Mark Walker

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Heaven Fitch on winning the wrestling state championship for North Carolina's 106- pound weight class. Competing against all boys, Heaven's win makes her the first female athlete in North Carolina to win a wrestling state championship. She and her three brothers first became interested with wrestling at an early age after watching the sport on television. When Heaven and her brothers joined the local wrestling club, she was the only girl. Heaven wrestled wherever she could, often practicing up to five days a week. Despite being smaller than almost all her high school opponents, Heaven's agility and speed has led her to dominate on the mat finishing the season with a 54-4 record. Heaven currently goes to Uwharrie Charter Academy in Asheboro, North Carolina, where she has gotten support from her classmates, teammates, coaches and parents Ryan and Stacey. Each March, we come together to celebrate women who have broken barriers, defied stereotypes, and contributed to our country's history. While we recognize trailblazing women over the course of history, it is our great honor to recognize women making history today in our backyards. Congratulations to Heaven for all her accomplishments and serving as an inspiration to girls across the country.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Foxx for yielding me the time. Mr. Chair, today, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2474, the PRO Act. In fact, the more you learn about this legislation, the more the name fits. It is prounion boss. It is proshadiness. It is prounemployment. It is prohibitive. You know what it is not? It is not proworker. By repealing right-to-work laws, this legislation fails to protect workers from being forced into paying hefty union dues. With unemployment hitting record lows and wages hitting record highs, our workers should be able to keep their paychecks, not hand them over to corrupt union bosses. By changing the classification of the majority of independent contractors to employees--that is important--this legislation will restrict workers, create confusion, reduce opportunity, and then increase costs. It also dramatically expands the joint employer standard, trying to force businesses to restructure their entire business models. What might seem like an insignificant or a small change would actually result in the labor union mafia taking our booming economy in a one-way ride. In fact, this legislation is estimated to cost employers and workers more than $47 billion--with a B--$47 billion annually. For a party that likes to talk about the right to choose when it comes to our most essential rights, why are House Democrats trying to restrict the power of choice for an entire industry of workers, and in doing so, forcing middle-income workers to hand over their earnings? I urge my colleagues to oppose this blatant effort to reinstate a mob boss rule and vote against H.R. 2474.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor one of our fallen servicemembers in Iraq, Sergeant First Class Edward Kramer. Sergeant Kramer was a North Carolina National Guard soldier killed in action by an IED on his last day of combat operations while he was deployed to Iraq, leaving a family and young children behind. General Soleimani's brutal reign of terror was responsible for the deployment of the IEDs that killed and wounded soldiers such as Sergeant First Class Kramer. In fact, Soleimani's reign of terror killed and wounded over 600 servicemembers in Iraq. We can never fully repay the families of our fallen soldiers, but we can seek justice. Terrorism must never prevail over American freedom and identity.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, when emotions supersede the facts, the conclusion is cataclysmic. Today, we are wrapping up not a 3-month process but, rather, a 3-year process with Democrats' disdain so much that it has led to the abuse of this very House. These are the same Democrats who promised America they saw evidence of Russian collusion. Do the American people trust them? Hell, no, they don't. A growing number of American people have condemned this impeachment process, and that is with House Democrats setting the rules and then even bending and breaking the rules to fit their narrative. The majority of Americans see this circus for what it is. I wonder how many more will join them.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Before they identified the crime, Madam Speaker, the Democrats organized the firing squad. Before anyone was talking about Ukraine, over half of the Democratic majority was in favor of impeachment. In fact, this process didn't begin with Ukraine or a whistleblower, this sham impeachment process started year one of President Trump's administration when a Democrat colleague stated, ``. . . if we don't impeach this President he will get reelected.'' Hatred for President Trump has become the new religion of the radical left, creating an irrational behavior, not rooted in good judgment, but rather in emotion. The Democrats are protecting Adam Schiff, as seen by yesterday's censure vote. This was not, and is not, about the facts. Facing your accusers and ``innocent until proven guilty'' used to be the American way. It is the basic standard that every American should expect, including the President. Being targeted by an angry mob, a willing media machine, and a twisted version of democracy. The President calls this a witch hunt. Unfortunately, it looks like that is exactly what it is.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, the United States Marine Corps is characterized by their values of honor, courage, and commitment--as Marines would say, ``Semper Fi.'' Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major General Herbert Lloyd Wilkerson on his 100th birthday, a decorated veteran who truly personifies these values of the United States Marine Corps. Major General Wilkerson first felt the call to serve following the attacks on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. Still three hours short of graduation, he courageously enlisted as a private. Major General Wilkerson would go on to serve our country in World War II, the Korean war, and Vietnam, soon becoming chief of staff and base commander for Camp Lejeune. General Wilkerson's unrelenting commitment to serve the United States of America will inspire generations to come just as it inspired his own son, Major General Tom Wilkerson. Please join me in celebrating Major General Wilkerson's 100 years of being always faithful to our country, serving with relentless patriotism and valor.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, you have just heard from a man, J.D. Greear, that I have the distinct privilege of calling my friend. Pastor J.D. Greear leads The Summit Church in Durham, North Carolina. Under Pastor J.D.'s leadership, The Summit Church has gone from 300 members to over 10,000, making it one of the fastest growing churches in our country. His vision is to plant 1,000 new churches around the world by the year 2050. He believes the deeper we dive into the extravagant love of Christ, the more our lives will be filled with unquenchable joy, reckless generosity, and audacious faith. Pastor J.D. is the author of several life-transforming books and is the current president of the Southern Baptist Convention. One of his most important accomplishments is his dedication to his wife, Veronica, and their four children. It is an honor to have him here in Washington, D.C., today. He is also the mentor of my pastor, Andrew Hopper. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to his continued work as a father, as a pastor, and as a leader.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 2486, the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education Act, also known as the FUTURE Act. First, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), my colleague, and Senators Tim Scott and Doug Jones for working with me on this critical piece of legislation. The FUTURE Act supports STEM programs for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions, ensuring the students in our communities receive the best science, tech, engineering, and math education in the country by providing and extending these grants. Representing the largest HBCU in the country, North Carolina A&T State University, I have seen firsthand the significant impact these STEM grants have on our HBCU students. On a personal note, as Representative Adams knows, and I have mentioned before, my wife is a family nurse practitioner at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center and a two-time graduate from an HBCU. Thanks to the FUTURE Act, 300,000 students across more than 100 HBCUs will have the opportunities that come with a STEM education. From the engineers that will build our roads and bridges, to the mathematicians who will solve complex questions of physics, to the computer scientists coding for smart electric grids, our future lies in the hands of STEM graduates. In the rapidly changing environment of higher education, our schools and students--especially those at minority-serving institutions--need the stability and assuredness that comes with knowing that they have our full support. The House needs to pass the FUTURE Act for HBCUs and the students they serve. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), my colleague, and Senators Doug Jones and Tim Scott for working together to get this important piece of legislation across the finish line. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, bicameral bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), former chair and ranking member, and a lady who has given her life to the education arena.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a champion for HBCU causes since arriving in Congress 2\1/2\ years ago.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I know Congresswoman Adams is yielding back only because I am the Member who represents North Carolina A&T at this point. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and with great big Aggie pride, I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate 84-8 and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today.

Mr. WALKER

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

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, less than 10 days ago, this body missed a perfect opportunity. You see, natural disasters are unpredictable, but you know what isn't? Congress failing to do their job and prepare for them. For too long Washington has governed by crisis and shifted its responsibility to adequately care for those in need, opting instead to saddle our children and grandchildren with an impossible debt. Then days ago, this body wanted to spend more than $19 billion with no consideration of how to pay for it. Was it for a worthy cause? Absolutely. Of course. I would hope that every dollar appropriated by Congress is for a worthy cause. But as then-Representative Mike Pence said in 2005, following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, does Congress have a duty to ensure that a catastrophe of nature does not become a catastrophe of debt? Congress should pay for these emergency packages by either cutting spending in other areas that are less of a priority or responsibly budgeting for them ahead of time. Disaster aid shouldn't be added to the debt. That is akin to going to the emergency room after an injury, putting the charges on a credit card, and then pretending that credit card bill is never going to arrive. The bottom line is this, that even during an emergency, Washington needs to pay its bills. My amendment is relatively simple, Mr. Chair. My amendment would be a 1-year reallocation of the Department of State and USAID's bilateral economic assistance and independent agency funds to cover the disaster recovery. Let me explain. Combined, these accounts amount to more than $23.9 billion and would fully cover the disaster recovery, including the $5.87 billion in debt servicing costs of the borrowed funds, all while prioritizing America's recovery and resiliency. America is still the most philanthropic country in the world and would continue to be. Mr. Chair, this amendment recognizes our dire fiscal health by reducing foreign aid during these times and prioritizing Americans and American recovery efforts first. As the President and this administration have said on multiple occasions, we must prioritize our domestic needs first and put the American citizens at the front of the line, especially during these times of disaster relief and especially since we are the ones that will foot the bill. With these spending offsets, I believe we can show the American people we are serious about their recovery from disasters in a fiscally responsible manner that will not burden our future generations with debt and despair. Finally, we can help our neighbors and serve the Americans impacted by natural disasters by prioritizing our families before foreign interests. Congress should take this opportunity to put America first and lead responsibly. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple. It is about prioritizing domestic needs. It is about prioritizing these families that have suffering. It is about prioritizing these children who are suffering. We need to be responsible. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their hard work in the appropriations process, but nowhere is this spending disaster relief ever talked about. It is time that we do so. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for his work. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have deemed this bill to be ``for the people,'' a more proper characterization would be ``for the politicians.'' Voting is a foundational right for all Americans, and the egregious provisions of this bill would jeopardize our freedoms. In particular, this legislation fails to address the issue of ballot harvesting. As we have seen in California and my own State of North Carolina, ballot harvesting has created troubling irregularities in several elections due to the lack of oversight and opportunities for voter manipulation and intimidation. Ballot harvesting allows political operatives with a partisan agenda to get involved in the collection and submission of votes, creating an opportunity for organizations or campaign workers to exploit voters and violate our fundamental rights. Americans should have a choice on how they want to vote, who they want to support, and if they want to vote at all. Not only would H.R. 1 manipulate the voting process, but it would also restrict our rights as Americans to donate to the campaigns of our choosing and would allow the Federal Government to use our taxpayer dollars to subsidize elections. Aside from the proposed matching donations with a 6-to-1 ratio, H.R. 1 would create a pilot program to provide $25 vouchers for eligible voters. In practice, that means taxpayer money from hardworking Americans could be used to finance campaigns for candidates they do not support. If this doesn't limit free speech enough, another provision of the bill politicizes the Federal Election Commission by reducing membership from six to five. This makes a traditionally nonpartisan organization political, giving one party the power to make partisan decisions about election communications. With the vague standards created by H.R. 1, this would affect any group wishing to advocate on behalf of any legislative issue. In short, this legislation violates the First Amendment. Even the ACLU has problems with it. It creates an avenue for fraud and subjects voters to potential exploitation. While my colleagues across the aisle will support this bill to subsidize their own elections and keep their party in the majority, I will stand up for our rights as Americans and vote against one of the worst bills ever, this abhorrent assault on our election system.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bishop Bryan J. Pierce's sixth anniversary as the Senior Pastor and Chief Executive Officer of Mount Zion Baptist Church of Greensboro. Beginning to preach at the age of six and ordained by nineteen, Bishop Pierce is a man after God's own heart. It was in June of 2011 that Bishop Pierce became the Chief Administrative Officer at Mount Zion and worked diligently until his elevation to Senior Pastor on January 1, 2013. He strongly believes that he who serves the city, wins the city, which is expressed through a Church-wide campaign called No Greater Love, where members of Mount Zion come together to serve the Greensboro community. Also serving as 1st Assistant to 2nd Presiding Bishop, Bishop Pierce is a noted songwriter, arranger and producer. He successfully released his first solo debut album, which reached No. 3 on Billboard's Top Gospel Albums Chart by capturing an amazing sound that has facilitated openings for the Glory of God to be manifested in the lives of His people. With 20 years of Senior Pastoral Leadership, we honor another anniversary of service and the faithful future he is sure to bring our community.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bishop Bryan J. Pierce's sixth anniversary as the Senior Pastor and Chief Executive Officer of Mount Zion Baptist Church of Greensboro. Beginning to preach at the age of six and ordained by nineteen, Bishop Pierce is a man after God's own heart. It was in June of 2011 that Bishop Pierce became the Chief Administrative Officer at Mount Zion and worked diligently until his elevation to Senior Pastor on January 1, 2013. He strongly believes that he who serves the city, wins the city, which is expressed through a Church-wide campaign called No Greater Love, where members of Mount Zion come together to serve the Greensboro community. Also serving as 1st Assistant to 2nd Presiding Bishop, Bishop Pierce is a noted songwriter, arranger and producer. He successfully released his first solo debut album, which reached No. 3 on Billboard's Top Gospel Albums Chart by capturing an amazing sound that has facilitated openings for the Glory of God to be manifested in the lives of His people. With 20 years of Senior Pastoral Leadership, we honor another anniversary of service and the faithful future he is sure to bring our community.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Walorski, Jackie, if I may, for her leadership and showing courage on this important topic. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act protects the lives of babies who survive abortions by requiring the healthcare practitioner to save the life of the baby. Sounds pretty much like common sense, doesn't it? I am a proud cosponsor of Ms. Ann Wagner's bill fighting for the sanctity of life. As a former pastor, I value each and every life that is brought into this world, and that is why it is imperative that we pass this legislation and put an end to the senseless murders of innocent babies. Earlier this week, I asked for unanimous consent, before being gaveled out, to bring the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to the House floor for a vote. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues put their party leadership and affiliation over voting for what is morally right. The statistics are staggering. In just looking at a few States, we found 25 children that were born alive that survived a botched abortion just in 2017. It is concerning to think how much higher those numbers would be if we looked throughout the entire country. Simply put, I stand with 80 percent of Americans who support legislation to protect the life of a baby who survives a failed abortion. At a time when States like New York and Virginia are matching abortion laws of North Korea in making it easier to perform abortions until the birth of a child, it is absolutely necessary for us to stand in unity and fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, if this unanimous consent request cannot be entertained, I urge the Speaker and the majority leader to immediately schedule the born-alive bill so we can stand up and protect the sanctity of human life, and I would ask all others to join that request.

Mr. WALKER

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend our deepest sympathies, prayers, and certainly our thoughts to the family of John Dingell and Walter Jones. I did not know Mr. Dingell and only came after and served with his lovely wife, Debbie Dingell, but certainly wish all of their family our extended prayers. And the same goes for one of our North Carolina delegation members, Walter Jones, and his family, Joe Anne and Ashley, who served faithfully for North Carolinians for a quarter of a century. Certainly, we will remember those, as we already have tonight, in our Prayer Caucus in praying for both families. I don't really have any speeches written out tonight but do want to talk about a couple of areas that I believe are continuing to impact our country, maybe two of the foremost areas: border security, and then I want to talk a little bit about where our country stands in the pro- life movement. Let me start with border security. This seems to be happening in real time. In fact, just last night, Mr. Speaker, I received a phone call from a local sheriff who is part of the 3,000 sheriff representatives in the National Sheriffs' Association. You see, they are becoming more and more concerned as we get less and less, as a body, concerned about border security. They reached out to me last night and said: Fifty of us would like to deliver a letter to the Capitol to Members of Congress, specifically Chairwoman Nita Lowey and Ranking Member Kay Granger. Our plans weren't to arrive until this afternoon, but we quickly made arrangements to be here this morning. If these 50 sheriffs were going to travel all over the country, States from Massachusetts to Arizona to Washington to Texas, the least we could do would be to be here and to greet them, which we did. On a very cold, rainy morning this morning, we met these 50 sheriffs on the Capitol steps, at which time they handed to me this letter, and I would like to read it this evening. It says: Dear Chairwoman Nita Lowey and Ranking Member Kay Granger: On behalf of more than 3,000 sheriffs represented by both the National Sheriffs' Association and the Major County Sheriffs of America, we write in opposition to Congress' most recent deliberation to place an artificial cap on Immigration and Customs Enforcement's detention capacity. Now, I am going to explain this in just a little bit and get into detail. Capping the number of detention beds utilized by ICE not only jeopardizes the integrity of the immigration system, but would cripple ICE's ability to detain criminal aliens and other aliens who pose a risk to public safety or are a flight risk. They continue: Any legislation that reduces ICE's detention capacity would hinder its ability to perform its national security and public safety missions but, also, impact local law enforcement's ability to protect the communities they serve. You know, we have heard a lot from some of our Democratic colleagues who say the people who should be making these decisions or the people who should be informing us of these decisions are the people with the most experience. Well, here is our National Sheriffs' Association, 3,000-strong, sitting representatives here. They go on to say: In order to meet the cap being tentatively proposed by Congress, ICE would be compelled to release thousands of aliens from custody. Now, listen to this data point: To achieve the 16,500 adult average detainee population-- ADP--caps for the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year, a net reduction of 9,264 adults by the end of this fiscal year would be required. Now, what does that mean? It means, if you are not meeting the caps, these folks, these criminal aliens, are going to get released. You say, well, are these criminal aliens? Here is the number: Approximately 72 percent of ICE's current detention population is subject to mandatory detention due to the alien having certain convictions or having committed certain acts. So, of that number, 72 percent we know of, we are just going to say, or the Democrats want us to say, Mr. Speaker, that we just need to release these because we want to put a cap, just pick a number out of the air because we don't think we should have more than that, no matter what kind of crimes they committed. This is ludicrous. They conclude by saying: Placing a cap on ICE detention beds would undermine the efficacy of the immigration system and reduce the number of aliens who are removed from the United States. They use these words: This dangerous congressional proposal not only jeopardizes the risk of our national security, but hinders our law enforcement officers from effectively enforcing and upholding the law and protecting their communities. There you have it. They are saying the reduction of these detention beds, which is just a backhanded way of defunding Immigration and Customs Enforcement, would hinder them from doing their job. So tonight I am reminding my Democratic colleagues that, by pushing for the reduction of detention beds, these sheriffs, who serve for little pay and serve in dangerous situations in many places, in many remote areas, they are telling my colleagues: Don't do this. This puts us in a dangerous situation. This puts our communities in a more dangerous situation when we allow thousands of criminal aliens to be put back in the different communities on the streets. This is preposterous. The National Sheriffs' Association and the Major County Sheriffs of America oppose the current budget proposal and urge Congress to consider the dangerous ramifications that passing this depreciated budget could have on the citizens of America. Mr. Speaker, these aren't my words. Mr. Speaker, these aren't the words of our minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, or our whip, Steve Scalise, or our chair, Liz Cheney. These are the words of our local county sheriffs, urging and pleading: Do not continue to push for this. It is a real shame that these sheriffs have to come to Washington, D.C.--33 degrees outside, in the rain--to plead with a Member of Congress to try and stop such a preposterous suggestion. As they stood today--and I brought them inside the Capitol, gave them a quick tour, even took them over into the Rayburn Room, and we talked a little bit. We talked about how structures work, how steel slats work. We talked about the places of San Diego and El Paso, where there has been a drastic reduction in crime. You see, these sheriffs get it. These sheriffs are elected officials themselves and have a duty to uphold the law, much like the same oath that Members of Congress take to protect and serve the American people. Structures work. Now the Democrats, at the last minute, are trying another ploy by trying to come up with some crazy suggestion that we should reduce the amount of detention beds, putting a cap on it, automatically releasing criminal aliens. It is time for my Democratic colleagues to put up or shut up when it comes to being genuine about border security. One of the things that we have seen recently is not only a lackadaisical approach about border security, but we have also seen it in the protection and the sanctity of human life. Many Members are very passionate and should be so. You see, this isn't about an argument over how much funding a certain project should receive. This isn't about a preference on a particular issue that comes out of committee. The reason this has brought so much passion over the last 50 years is because this has to do with human life. I can tell you, as a former pastor and being in the hospital room when a loved one breathed their last breath, I have seen how families had yearned for just another hour, another day. It is a very sad and tragic situation. They would have given everything they had for another few precious minutes with that loved one: a son, a daughter, a dad, a brother, a sister, a mom. Yet we have cheapened life to the place, in these Hallowed Halls, that it has simply become a political pawn, a bargaining chip. How did we get to this place? The other night, the night before the National Prayer Breakfast, I was speaking with a wonderful representative, a lady from the country of Latvia, who was appalled at our abortion laws, who are so much further than anything we see in Europe. When we have to begin to talk about only six other countries that have such extreme abortion laws as ours, is that not a wake-up call? When the Governor of New York, Mr. Speaker, continues to advocate with such lack of respect for human life, is that not a wake-up call? When Governor Ralph Northam begins to talk about infanticide, is that not a wake-up call? What does it take for everyday Americans to say enough is enough when it comes to human life? Right now, we are trying to bring to the floor a Born-Alive Abortion Protection Act. What does it say? Well, it is not overwhelming too much. It basically says, if a baby survives a botched abortion, then the providers would be required by law to sustain its life. Yet we can't get it to the floor. The reason why is because, when it was introduced last time, last cycle, we had several brave, strong Democrats who had the courage to step forward and vote for a piece of legislation that would require providers to sustain life during these times. I remember I was so moved by that kind of courage nearly a year or so ago that I went back to my office and wrote thank-you cards to those Democrats who were willing to stand up for the sanctity of human life. What is it worth to us? Not only is the Born-Alive Protection Act something that is important; I would even add another bill that was passed out of the House, not taken up before the Senate, the Pain- Capable Child Protection Act, that would limit abortions after 20 weeks to only specific circumstances. What is it going to take for our country to put the kind of concern and the favor that God's creation deserves? Speaking of God's creation, Mr. Speaker, our Speaker of the House, just 3 days ago, sent this tweet out that I will read. She said: ``We have a moral responsibility to protect God's creation for generations to come.'' That is why, today, she was naming a select committee not on the sanctity of human life, but on climate control. We need to take a look at all the issues, but we need to stand as Members of Congress for those who cannot stand for themselves. We need to be a voice for those who have no voice. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to continue to remind us that God's creation isn't just what we see in nature. God's creations are also these unborn babies. May we come to the place that we protect. So tonight, as I talk about border security and pro-life issues, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), a large animal veterinarian from the Gainesville, Florida, area, to share his thoughts on what we need to do secure our border.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Yoho. I appreciate his wisdom and his experience in this area. As we continue to talk about these two issues tonight, I think back to the border security issue and how this has become more of a campaign against the President of the United States, when just a few short years ago, the majority of Senators, who were Democrats at the time, voted for a structure at that time, voted for a wall. It wasn't politically incorrect at that point to call it a wall. But we see how quickly in Washington, D.C., things do become politically correct. Why? It is because we see the numbers. We see the work of our border agents. We see the work of ICE, which, in 2017, was able to ascertain over 800,000 pounds of drugs. Think about that, 800,000 pounds of drugs. Enough fentanyl to kill every man, woman, and child not just in our country, but in all of North America was ascertained. A week ago tomorrow night, sitting right up to my left in the second row there, was my sister-in-law. Her brother was an Army veteran, wonderful young man, played basketball in college with my youngest brother. Scott Aaron was his name. One day, he injured his knee, and he had to have an operation. From that operation, he was given painkillers. Painkillers went to opioids; opioids obviously included heroin, to the place where he became a full- fledged addict. He tried multiple times to overcome that addiction to heroin but, in the end, failed and realized that, in his mind, he did not have hope, which brought him to the place of committing suicide. Now, Scott is not by himself, to the tune of 300 families per week that are having the funeral of a loved one due to some kind of tragic overdose, mostly heroin. Now heroin is laced with fentanyl, and we are seeing more and more epidemic proportions. We are doing everything we can in Congress to provide the funding to combat the heroin crisis, but why wouldn't it make sense that we also put up some structures, specifically in hot spots along the border, to help reduce and maybe even, in some cases, eliminate? On this floor, I have talked with more than a dozen of my Democratic friends and colleagues who have told me time after time after time: We have no doubt that a structure works. So why not move forward? Why not come to an agreement--a compromise, if you will--to be able to begin to lay out the places where a structure, a fence, a wall could work? How many lives would need to be saved to make it worth it? How many families could be reunited without an empty chair this Thanksgiving or this Christmas? How many would it take for it to be worth it? How many would it take for us to get past the political jargon of being able to use this as some kind of pawn to argue back and forth? I would say just one. The case could be made for thousands. Border security: It is time we come together. We don't even need to be talking about another shutdown or CR. We need to be able to resolve this. This is a commonsense solution to be able to resolve this. Republicans aren't talking about a border from San Diego to McAllen, Texas. We understand there are places where drones, where technology, where surveillance may be the better way. We don't believe in eminent domain and blocking people's views of the Rio Grande River with a wall, but there are things that we can do immediately. Yet I believe it has come to the place where we put personalities and politics over the people themselves. Border security: It is time we do something. Mr. Speaker, I yield again to my friend, Dr. Yoho, to have a few more data points on border security. Then I will close out in just a few minutes.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Yoho for his comments tonight. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, just a couple more thoughts on border security as we move forward. America was built on immigration. Nearly everyone within the sound of my voice, even though the halls have emptied out tonight, can go back and trace, from some ancestry point, the impact that immigrants had on this country, but it is legal immigration. Now, somebody might ask, how are we doing in that area? Thank you for asking. America has the most generous immigration laws in the world. In 2017 alone, we took over 1.1 million immigrants who raised their right hand, who took an oath to pledge allegiance to this great country of America. We are doing pretty good there, and the President has even made proposals to increase that amount. It is the illegal immigration. We don't want our hearts to get lost in this, as Republicans, and specifically speaking for myself, having worked in refugee camps, having worked internationally to understand the plight and the struggle that goes on, to be able to expand America as fast as we can, to legally allow people to be part of the greatest country in the history of the world. Yet, as Members of Congress, when we raise that right hand to do our best to protect, we need to take that seriously. The crazy calls to abolish our law enforcement, agencies like ICE, which in 2017 rescued 904 children who were being exploited, how many children would it take for it to be worth it, for Immigration and Customs Enforcement? How many of those children would we measure any success by this? To go as far as calling for abolishment, that is not America. That is crazy political speech. Speaking of crazy political speech, the recent absurd language that has become acceptable to talk about third trimesters and to talk about infanticide, what are we coming to in this country? Listen, we don't pass judgment on the young woma who is making sometimes a life decision. Working with our own Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center, sometimes these young ladies don't even realize they have another option. We don't pass judgment. Do not believe the lies that this is about hating or judging these mere innocent souls. The problem that I have tonight is the political leaders who are providing the pathway to cheapen the sanctity of our human lives. That is where the focus needs to be. It needs to be that colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, are willing to stand up for those who simply don't have any rights. Who advocates for the baby? Who speaks out on behalf of the baby? It is all about reproductive rights. It is all about choice. It is all about what is now called women's healthcare. Who voices or who stands up for the baby? As we talked about a little earlier tonight in our bipartisan prayer caucus where a dozen or so Members were gathered, I brought up the point it wasn't too long ago that I remember sitting in a prestigious place with my wife, being the honored guests. To add to that, I think back over the last 4 years I have served with the United States Congress. I have sat down with Prime Ministers and royalty all across this world to have opportunities to talk policy. But I am well aware that, in our life, the remembrance of a Congressman lasts about 15 minutes, maybe 20 minutes, once you are gone from these hallowed halls. We are judged, in some ways, by our policy. But ultimately, what we do for God, to me, matters the most, when it comes to eternal values. One day, when we all stand before God, we will be judged not by just whatever button we pushed on the back of these chairs but, ultimately, what we did, I believe, with life. That is why it is important to me. It is why it is important to millions and millions of Americans. Let's get back to the place where we are willing to stand up, where we are willing to raise our voices for a child who cannot raise its own. Tonight, let's get back to a place where we have a respect for the Almighty, for God, who, as I read in a tweet earlier, is the giver and the creator of life. I think of David's writing in the Old Testament. I think of Psalm 139, where David captured quite poetically the words how we are ``fearfully and wonderfully made,'' how that even when we were formed, the beginning of our substance, God knew us. Not only did he know us, it is that he had a purpose and a plan for every life born and unborn. May we never grow weary, and may we never tire of doing all that we can in the United States Congress to protect, stand for, and defend the sanctity of human life. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.