejecting the sole official electors sent to us by each of the States of the Union. I hope they will reconsider. I can tell you that I was not going to, and I will not be voting to reject the electors. And that vote may well sign my political death warrant, but so be it. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and I will not bend its words into contortions for personal political expediency. Number one, rejecting the electors certified to Congress by sovereign States violates the 12th Amendment and the entirety of the Constitution it amends, notwithstanding claims that you must read certain sections first. It is clear, it is black and white, we count. It is ministerial. And our only job is to count the electors before us. We have only one slate of electors per State sent to us under color of law, and no more. Number two, to the extent you believe we do have constitutional authority to reject, we are arguing using incomplete and often misleading data points to prove it. I am not afforded time to go point by point, but there are more misleading claims than legitimate ones. Three, rejecting the electors ignores the Founder's specific admonition that Congress not choose the President, as articulated in Federalist No. 68. Four, indeed, the Founders drafted the inclusion of a phrase specifically putting Congress into the manner of the election process then specifically rejected it. Five, if more than a trivial bloc of this body votes to reject a sovereign State's electors, it will irrevocably empower Congress to take over the selection of Presidential electors, and doing so will almost certainly guarantee future Houses will vote to reject the electors of Texas or any of our States for whatever reason. Six, voting to reject the electors is not remotely consistent with our vote on Sunday, a vote I forced to highlight the very hypocrisy: to accept the outcome of the election of ourselves through elections conducted under the same rules, by procedures put in place by the same executive branch officials, impacted by rulings from the same judges, State and Federal. To do so is entirely inexplicable on its face. Seven, the argument for rejection most given by my colleagues is based on the allegations of systemic election abuse by executive or judicial branch officials interfering with the ``legislatures thereof'' in Article II. Many States made poor policy decisions. Whether these poor policy decisions violate State laws is a contested matter and a matter for the States to resolve for themselves. More, five of the six legislatures are controlled by Republicans. Not one body has sent separate electors. Not one body has sent us even a letter by a majority of its whole body. The only body, the Pennsylvania Senate, who managed to come up with a majority of Republicans to complain only did so yesterday in an eleventh-hour face-saving political statement. Not one GOP statewide official has formally called on us to change. Not one law enforcement organization, State or Federal, has presented a case of malfeasance. History will judge this moment. Let us not turn the last firewall for liberty we have remaining on its head in a fit of populist rage for political expediency when there is plenty of looking into the mirror for Republicans to do for destroying our election systems with expansion of mail-in ballots. I may well get attacked for this, but I will not abandon my oath to the Constitution. And I will make clear that I am standing up in defense of that Constitution to protect our federalist order and the electoral college, which empowers the very States we represent to stand athwart the long arm of this Federal Government by its very design.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise to say that we had this great speech by the leader of the Democrat Party about debates and about what we should do in debating on this floor. When will we debate? That is the question. When will we actually debate? The leader made good points about previous rules, about closed debate. We haven't had an open debate on an amendment on this floor since May 2016, where I can come down as a Republican Member or as a Democratic Member and offer an amendment. We have no debates on amendments anymore, Mr. Leader. You know this is true. You have been here. You have seen the change in this body. And I would just suggest--that I address my remarks to the Chair--I would just suggest that we should have debate. That is what we are here to do. Madam Speaker, I reject this rules package. I have problems with it for the reasons my colleagues already articulated, but I think we should engage in colloquy. Let's actually have a debate about setting up rules so this body is filled with Members offering amendments and doing what the people want us to do. This rules package, respectfully, does not do that.

Mr. ROY

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

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his great remarks about these wonderful heroes, men and women in uniform who served our country valiantly overseas and here in law enforcement. I had the honor of attending the funeral of a constituent who passed away when the helicopter went down in Sinai a few weeks back because he was one of my constituents in San Antonio, and it was a great celebration of his life. I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi for honoring these great folks, your constituents in Mississippi. I appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, here we are, as predictable as Christmas. We are at it again, a 7-day continuing resolution, which the American people look at in wonder and amazement during the Christmas season, that every year their illustrious leaders in the House of Representatives can find their way to be even more incompetent, year to year, in how we conduct the affairs of this great Nation. We might as well call these funding debacles the Capitol Hill Christmas Pageant. We show up. We put on a show. We sell out the American people. We close up and head home. And we do it like clockwork. I don't know if anybody has noticed, but we are almost at $28 trillion in debt. We are blowing past our gross domestic product, a general sign in history of a nation in decline, which none of us, of course, would want to acknowledge that the United States of America would be facing. I am in amazement as I watch my colleagues running around talking about budget caps. I am a fan of budget caps, but there are no budget caps here. Anyone who is talking about budget caps, going over them or going under them, we don't adhere to budget caps. We set budget caps in 2011, and had we adhered to them we would have saved almost $800 billion since then. But what do we do? We have these deals. We come together. We jack up the budget caps. We blow out spending in defense. We blow out nondefense discretionary spending. And then we all kind of wave at each other and complain about spending and go home. That is we do. What are we going to do next week? We are going to spend another $1.4 trillion, which, again, will bust existing caps by at least a little, and then some will jockey around about that, about whether we should save the $12 billion and try to adhere to those caps, forgetting the fact that we are $300 billion over the 2011 caps. In other words, there are no caps. We have already spent $2.6 trillion on COVID relief spending. So what does that mean next year, Mr. Speaker? We are blowing past $30 trillion in debt. Think about it. Yes, tonight constituents back home, or anybody watching, the 14 people watching C-SPAN right now, there is nobody else in the Chamber. This is our version of debate, Mr. Speaker. This is what our constituents' House of Representatives, their people's House, this is what we do. This is what debate looks like. So we are continuing to spend money that we don't have, and we are going to now debate another COVID relief bill, another trillion-dollar bill. But we refuse to help the people government is actually running over. We are not helping the small businesses that governments across this country are using their power to shut down. Small businesses are getting destroyed by government tyranny. Now, you can say, Mr. Speaker, and pat yourself on the back that it is in the name of public health, and everybody can go back home and say: Oh, aren't we nice. But you are shutting people's livelihoods down and walking away, and yet this body is refusing to do anything about it. I was proud to work with my Democratic colleague Dean Phillips this last summer to pass the PPP Flexibility Act to try to keep a lot of these businesses alive. I was thanked by hundreds, if not thousands, of people in my district for doing so. But what good is that if we are failing them now? Mr. Speaker, 100,000 restaurants are already closed, and 10,000 more restaurants have closed since our last survey in July. Forty percent of remaining restaurants were closed without more support. Jobs at bars and restaurants are down 2 million this year. Seventy-one percent of hotels report they will only be able to last 6 more months, and 63 hotels have less than half of pre-crisis staff. Forty percent of small business owners report they will close in the next 12 months if things do not improve. What did the Speaker of the House do? The Speaker of the House admitted that she withheld relief from small businesses and struggling workers for political gamesmanship. She acknowledged it. She said it. Why aren't we debating that? Why aren't we having conversations about that? Why aren't we debating a clean PPP bill right now? This Chamber is empty. We just adjourned, passing a 7-week CR that blows our spending out of proportion, setting up the table for next week doing the same thing for a year, and this Chamber is empty. Everyone is flying home. It is absurd. The American people look at this every day, and they wonder what in the world, and now we are going to pass a $1 trillion bill that bails out, in many cases, the very State and local governments that are shutting down these local businesses with their tyrannical activity. More than that, when we actually spend the money, we are going to fund the very institutions that are crushing the American way of life. We fund, as I said, the tyrant mayors and city councils, like Mayor Adler in Austin, Texas, who are killing small businesses. The good mayor had the unbelievable hutzpah to record a video in Cabo San Lucas telling Austin residents to stay home. We fund the very schools that are failing our kids, the very schools that are locking down our kids from an education. Suicide rates are up, failing grades are up, fear levels are up among our children, and the very schools that are indoctrinating our kids to hate this country and what it stands for, to apologize for this country, to declare this country is evil, to tear down the statues in this country, the very education system doing that, we are going to fund, while we blow past caps, passing to those very children a massive amount of debt. We fund the very local governments that are defunding police but expect them to enforce lockdowns. We fund corporate cronyism by giving a bailout that undeniably favored massive retail corporations that can absorb the costs that small businesses can't. Mom-and-pop shops are getting killed, and great big companies are getting rich. Where is this body? It is nowhere to be found, an empty Chamber. We just passed a defense bill yesterday that will burden those small businesses even further with potentially more regulations. Mr. Speaker, you can't even make this up. A defense bill has language in there that will hurt small businesses even when they are at their low point getting beat up by a virus and tyrants are shutting them down. We fund an immigration system that fails immigrants, fails Americans, empowers cartels, and is a national embarrassment while we have people who are held hostage in homes in this country by cartel-driven illegal enterprises. It is happening right now at our border, and this body is empty. Mr. Speaker, 67,000 people were apprehended at our border in October. Where is this Chamber talking about anything about border security? It would be better for immigrants and better for our country, but we won't do it. We fund a massive healthcare system that reduces doctor availability but empowers insurance companies, and we are doing it by the second. You have to ask an insurance company about how to get healthcare. Why? Because this body is failing. We fund ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and on and on and on in myriad countries around the world--I can't even count them-- despite not having passed an authorization of force in almost 20 years. World War II, Mr. Speaker, went from December 7, 1941, to August of 1945. We have kids today enlisting in the military who were not alive when we passed the authorization of force in 2001 under which they are operating. What kind of a people's body is it that won't even debate an authorization of force? We are nowhere to be found. Steak dinners or on airplanes flying home right now, that is where the 400 colleagues are--if they were even here in the first place, because they have been voting by proxy from home sitting on boats. We fund election systems that fail us. What is this House doing to ensure election integrity? There is a lot of politics flying around the air right now about elections, but do you believe in our elections, I ask the ladies and gentlemen who are watching this. Do they believe every vote is counted? Do they believe that every vote was legal? In 2012, The New York Times admitted that mail-in ballots are a problem. Votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised, and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting. The Carter-Baker Commission--that is former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker--was formed in 2005: ``Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud''-- bipartisan, 2005. Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or intimidation. Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail--bipartisan, Jimmy Carter, Jim Baker. Why won't we even talk about it here? Why are we making this all about the President, not the President, the votes? We had a massive increase in mail-in ballots this year, and we are wondering whether our election system is even working. Examples of known fraud: In 2016, 83 registered voters in San Pedro, California, received absentee ballots at the same small, two-bedroom apartment. Prosecutors rarely pursue this type of case. In 2018, a North Carolina congressional case, a Republican operative, McCrae Dowless, Jr., had allegedly requested more than 1,200 absentee ballots on voters' behalf and then collected the ballots in voters' homes. In 2017, an investigation of a Dallas city council election found some 700 fraudulent mail-in ballots signed by the same witness using a fake name. I could go on and on. There are problems with mail-in ballots. What did we just see this year, Mr. Speaker? In Georgia, 2016 general election, 208,000 mail-in ballots; this year, 1.3 million mail-in ballots. In Arizona, 2016, they had 2.4 million mail-in ballots; this year, 3.6 million mail-in ballots. Pennsylvania, 2016, 314,000 mail-in ballots; this year, 3.1 million mail-in ballots. I am not suggesting that I know what the numbers should or shouldn't be in Georgia, Pennsylvania, or Arizona in this case. What I am suggesting is that even minor changes in rejection rates on these ballots--of which there are very large questions right now about the rejection rates--would impact the election. Regardless of what you want to see happen with the election, Mr. Speaker, do you not want to know that you can believe in your election? Why are we not holding hearings? Have we had a hearing this week on this, bipartisan, calling it in, making sure that we believe in our elections? Is the Senate holding hearings? The American people are raising legitimate questions about our elections, and this body is missing in action and doing nothing. But I will tell you where Congress is, Mr. Speaker. It is passing bills like yesterday which amount to political garbage masquerading as defense authorization. We passed the defense authorization bill which does, in fact, contain critically important components to support America's troops but, in fact, actually fails our troops in many respects. Mr. Speaker, we were all told to vote for it, you see. We were told to vote for it because you can't vote against a defense authorization bill because you are voting against pay increases and you are voting against badly needed resources for your men and women in uniform. Yet the people telling us to vote for it have no qualms about holding our Armed Forces' pay hostage with no ability to amend the bill on the floor and no ability to debate the bill. Has anybody seen an amendment brought down here to the floor, an open amendment, saying: ``Hey, I am Congressman Roy. I have got an amendment, and I would like to offer it?'' Has that ever happened in this body? Has anybody ever seen that happen down here? It doesn't happen. We fund 20-year wars with no clear mission and no clear end date. We fund a war that is now older than millions of young Americans signing up to fight in it, as I said before. This defense authorization bill has a cheap diversity officer and other race-based programs in it, which I personally find deeply un- American, while defense is increasingly challenged by China and Iran. When you pass something like that, Mr. Speaker, you are saying that the body values waging a war with no clear mission and appeasing leftwing diversity political mob rule more than protecting the American citizens whose lives are threatened every single day by cartel violence, by people coming across the border, and by what is going on in Iran and by China. The bottom line is the American people hire all of us to do a job, and we are failing them, which brings me to my point, in my view, about 2021. The Framers created this branch, Congress, to debate and deliberate, to represent the people. But we pass pre-made bills cooked up behind closed doors by committee, in rules committees, and by a handful of committee cardinals, and we never debate them or amend them here on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we are increasingly passing by proxy vote. For the American people back home, proxy vote means a Member of this body whom you hired to do a job under the Constitution--you gave them your vote under the Constitution--and that Member comes to a Member of this body and says: ``I want you to vote for me.'' So your vote, citizen, that you entrusted into your elected Member of Congress is being given to another Member here in the body. We have been in session for fewer than 40 days since March, I am told. Mr. Speaker, you can fact-check that, and you can go double-check it, but I can tell you we have been here precious few days. Think about that: While in the middle of a pandemic, while running $28 trillion in debt, while mounting up trillion-dollar deficits, multitrillion-dollar deficits, while China is right at our heels, while we are dealing with men and women in uniform in Afghanistan and the Middle East, while we have healthcare costs going up and crippling people, and while small businesses are struggling, the Speaker is playing games not bringing small businesses relief to the floor. Mr. Speaker, we have been here for fewer than 40 days. The Speaker broke with over 230 years of precedent to authorize the unconstitutional proxy voting scheme. Last week, ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in the history of the United States, the House of Representatives used proxy votes--those are votes for Representatives who are not present in the Chamber to achieve a quorum, as the Constitution requires. Because the Constitution contemplates our being here, doing our job, I say ironically, with my voice echoing in the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, not a single floor amendment, not a single open rule-- the most closed rules since 1993. Now, that is boring for the people back home. What does a closed rule mean? It is what I am saying. It means that Congressman Roy cannot offer an amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is what a closed rule is, and that is what we operate under. We never have debate and deliberation. We are ruled by a handful. As I said before, I am under the understanding that we have not had a single debate of an amendment open on the floor of the House of Representatives since May of 2016 where a Member could just come down, a bill is put on the floor, a Member says, ``I would like to amend it.'' No body functions that way--not the people's House. Do we think things would be better or worse if we were actually down here offering amendments, offering debate, debating and discussing? When the NDAA was on the floor yesterday--and there was a provision in the NDAA to place massive burdens on small businesses, but it was jammed in there to get it across the line--if we could have had an amendment on the floor, I could offer an amendment to strike it, and we would know where everybody in this body stands on adding those regulations to small businesses. But I was denied the ability to do that because we operate under a closed rule. Mr. Speaker, what kind of a people's House is that? You want to know why we are pushing $28 trillion in debt, and we are about to blow past $30 trillion? You want to know why we never get really good legislation? Because I am never able to work with the Speaker or with any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle because we can't come down here and offer amendments and have rigorous debate to force the conversations. We are ruled by a handful on both sides of the aisle who tell us what we are voting on. They come in and they say, Here is your 2,000-page bill. Figure out how you are going to vote on it. Figure out how you are going to message it back home. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in history, we opened an impeachment inquiry without a vote in the House. Now, I am not trying to open up impeachment. That has long since kind of come and gone from the minds of Americans, it seems like, but that is a big deal. In 2021, for the House to work, the following, in my opinion, should be nonnegotiable: Members should have 72 hours to review the legislation in the form to be voted on before they are required to vote. That is not a very big ask, ladies and gentlemen. We should have time to look at 2,000-page bills in the form that we are voting on it to see what is in it. We should have an open amendment process, giving all Members an opportunity to amend bills on the floor. Bills should cover single subjects and not be subject to division of the test under rule XVI we are applying. We should have single-subject bills, like the bill--by the way--that Dean Phillips, my Democrat colleague from Minnesota, and I offered on the floor. There was a PPP Flexibility Act, and it was 7 pages long. We should have that bill, put it on the floor, debate it, amend it, vote. And proxy voting should be prohibited on the floor of the House of Representatives. It is unconstitutional. I look forward to the U.S. Supreme Court taking that up, and I believe and hope that they will find it to be unconstitutional as it is. Mr. Speaker, finally, a note about the coronavirus. Many Americans have been impacted by the virus. I have friends and family that have been impacted by it. I have had staff who have been impacted by it. I missed Thanksgiving with my 78-year-old father and 72-year-old mother because I had been around someone who had been positive. I wanted to protect them. We are all doing these things. We are all making sacrifices, figuring out how to adjust to make sure we protect the vulnerable. Mr. Speaker, our Nation should be open. Our businesses should be open. Our schools should be open. Our restaurants should be open. Our baseball and football and basketball stadiums should be open. Our churches should never, ever close again. And we should use our own judgment to celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas without local, petty tyrants attempting to tell us what to do. But here we are, as I hear Joe Biden and others talk about national mask mandates in 2021, and I continue to hear about restrictions and social distancing, even if we get a vaccine. Have any of you been to the restaurants that are shutting down? In Arlington, Virginia, they run over and grab your beer or Diet Coke at 10 p.m. right on the dot. They can't make money. They can't survive. Are any of the local, petty tyrants shutting them down going to pay their bills or are they going to come here to this Chamber and expect us to pass another trillion-dollar bill to fund them because the local governments are shutting them down? Because that is what is happening. The big businesses are doing fine. But the small restaurants, the local dry cleaners, the small hotels, the local music venues, the artists--the backbone of this country is getting decimated because we are shutting down. America doesn't shut down. Leftists run around bleeding about how we should be locked down, but expecting workers to bring them their lattes or take-home Chinese or tacos, expecting workers to clean the streets and pick up the garbage and serve them while they pat themselves on the back for being enlightened. Mayors like Mayor Adler in Austin, who I already said went to Cabo and recorded a video telling us we should stay home. Mayors like the mayors in L.A. turning off utilities while policing people's home. Oh, my gosh, how many cars do you have in front of your house? The mayor in Denver saying everybody has got to stay home, but what does he do? He flies home. Rules for thee, but not for me. My fellow Americans, these local tyrants, tell them a simple word; tell them ``no.'' You local businessowners that are opening up, God be with you. I am with you. Open up. We are Americans. We don't close down. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is a large and vibrant economy and large and vibrant country that thrives on free enterprise, freedom of religion, freedom to interact and engage as a society. It is who we are as Americans. We will remain the economic engine of the world. And I, frankly, don't really care to listen to countries around the world lecture us about their alleged lockdown successes and results-- much of which are easily disputable--when the world lives off the very sacrifices we make. We fund the world's defense, ladies and gentlemen. We fund, through our economic engine, a good deal of this world. We feed a large chunk of this world. We provide energy for an enormous part of this world. So forgive me if I don't want to be lectured to by Australia or anybody else about how their success in their lockdown worked out for them. Because these things are all interacting. When we make decisions, it impacts real lives. You read reports about 140 million people that may be starving because we are not distributing the same number of products because of the virus. And then you come talk to me about a few thousand that are impacted by the virus. We have got decisions to make that impact people's lives, and we do it by staying open. Our own lockdowns that we have chosen to do, predominantly by local governments have been devastating. We have seen devastation in our schools, devastation in small businesses. We have seen people forced to die alone. We have seen increased suicides, people that have died from diseases, cancer, heart disease, and more, all because of virus policies. And to all of that, I say, simply, ``enough.'' Mr. Speaker, this body, this House of Representatives should no longer be operating in fear. We are leaders. We should be here. We should be debating. We should be present. We should be in this Chamber, and we should not be wearing masks. We should be looking each other in the face and in the eye, and we should be doing our job. Take tests, take our temperature, whatever it takes, but lead. We are running around in fear, and it is embarrassing. We have these fake cleaning exercises between votes as a threat because of precious time if we dare congregate for 5-minutes and debate some issue that is on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is no way for the House of Representatives to function while we are leading a Nation. We should reject fear and favor of our faith, reject fear and favor of our family, our friends, and the thriving society Americans deserve. And simply put, America must never again shut down. America must always be open for business. And more importantly, America must always be open for life. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 8265 to extend the Paycheck Protection Program to keep millions of employees on the payroll of America's small businesses and continue the benefits that we have done through bipartisan work previously.

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, to this body, I say enough, enough of the swamp games. The House needn't wait for the powers that be to meet in a dark room and come out and tell us what so-called deal has been cut, whether it is the Speaker, the Treasury Secretary, or anybody else. And I shouldn't have to learn what is in the bill from K Street on Twitter. Nor should the House take up a partisan $2 trillion bill with no chance of becoming law, and you know exactly that is what it is. This is the people's House. We should act like it. We should debate. We should vote. We should actually do our job and amend. To my House Democratic freshman colleagues: Your Speaker is playing political games with people's lives. We are used to it. We are used to the Speaker playing games: With immigrant's lives, shouting: kids in cages, for Obama policies rather than supporting security; Refusing to call out antifa, or refusing to come to this floor and have this body stand with our law enforcement officers--not once; Supporting Iran over Israel; Refusing to stand against the extermination of babies born alive; Seeking to destroy American oil and gas and energy freedom and cheap energy in favor of radical Green New Deal policies; Working to take away your private doctors, taking away your private insurance; and Killing 6 months of this body's time with partisan impeachment proceedings. But this is a whole other level. In June, the Heroes Act, $3 trillion in partisan hackery with no chance of passage. But in June, I, along with freshman Democrats, led by my friend Dean Phillips, worked together and passed the PPP Flexibility Act. We saved jobs. We now know that, according to the S&P, 13.6 million jobs have been saved nationally; in the district I represent, 90,000 jobs, 18,500 businesses, $633 million. But small businesses are still struggling. Forty-seven percent of PPP borrowers say they need additional support to survive. Right now, we have a bipartisan piece of legislation specifically designed and ready to help small businesses, but we are not debating or voting on it. Instead, the Speaker chooses what? Political messaging resolutions that won't do a darn thing. Worse yet, the Speaker is again purposely choosing legislation that is designed to fail: a tax cut that will go exclusively to the wealthy; banking for marijuana businesses; PPP loans to Planned Parenthood; billions to bail out State and local governments; environmental justice grants; weed diversity studies; soil health studies; stimulus checks for illegal immigrants; bailouts for Amtrak; and bailouts for the National Endowment for the Arts. And the kicker? Refusing to call out antifa. And the one thing cut from the first Heroes Act? Law enforcement funding: $300 million for COPS grants, $300 million for State and local law enforcement officers. Why won't the Speaker--why won't Democrats--stand with our law enforcement? Why won't they stand for small businesses instead of playing games on the floor of this House, the people's House? It is an absolute abomination. I urge my colleagues to reject the ways of the swamp. Let's unite together and vote ``no'' on the previous question and work to help small businesses right now.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, last week, I took some time on the floor here in the House of Representatives to recognize our important law enforcement community and what they mean to the American people and why this body should stand alongside, behind, and in defense of our law enforcement community unapologetically. Since speaking on the floor last week, I have been, frankly, inundated by emails, Instagram messages, Facebook messages, tweets, phone calls from I think all 50 States. The video from the floor of the House of Representatives has been seen almost 8 million times. I, frankly, was blown away, but it just tells you how many Americans are looking for the leadership of their country to stand by and stand alongside our law enforcement community. Some of the messages that we received--and this isn't about me, and this isn't about any Member of this body, but these were some of the messages we received. This was sent to me: ``Your speech about the 43 officers was moving. My father is a police officer. The world would make me feel as though I shouldn't be proud of that, let alone give any support to the police. Thank you.'' Another message: ``Thank you for addressing the 43 law enforcement officers who have been killed this year so far. I am a law enforcement officer's wife for over 20 years. My husband is a phenomenal human being and law enforcement officer. He has spent his life protecting strangers. I won't rant. You know how we are living right now,'' she said. ``I just wanted to thank you for being bold and brave and having his six.'' For the record, I don't consider myself bold or brave. I just consider myself a representative of constituents who share my complete disbelief that this body refuses to take any action, to do anything as a body in unison to defend and stand alongside our law enforcement community. It is an abject failure by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and this body that we have not passed a resolution; we have not joined together; we have not stood on the steps of the Capitol; we have not done a thing to stand alongside our law enforcement community who keep us safe every day. And I think that is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment that the people's House refuses to do that. Another message: ``I start off first saying I am law enforcement, and I want to continue saying thank you for your support. I have watched your C-SPAN video so many times, and it gets me every time. It is just nice to have some people out here backing us.'' Again, this is not about me. I wish there were 435 Members sitting here on the floor right now together, all doing that for these people, for those law enforcement officers. Another message: ``Thank you, sir, for your speech in the House. We at the Nevada Highway Patrol were rocked by our first line of duty death since 2006. On March 27, 2020, Sergeant Ben Jenkins stopped on a snowy Nevada rural road to help a stranded motorist. After his attempts to get the motorist's vehicle unstuck failed, the motorist pulled out a .308 rifle and shot Sergeant Jenkins in the right shoulder. Sergeant Jenkins retreated to the back of his vehicle, severely wounded, got `shots fired' over the radio before he collapsed. The suspect walked up to Sergeant Jenkins as he lay in the cold, snowy Nevada highway and shot him in the head. Sergeant Ben Jenkins died doing what any trooper would do when they see a stranded motorist. He would have helped anyone. He lost his life doing it.'' This person said: ``Your speech was impactful. Thank you for being our voice.'' I don't know the race of any of these people. I don't. I don't know the race of the officers. I don't know the race of the perpetrators. I don't know the race of any other victims. I literally have no idea. But these are people from all over the country, thousands calling in, tweeting, checking. They are hungry for a body that is supposed to represent them in the people's House to stand up and just say a simple thank-you. Just say a simple, ``We have got your back.'' Since I spoke just under a week ago, three more officers have been killed in the line of duty. I read all the names of the 43 who have been killed last week. Here are three more: Investigator Luis Mario Herrera, on September 7; Deputy Sheriff Ryan Phillip Hendrix, on September 10; Sergeant Alvin R. Sugranes-LeBron, on September 16. That means we are up to 46 officers who have been killed thus far in 2020, a 53 percent increase from the same period in 2019. As I said last week, eight categorized as premeditated murder, two were a victim of unprovoked attacks, eight fatal shots were fired at point-blank range zero to 5 feet from the officer, eight shot in the front of the head, two in the back of the head, six in the neck, nine in the chest. We have an over 50 percent increase in officers killed in the line of duty, the law enforcement officers who represent the thin blue line between us and anarchy. My grandfather was the chief of police of Sweetwater, Texas. My great-great-grandfather was a Texas Ranger. I was proud to be an assistant United States attorney working with the law enforcement community. Where is the people's House? Again, sitting here at 6:23, we had three votes this afternoon in series. We marched in here, we voted. We don't have any debate. We vote, we clean, we vote, we stand out on the steps, and we walk out. And, thus, has been the people's House for the last 190 days. It is an embarrassment. We are sitting here in an empty Chamber. We haven't passed a PPP extension bill. We haven't done the hard work of trying to make sure our small businesses that are struggling in this environment survive. We sure as heck have not been on the floor of this body engaged in any kind of effort to pass a resolution, to sit here and have a moment of silence, an understanding, a recognition for any member of the law enforcement community. With all due respect to the other side, where is the Speaker? Where is the Speaker of the House? Last Thursday, after a number of us gave speeches about this issue, after I gave a speech, Speaker Pelosi came down to the floor of the House and said a handful of words: ``We support peaceful demonstrations. We participate in them. They are part of the essence of our democracy.'' She went on: ``That does not include looting, starting fires, or rioting. They should be prosecuted. That is lawlessness.'' Well, congratulations to the Speaker of the House for recognizing the rule of law. The body that passes laws, including our Federal criminal laws, the body that represents the people, all 330 million of them, the Speaker of that body came all the way down to the floor of the House of Representatives to explain to us that she supports the basic fundamentals of the rule of law but did not say a word about law enforcement and backing them up, did not say a word about calling out Antifa or BLM or any organization behind a lot of the activities going on around our country, endangering our communities, burning down stores, wrecking people's lives, putting people in danger, letting people get killed, having officers put in danger. I read through a number of officers who have been killed throughout this process, and what are we doing? When we had a debate back in June when it was politicized, Senator Scott sent over legislation. Did we have any robust debate about that? No. We haven't had a single vote on an amendment on the floor of the House since May of 2016, and that is an absolute embarrassment. We have groups of people who sit up in the Rules Committee. They throw down a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we are supposed to march down here like lemmings, push a button yes or no, and then let leadership go out on the steps and give a press conference. How is that representation? Where is the Speaker? It is not enough to come down and give lip service for 10 seconds about riots and about how those are lawless but not come down here and actually recognize our men and women in uniform who are serving us in blue across the country. Or how about our Border Patrol? How about ICE? Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to go around saying defund ICE, abolish ICE, take away resources from Border Patrol and ICE. Have they walked a mile in the shoes of the Border Patrol or ICE that I know on the border in Texas, where cartels have operational control of our border still to this day right now? We just had apprehensions of about 45,000 in August, the second highest number in the last 6 years, second only to last year. Do you know why that number is low right now? Guess. Title 42 protecting our health because of the virus. Our men and women in uniform on the border of the United States serving their country, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say abolish them, get rid of them, when they are securing the border of the United States outmanned, outgunned. They can't navigate the Rio Grande. I would invite any of my colleagues to come down along with my Democratic friend Henry Cuellar. He and I have cosponsored legislation to clear cane and open roads along the Rio Grande. Why can't we do that? We could do that in a matter of seconds right on this floor and give our Border Patrol and give our ICE agents the ability to actually stop and stem the tide of the horrors being perpetrated by cartels along our border. We duck our head in the sand and ignore it while little girls get raped and abused on the journey through Mexico; while we find stash houses with 50 people in basements in Houston; while families get held hostage for ransom; while meth comes pouring across our border, fentanyl, cocaine, large quantities, pouring across our border; all while we have been shutting down our way of life, causing people to have extreme mental health concerns and issues and addictions being fed heavily by the Chinese running right up through the gut through Mexico, right into Texas, right into our country, and what are we doing? Playing politics with our border instead of doing what any sovereign nation would do, which is defend the border of the United States for the interests of our community and the migrants who seek to come here, who are being abused, who are being sold into the sex trade, who are being held ransom by cartels. There is a bloody civil war going on along the border along the Rio Grande, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle come out and say, ``kids in cages''; they come out and say, ``drinking out of toilets.'' It is just simply not true. I have been to these facilities. We have all been to these facilities. We know it is not true. The Speaker knows it is not true. Yet that is the stated position of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. ``Kids in cages,'' the very barriers put up by the previous President and the previous President's administration for what? To separate kids, to separate them from other dangerous individuals who may or may not be their family members, people coming across claiming to be their parents. We don't know. What are we supposed to do, just take them and throw them to the wolves? Or maybe we should have a system for trying to figure it out. And you go down there and you look and you see what our Border Patrol agents are doing, and you see what our ICE agents are doing: working hard to try to figure it out when you have 900,000 people apprehended in fiscal year 2019. I didn't make that number up. All right? This is how many people were apprehended. I am not talking about the ones who got away. I am talking about the ones who were apprehended, coming into our facilities, and we have to manage it. Where is the Speaker? Where is the Speaker for any member of our law enforcement community on the streets in any city in America, Federal, State, or local, Border Patrol, ICE? Where is the Speaker? Completely MIA, wandering around D.C. no doubt raising money for the D triple C or something to go have another political speech, but sure as heck not on the floor of the House of Representatives standing alongside law enforcement. Let's consider the grand successes of this body of the House of Representatives under Speaker Pelosi. Proxy voting. For the first time in the history of this body, under the Speaker of the House, this body, led by Democrats, is allowing proxy voting. Now, for those of you at home, what that means is that you can have a Member, as has happened, vote from a boat--get on a screen, log in, and vote from a boat. That happened. This body, if you are elected to it, you cannot delegate that which has been delegated to you under the Constitution of the United States, by the people, that sacred obligation to represent them, you cannot delegate that to another. That is plainly and clearly unconstitutional. I look forward to that question getting to the Supreme Court. I am proud to be a part of litigating that. I look forward to getting it to the Supreme Court so we can actually answer that question. We don't need the Court to answer it. This body can answer it. It is plainly unconstitutional. Yet for the first time in our history, we have allowed and enabled proxy voting where a Member of this body can allow somebody else in this body to cast a vote for him or her. For two centuries, through the yellow fever of 1783, which took out 10 percent of the population of Pennsylvania, the burning of the Capitol during the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish flu of 1918, both World Wars, 9/11, Congress never flinched from its constitutional duty to assemble in the Capital City. Ten percent of Philadelphia in 1793--think about that--was wiped out. They found a way to meet. They found a way to carry out their solemn obligation. The Speaker continues to refuse regular order. I have already referred to that. We bypass the committee process, block amendments for every bill, effectively shutting out participation for rank-and-file Members of both parties of the House. Just yesterday we voted on a continuing resolution to fund government $1.6 trillion, ladies and gentlemen. You are sitting back at home. Yes, another number stuck in front of a trillion--$1.6 trillion. Your august body, the House of Representatives, representing you, had approximately 20 minutes to review the continuing resolution funding $1.6 trillion of government, busting caps of busted caps already busted. That is your House of Representatives, ladies and gentlemen, and I don't think you should accept it. I don't think the American people should accept this level of complete incompetence and disgrace that we are seeing on the floor of the House of Representatives. Twenty minutes. How about that 72-hour rule? We like that? We adopt the rules every time we come into Congress. Seventy-two hours you must have to read legislation, they say. Does that ever happen? Let's be honest. Does that ever happen? No. And when you go home and you talk to your constituents, they say: Why is Washington broken? I say: Because we never sit down at a table, roll our sleeves up, and do the work that you do in your home, that you do in your business, that you do in your nonprofit, that you do in your church to actually balance your budget, to actually make tough decisions. We never do that. Democrats and Republicans should be appalled at the way this body has been operating. We should have debate. We should have votes. We should have amendments. What are we afraid of? Bring your amendments down. I will vote, and I will go face my constituents and explain why. And you know what? There will be tough votes, and they will be used against you. And you know what? That is the process. I have already mentioned that the Speaker refuses to stand for law enforcement. It took months to even come down here to condemn the looting and the rioting and the violence, and she still won't condemn BLM or antifa. In July, the Speaker's response to the chaos on the streets was: ``People will do what they do.'' Well, boy, oh boy, is that blowing the socks off of our law enforcement community getting the great leadership from the Speaker of the House that ``people will do what they do.'' Well, they sure will if we don't stand behind our law enforcement community and stand up for the rule of law. The Speaker infamously pushed an impeachment inquiry without a vote on the House floor for the first time in history. Now, that has played out. I haven't heard much about impeachment over the last 7 months. It gripped the Nation, supposedly. I think it gripped the body. I think it gripped half of this body. We spent 6 months essentially shutting this Chamber down to pursue that inquiry, and now the Speaker is talking about impeachment again. The Speaker has refused to condemn the blatant anti-Semitism that some in her own party have used, and she herself has referred to Republicans as ``enemies of the people,'' the Speaker of the House. The Speaker recently referred to the peace agreements, the historic peace agreements between Israel and Bahrain and Israel and UAE--these are massively successful, important peace agreements. She referred to them as ``distractions''--Israel, our great ally in the Middle East. These were great agreements. This is historic stuff. There are other countries considering it. Why? Because we led. We moved our Embassy to Jerusalem, and other countries followed. Why? Because we took out Soleimani. And what did the Speaker do? She wanted to condemn the President for taking out Soleimani, a murderous thug who targeted American soldiers. It was great that the President of the United States took out Soleimani. And now, as I said, the Speaker is threatening impeachment 2.0. Why? Because President Trump is daring--hold on, here it comes--daring to do what every President in the history of this country has done when there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court in the fourth year of their term, every one, 29 times. That the President would exercise Article II authority to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court, for that--for that--the Speaker is suggesting we should consider Articles of Impeachment 2.0. It is facially absurd. It is not an arrow in a quiver. It is facially absurd. It is an embarrassment to this institution. It is an embarrassment to this Congress. We should have an open and vital debate about all of these issues we are talking about right here, amending, debating, voting. No, no, no. We are going to go rattle that impeachment and go give some press conferences. This is just politicizing the process. Now, we have seen that before. We have seen this many times before, the politicization of this process. I was a lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003. I had the great honor and privilege of serving Senator John Cornyn. I spent 5 years as a lawyer on that committee working on a host of issues. One of the issues I worked on was nominations. Now, you might be asking: Who are these two women? Well, Judge Janice Rogers Brown was--if my memory serves correctly; I don't have any notes; I am doing this from memory--a supreme court justice in California who was nominated to the Ninth Circuit. Priscilla Owen was nominated to the Fifth Circuit. Now, in 2003, the Democrats in the United States Senate sought to stop--that is, filibuster--stop their nominations. Their great crimes? They were conservative women. And in one case, a minority conservative woman. Those were their great crimes in 2003, ladies and gentlemen. And that is what your Democrats in the United States Senate did: attacking them, tearing them down, blowing up the very process that people are talking about right now, the confirmation process. They attacked them, these two public servants. I met both of them. Very kind, nice people being ruthlessly attacked for simply being conservative women, or a conservative minority woman. We can't have that. We can't have those dastardly Republicans appointing someone who doesn't fit the narrative by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but yet that is precisely what happened in 2003. What have we seen since? We saw the complete horror show that was the Kavanaugh hearing 2 years ago, an utter disgrace by Senate Democrats. But I also remember the 2005 confirmation of Sam Alito. I also was there for the Roberts confirmation. Ask Justice Alito's lovely wife, Martha-Ann, how she feels about the way her husband was treated, attacked, torn down, vilified through his confirmation proceedings by Senator Schumer. It was vitriolic. It wasn't just highlighting differences of views or judicial philosophy; it was targeting him personally and attacking. But that is the playbook that I have to suggest is the routine playbook for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the United States Senate. Of course, that wasn't the first time. We all know, in 1987, there was a new verb in the lexicon of the confirmation process called borking, because Judge Bork was borked. They took down Judge Bork. And, again, what was his great crime? He was a constitutional conservative. He was a constitutionalist. That was his great crime. It took a mere 4 years later for Justice Thomas, in his own words, to receive a ``high-tech lynching.'' I say to the ladies and gentlemen watching, watch the video. It is on my Twitter feed. You can go find it. Google it. Go watch the great biopic. You can go find that on PBS. There is a great documentary on the life of Clarence Thomas who was born into the relative poverty of Savannah, Georgia. He was raised by his grandfather. Read his book, ``My Grandfather's Son.'' A life overcoming many obstacles to end up at Yale, and then to end up at the Supreme Court. And if you remember at his confirmation hearings, what did he say? He said: This isn't worth it for the court at the hearings, when he was being pilloried, his character assassinated. He said, You know what, the Supreme Court isn't worth it. But you know what was worth it and the reason he came back, and the reason he shoved it right back down the throats of those members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including, by the way, Chairman Joe Biden, because it was his character. It was his name, the name that he had inherited, and he had from his grandfather that loved him and raised him. It was his name and he brought that Senate Judiciary Committee to its knees. And we should be grateful for it because he has been an excellent justice on the United States Supreme Court, and he did not deserve the attacks that he got. Let's talk about the person to the left of Justice Thomas, Miguel Estrada. Does anybody know that name, remember that name? Miguel Estrada is a good human being. He is a good man. He was also a nominee in the Bush administration in 2003, during that same time that I was describing with Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, and there were others. I think there were some 50 that were filibustered during that time. I can't remember. Do you know why Miguel Estrada was filibustered? Ultimately, he was stopped. A deal was cut, and Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen ended up on the bench. Miguel Estrada was not fortunate. Miguel Estrada was targeted and stopped precisely because he is Hispanic. That is a known truth in Washington, D.C., but nobody talks about it. Do you know why? Because of concerns about how a leaked memo was found. It was a leaked memo that was found on a server. It is the stuff that would be great for ethics classes in law school or undergrad about what folders are open and who can look at them and who can see them. It is a reasonable debate. But the fact of the matter is, there was a memo by Senate Democratic leadership saying we must stop him because he is a Hispanic. I say to the ladies and gentlemen who are watching this, this is what is wrong with Washington, D.C. And what are we going to see transpire in the coming weeks? I hope we have a great celebration of Justice Ginsburg's life this week. Obviously, it has transformed very quickly into what is next, but I hope we will stop and celebrate. But as we go forward, we know what is going to happen. We know it as sure as we are sitting here, as sure as the Sun comes up tomorrow that it doesn't matter who the President nominates. He or she will be attacked viscously, violently. We certainly know that if Judge Barrett is nominated, she will be attacked viciously. Her faith will be attacked viciously. The fact that she is a proud mom to, I think, seven, of whom I think two are adopted, she will be attacked. Why is this? It is because we have made Washington, D.C., and its institutions too consequential to the lives of Americans in a country in which we are supposed to live freely. We have taken issues that you are supposed to work out and debate at the State legislature and the local level and, at most, in this body, in this Chamber, in the Senate, and we have placed them into the hands of nine judges. So now every June everybody waits with bated breath outside of the Supreme Court Chamber. What great pronouncement shall come down from on high? Why do we choose to live that way? Why don't we choose to make decisions in this body? Why don't we the people of this body make Article I great again? Why don't we make Congress work again? I introduced legislation a year and a half ago called the Article I Act, designed to take power away from the President and expand power here in times of emergencies, so you can't have situations like we have now where over the last 30 years vast numbers of emergencies have just been perpetual. And we still operate and give the executive branch authority to operate under these emergencies, 30 years later. That is facially absurd. Why don't we fix that? I have had conversations with friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are interested in doing that. Why isn't the Speaker? Look, I did that with a Republican President in the White House who is trying to secure the border, a proposition with which I agree not just a little, but strongly. It is our job to secure the border of the United States. I fully support the President in securing the border of the United States. I fully agree that it is an emergency at our border. I fully agree that we need to stop the cartels. I fully agree that we need to protect migrants who are seeking to come here. I fully agree that it is in the best interests of the people of the United States and the people who seek to come here for us to have a simple, secure border. No one could logically disagree with that statement, by the way. But we don't deal with logic. We deal with grand statements, and emotion, and allegations of kids in cages. But why don't we have a debate? This Republican introduced legislation in the time of a Republican President that would pull power back from that Republican President because I believe it is in the best interests of this body, this Chamber, the House of Representatives. Why don't we do it? Do it now, I say to my Democratic colleagues. Don't wait to do it when there is a Democrat in the White House. Let's do it now. It is our job to make Article I great again. Why do we turn virtually all of our power over to courts and executives? We see it unfolding before our very eyes right now in the course of this pandemic. What are we doing with respect to the pandemic? What are we doing with respect to COVID? We launch a $2 trillion missile in April, and we walked away. Now we have executives around the country who are making all sorts of decisions irrespective of what their State legislatures might be doing. We have a lot of power being executed in our Article II executive branch without any checks or balances here because we are not doing our job. Let's have those debates. Let's bring Scott Atlas, Fauci, Birx, a host of other doctors, let's bring them before this body; not in some random committee with a handful of people on it on a Zoom call. Bring them before this body and let's hear from them and let's cross-examine them. And let's understand what is at stake. Let's make good decisions based on that and let's make sure the American people know the facts. I happen to be one of those people who believes that we should take this virus very seriously, who has a 77-year-old father who survived polio, and a 71-year-old mother that I want to protect from the virus. I also happen to be somebody who believes that we have scared the bejesus out of the American people in such a way that we are causing them harm. They are having mental health issues. They are not getting cancer screenings. Suicides are up, addictions are up, and we just bury our head in the sand and go around, and some people on the other side of the aisle scream 200,000, and they think that is an argument when it is not an argument. It is an irresponsible effort to instill panic in the American people for political purposes. And that is precisely what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing. Why don't we have a debate and have a discussion and bring people forward and determine the facts and share those facts with the American people so we can open our society up again properly, wisely, but open. I am always mystified while I watch people running around talking about how much we need to be locked down, but they are drinking their bottle of water. Sitting at a hearing today I saw Dr. Fauci drinking his bottle of water. I see people saying we need to stay locked down. They are drinking their Starbucks coffee. I see them stop off and pick up Little Taco in Austin, Texas, or go pick up some food. Who made it? Who distributed it? Who brought it to them on the curbside service? Who brought them their latte? Who is making their electricity run? Essential workers? Who among us are fine with endangering essential workers in grocery stores and power companies and food service so that some people can pat themselves on the back saying, They are doing a great thing by staying locked down? Let's study the data, the reports that came out just today from Brown University showing a relatively low transmission rate for some kids in college in our schools. Let's study that data. Let's look at how many are hospitalized. Let's talk about how we are going to achieve immunity. It might be a vaccine. It might be that some of the most healthy members of society continue to engage and operate and we build up immunity. That is what we do for other things. Let's talk about that, instead of scaring the heck out of the American people. Mr. Speaker, this is no way for us to do our job. Our job is to represent each and every American and to be here and debate and to vote. I am going to say one more time, with all due respect to the Speaker of the House, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this body cannot meet and stand up for our law enforcement. I cannot understand why this body cannot meet, debate, and vote on a PPP extension bill, or another form of that kind of legislation to make sure our small businesses can survive; the restaurants, the music venues, the wineries, distilleries, breweries, barber shops, hotels-- all of the entities that are struggling to survive right now throughout this country. Where are we? We have been back now after a long hiatus for 10 days- ish, not really. We will be back next week. What are we doing? Let's pass that. Let's stand up with law enforcement. Let's pass a bill to protect our small businesses. Let's do the basic duty that is incumbent upon us as Members of the United States House of Representatives to represent the people who are asking us to do those things. It is our job. We are asking millions of Americans to do their job while we completely and totally fail to do ours. Mr. Speaker, we are $27 trillion in debt. It is about to jump to $30 trillion, and we walk around here like nothing is going on. Drugs and narcotics are still flowing across our southern border, and we don't do a thing about it. Law enforcement is getting attacked on the streets-- targeted--buildings are getting burned, streets are in unrest, and we are doing nothing about it. Mr. Speaker, I will close by just saying, it is an honor to serve in the United States House of Representatives, but this body has got to do better. It is time for this body to do its job. It is time for us to stand up for America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. Detective James Skernivitz; Police Officer Tamarris Leon-Wesley Bohannon; Sergeant Ricardo Perez-Ortiz; Police Officer Edelmiro Garza, Jr.; Police Officer Ismael Chavez; Police Officer Anthony Dia; Sergeant Craig Vincent Johnson; Wildlife Officer Julian Keen, Jr.; Deputy Sheriff James H. Blair; Sergeant Damon Gutzwiller; Lieutenant Stephen P. Williams; Police Officer Waldis ``Jay'' Johnson; Police Officer Nathan James Lyday; Police Officer Cody N. Holte; Police Officer Michael S. Mosher; Lieutenant Glenn Dale Hutto, Jr.; Police Officer Dan Walters; Police Officer Justin Putnam; Officer Breann Leath; Commander Greg Carnicle; Sergeant Ben Jenkins; Police Officer Christopher Ryan Walsh; Sergeant James R. O'Connor, IV; Corporal Brent William Perry Scrimshire; Corporal Andrew J. Gillette; Officer David Kellywood; Police Officer Nick O'Rear; Trooper Joseph Jon Bullock; Deputy Sheriff Richard Edward Whitten; Officer Tiffany-Victoria Bilon Enriquez; Officer Kaulike Kalama; Public Safety Officer Jackson Ryan Winkler; Captain Stanley Curtis Elrod; Police Officer Bryan Brown; Corporal Bryant Searcy; Police Officer Sheena Dae Yarbrough-Powell; Trooper Caleb Starr; Police Officer Destin Legieza; Animal Control Officer Darrian May Young; Police Officer Christopher Eric Ewing; Police Officer Kaia LaFay Grant; Police Officer Alan Daniel McCollum; Police Officer Katherine Mary Thyne. I have two questions, Mr. Speaker: Where is the NBA? Where are those names? Where are the names I just read of the 43 police officers who have died in the line of duty this year? I want to know that. I want to know where those names are. My second question is: Where is the Speaker? Where is the Speaker of the House? Where is this body? Why aren't we on the floor voting on a resolution honoring these fallen 43? Why aren't we standing up for law and order? Why aren't we standing up for security in our streets? Why are we instead turning over this country to mob rule? These names matter too, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding. I would note, my friend, I think we have got another little bit of time reserved on the back end that I will take and see my time, and I am happy to let others use that time as well, if we go over and blend that time together, and I would be happy to turn it over to my colleagues, as well. I just want to thank you for doing this. Again, this institution, we ought to be meeting here together with 435 Members present. It is our obligation and our solemn duty to do so, but instead, we continue to play political games, political theater. And we are seeing the carnage on our streets in terms of businesses and in terms of real lives, in terms of law enforcement. Two deputies in Los Angeles shot point blank just this last week, and people egging it on, cheering it on and encouraging them to die. What kind of cultural rot do we have in our communities while this body sits here empty, putting on a show because that is what this body has become, putting on a show? So I would say to the Speaker of the House: Where are you? Why is the Speaker not here right now? Why is the majority leader not right here right now? We come back in to finally meet in September. We have had 19 days so far of voting on the floor of this body over the last 6 months. Think about that. It is absolutely irresponsible. I say: Where is the Speaker? Why aren't we here doing the hard work for the American people so that we can get our small businesses working again, get our economy back again? And why aren't we right here standing up unified, saying that we stand alongside the law enforcement community of the United States? Why aren't we standing up with the cops: Federal, State, and local? Why aren't we saying we stand with them, this body, the people's House? And that is what this is about, American greatness and standing up and protecting our communities, protecting those values, securing the blessings of liberty as articulated in the Constitution of the United States which reflects the Declaration of Independence which articulated the rights of mankind for the first time in human history. That is what this Nation is about, and I am glad to stand up, and I will join you in a little bit more.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) for his heartfelt remarks about something that is such an important topic. I thank him for his steadfast commitment to the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) for arranging this earlier gathering where we could all join together in this important moment to talk about this. Mr. Speaker, I would like for those sitting at home to focus in on this number 43. This number 43, you want to know what this number represents? This number represents the number of law enforcement officers who have been killed thus far in 2020--43 law enforcement officers who have been killed thus far in 2020, over 40 percent more than in the same period in 2019. Eight were categorized as premeditated murder. Two were a victim of unprovoked attacks. Eight fatal shots were fired at pointblank range, zero to 5 feet from the officer; eight shot in the front of the head, two from the back of the head, six in the neck, nine in the chest. These are 43 law enforcement officers who have lost their lives in 2020. Where is the NBA? Where is the NBA? Where is the Speaker of the House? That is what I want to know. Where is the Speaker of the House? Condemning 43 law enforcement officers who have been murdered. Are their names on the back of any jerseys, or is that just for preening and posturing by the true privileged who play sports for a living? These are real people. David Dorn died June 2 at 2:30 a.m. in the middle of the street after he was shot in the torso while attempting to protect a friend's pawnshop from suspected looters. Mr. Dorn had served 38 years in the St. Louis Police Department before retiring. David Patrick Underwood died from gunshot wounds after he was shot from a vehicle on May 29 in Oakland, California. He was working as a contract security officer for Federal Protective Services. According to authorities, the man charged in the murder of Mr. Underwood had specifically traveled to Oakland with the intent to kill police. He thought he could get away with it due to the large protest gatherings. Sergeant Damon Gutzwiller was investigating a suspect vehicle linked to this case when he, too, was killed after being ambushed with explosive devices and an assault rifle. He had served the Santa Cruz County community since 2006. Shay Mikalonis, a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police officer, was seriously injured after being shot in the head while attempting to disperse protesters in June. This week--we have already alluded to it--two L.A. County sheriff's deputies were sitting in their vehicle when they were ambushed and shot, ambushed and shot in the streets of Los Angeles. The deputies, a 31-year-old mother and a 24-year-old man, were transported to a local hospital. While fighting for their lives, a group of protestors arrived at the hospital and shouted: ``We hope they die.'' This is what is happening on the streets of America right now, and it is being fomented by our so-called national leaders. Again, I would like to say, where is the people's House? Going out for a fundraiser? Having a nice dinner here in Washington, D.C., right now? Getting a steak dinner with somebody, patting each other on the back? Where are they? Mr. Speaker, do you hear the echo of my voice? It is echoing for a reason. This Chamber is empty, with the exception of one or two colleagues. Where is the Speaker? It is almost like that book, ``Where's Waldo?'' Where is the Speaker? Let's walk around Washington, D.C. Let's go try to find the Speaker because she sure as heck is not here right now on the floor of the House of Representatives leading this body. We are sure not having any votes right now. We are not having amendments. We are not having any debate. Forty-three. Forty-three dead law enforcement officers. You know what else we are not focusing on? The businesses destroyed by riots and the businesses ravaged by government shutdown in the face of a virus. As we talked about all these riots, I read with interest the story of 93 percent peaceful, leaving 7 percent unpeaceful. All the headlines said 93 percent peaceful. Well, how about that 7 percent, including roughly 550 violent demonstrations across the county since June? Minneapolis Star Tribune: More than 360 businesses across Twin Cities vandalized, looted; 66 destroyed completely by fire. Property damage to more than 1,500 locations. Set fire to nearly 150 buildings. Insurance experts estimate the cost to be $500 million. Portland: $20 million in damage. How about some of these headlines? ``Riots, Arson Leave Minnesota Communities of Color Devastated.'' Philadelphia, ``Philadelphia Black-Owned Businesses Damaged and Looted.'' New York Times said: `` . . . businesses, already ailing from an outbreak of the coronavirus that has been particularly devastating to small and minority-owned business, may not recover.'' FOX Milwaukee: ``Many Milwaukee businesses damaged by vandals during violent protests are minority owned.'' Between May 25 and June 8, in the heat of a lot of these protests, at least 17 people were killed. What is the carnage in the Black community? I read a stat recently that upwards of 45 percent of Black-owned businesses have closed down since the beginning of the pandemic as we know it and during this time of civil unrest. Is the NBA wearing anybody's names who lost a business on their jersey? Are they painting any of their names on the floor while they make $20 million to play basketball, or $50 million? No, I don't see that. Why aren't we having a resolution here with 435 Members saying we stand up for law enforcement? That is not to say we can't have a vigorous debate about court-created qualified immunity. I am a conservative. I don't like courts creating law. I don't like that the court created qualified immunity and that is not as perfect as we could make it. But I believe there should be some level of immunity, so let's have that conversation. Let's debate it. Let's discuss it. Or I can just sit here and speak to an empty Chamber and have a speech that is on C-SPAN and then tweet it out, and then there will be some speeches and people will go out and then there will be an election in November. Let's be honest. We know that is what all this is about: posturing for a November election. Well, you know what? I could be out doing one of these dinners. We could be doing something. We are all in races. Or we could be right here doing our darn job, because that is what we should be doing. We should actually be having a debate in this Chamber. We never do that. We haven't had a vote on an open amendment on the floor of the House since May of 2016. That is both parties in control of this Chamber, by the way. That is absurd. It is facially absurd. We are a nation governed by a Rules Committee that throws bills on the floor and then says: Hey, you are going to vote on this with a gun to your head, and we are going to put whatever we can in there to make it a tough vote so that we can then run ads against you and then have a campaign in November. That is no way for a representative government to work. We make policy based on Twitter. We don't have legitimate hearings where we go through all of the information and make tough additions, roll our sleeves up. That is the way this body is supposed to work. It hasn't worked that way in a long time--either party in control, by the way. One day we might aspire for this body's approval rating to jump above 20 percent. Wouldn't that be something? But why would you approve of this body? What do we ever do? Rhetorical question. I would actually like to ask the question: What do we actually do? We sure as heck don't pass appropriations bills that have any chance of being reasonable or financially prudent. $27 trillion of debt later, we are barreling toward $30 trillion. Everybody knows it. Our dollar is going to be devalued. Our economy is going to be weaker. Our kids are inheriting $30 trillion-plus of debt. What are we doing? The Speaker, leader in the Senate, Treasury Secretary, they are all meeting in rooms--I don't ever see any of this stuff till I read about it in the press--figuring out which number they are going to put in front of trillion for some deal. Why don't we start with a bill on the floor of this Chamber? For example, why don't we just start with a PPP extension bill? Why not? We managed to pass a bill in June, Dean Phillips, freshman Democrat from Minnesota, and myself, seven pages, because we ignored the normal process. And we went out and we got a bunch of support for it and we, basically, forced the issue. We got a vote and it extended the PPP, granting true reprieve and help to small businesses in Texas and throughout this country. The PPP is at 5.2 million loans and $525 billion since the spring. In Texas, over 400,000 loans of $41 billion. Eighty-six percent of the total count were less than $150,000. The average loan is $101,000. We have $130 billion left. Why don't we extend it? Why don't we add to it? Why don't we make this work for small businesses that, I am told, in Texas are going to run out of money in September, run out of money in October: live music venues closing, small restaurants closing, family-owned establishments that have been there for decades closing. Now we are playing Russian roulette with other people's lives. You have got local politicians and Governors who have shut down people's livelihoods: wineries, breweries, distilleries, live music venues, restaurants unable to stay in business in significant part because of government action, in part because of the virus and people's concerns. Why aren't we doing something right now? What is more important at 7 tonight than us, this body, meeting and coming up with solutions? A dinner? A fundraiser? An interview on MSNBC, CNN, or FOX? Some meeting with some higher-ups and the Speaker and the leader and some folks in the administration telling us what to do when we are every bit as duly elected as they are? But that is what is happening, because there sure as heck isn't anybody on the floor of the House Chamber here at 7. Over the last 180 days, since mid-March when we all left, around spring break time for a lot of our kids, over this 6 months, 180 days, we have met and voted, I think, 19 of those days. Today might be the 20th. That is absurd. And none of those votes, by the way, were us actually sitting down here and debating. My friend agrees. He knows. Have we been down here debating? Have there been any grand debates here on the floor of the people's House? There have not. I can't tell you how many Members on the other side of the aisle and this side of the aisle I talk to about wanting to restore regular order. It is the fundamental problem we have among our so-called leaders in this town is we don't do that. Right now, we have H.R. 7894 that I did with my friends Congressman Curtis, Congressmen Wild, Meuser, Van Drew, a number of folks, bipartisan, that would extend the PPP. You know what? I don't care. Don't use that bill. There is the RESTART Act. There are others. But why don't we just pull up a bill, debate it, and vote on it? It is a novel idea. Or no, why don't we just wait for the powers that be to put together a $3 trillion bill that has virtually no chance of getting any kind of unified support because it has got 50 different moving parts and then wonder why the American people look at us and say: What is wrong with you? Just put a bill on the floor and let's debate it and vote on it. What are we afraid of? I am happy to vote, and my constituents can choose what to do in November. But let's debate and vote. That bill I just mentioned, it has 35 significant organizations and entities that support it: National Restaurant Association, a bunch of the business community that supports it. Fine. Again, I don't care, that bill, another bill. Let's just have a bill and a vote on a bill that will help our small business community. But again, where is the Speaker? Why are we playing politics with small businesses? I don't get it. Where is the Speaker? Where is this body on 43, 43 dead law enforcement officers, up a significant amount, almost 50 percent since last year? I would say, as I said before, that bill that we got passed in June on a bipartisan basis, the PPP bill we passed in the spring, this is just my district alone, the district I represent, Texas 21: businesses supported, 18,400; nonprofits supported, 511; total jobs supported, 90,900; funding distributed, over $600 million. That is one congressional district. Let's do our job. Let's pass an extension of that. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?