Congresswoman and mom to Down syndrome son exposes Dem plot to impose federal abortion on demand until moment of birth
10 stories today
DonnyFerguson.com
Tuesday, September 21, 2021
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.”
- Barry Goldwater
In this issue:
THE LIBERAL AGENDA
>>> Congresswoman and mom to Down syndrome son exposes Dem plot to impose federal abortion on demand until moment of birth
>>> Union bosses try to toss lawsuit from Southwest flight attendant
>>> Airgas employees free from unwanted union bosses after Teamsters flee to avoid vote
YOUR MONEY
>>> Biden plots crippling new tax hikes on farmers and ranchers
>>> Pelosi plots to approve $28 billion in ‘green’ mystery spending, reveal what’s in it later
>>> IRS ripped for illegally leaking Americans’ private tax info to liberal activist group
>>> Biden Treasury Secretary dodging legal requirement to testify on $46 billion in mishandled COVID funds
GREEN SCHEMES
>>> Hospitals may be banned from using backup generators by new federal office for climate hysteria
>>> Biden EPA again takes aim at farmers with science denying chlorpyrifos ban
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
>>> Congress must demand Biden turn over list of weapons he gave to Taliban
THE LIBERAL AGENDA
>>> Congresswoman and mom to Down syndrome son exposes Dem plot to impose federal abortion on demand until moment of birth
Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) spoke before the House Committee on Rules in opposition to H.R. 3755, the Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act.
Excerpts and highlights from her prepared remarks:
“‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’
“I strongly oppose the Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act. It’s not the will of the people.
“Since 1973, and the Roe v. Wade decision, it didn’t settle the question of abortion. It continues in each of our hearts, across states and across our country.
“Today is not about the Texas law. Today is a debate in front of this Congress — the men and women who serve as representatives from across this country — on what might be the most extreme piece of legislation ever.
“It is unprecedented. It’s hard to grasp what it would mean if this were the law of the land. Abortion for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy, until birth.
“In the United States of America, we celebrate freedom. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever a person decides to do. We are free to do good and not harm. We are free to serve and to love one another.
“The Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act overrides pro-life laws and prohibits states from enacting legislation that protects unborn children.
“It removes commonsense protections for women and children like ensuring parental involvement for minors and protecting women from coercion.
“It allows for discriminatory abortions on the basis of a baby’s sex, race, and disability.
“That includes laws that protect babies with Down syndrome.”
CATHY’S STORY
“As a pro-life woman, I want to share with you my story.
“I’ve never had an abortion but I gave thought in my younger years of what I would do if I found myself pregnant and alone.
“It would have been a desperate situation.
“I can imagine an abortion seeming like an easy solution.
“It breaks my heart to think anyone would consider abortion as their only option or the best option.
“Growing up, I was never much of a baby person. I was 35 and single when I was elected to Congress. I didn’t know if becoming a mom would happen for me.
“Today, I can testify that bringing a new life into the world was the most amazing thing to ever happen to me.
“It’s the best part of my life.”
ABOUT DOWN SYNDROME
“We have two daughters and a son.
“Our oldest, Cole, now 14, was born with an extra 21st chromosome.
“It’s the most common chromosomal abnormality, Down syndrome.
“In this debate over abortion, Down syndrome has been at the forefront.
“When Cole was first born, I wanted to change the name of Down syndrome wondering who came up with that name?
“Then, I read Dr. John Landon Down’s biography.
“He was an extraordinary individual who in the mid-1850s first identified the common characteristics that we know today as Down Syndrome.
“Maybe we should call it, Dr. John Down Syndrome.
“He went on to build a home and provide support for people who were often cast aside from society.
“I also learned about Dr. Jerome Lejeune.
“He was pro-life and first discovered the genetic cause of Down syndrome in 1958, an extra chromosome 21.
“It was only a few years earlier they identified that people have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
“Around the same time, western countries were beginning to draft pro-abortion laws.
“Dr. Lejeune has said himself that because he’s pro-life, he was passed up for a Nobel Prize.
“The results of his research should be used to advance cures. His mission was to save lives and protect the most vulnerable.
“But unfortunately today and against the mission of the late Dr. Lejuene, the results of his research are often used to identify chromosomal abnormalities as early as possible, with the aim of terminating a pregnancy.
“My hope is that we learn, that we open our hearts to the science, to the research, and technology and come to reject abortion because it is inhuman.
“As Pope Francis calls it, we have adopted a ‘throwaway’ culture for the weak, disabled, and disposable.
“It’s not science. It’s not the latest research.
“Because of technology today we can see a baby develop day-by-day in the womb. Doctors perform prenatal surgeries to save lives.”
LIVES WORTH LIVING
“I think about Frank Stevens, who Tom Cole invited to testify before Congress.
“Frank told the world, ‘I’m a man with Down syndrome and my life is worth living.’
“For anyone who is not convinced and plans to overturn laws that protect people with Down syndrome, I invite you to meet my son, Cole, and get to know people like Frank.
“I understand the uncertainty and the fear when doctors give the long list of challenges and chances for heartache.
“But Cole’s life couldn’t be further from what we were told. He brings my family an immense amount of joy and love.
“I know there’s an army of parents with children with Down syndrome who say the same about their children.”
THEIR LIVES ARE WORTH LIVING
“For those of us who stand for life, we must do a better job of listening and loving.
“Fear and despair leads to more arguments, anger, discord, and more insecurity.
“I believe that is why abortion is the most divisive issue in America today.
“It pierces every heart. It may be the sharpest, deepest, soul-searching question before us as a nation, and it is intensely personal.
“People have strongly held beliefs and stories and both sides are guilty of dismissing one another. Sometimes it feels like we aren’t even speaking the same language.
“I remember though when we all stood up and applauded Frank Stevens for his powerful testimony.
“I ask that today we do the same, follow our hearts, and stand up for ALL children.
“Their lives are worth living.
“Stop the Abortion on Demand until Birth Act and uphold the value and the dignity, the potential of every person’s life.”
# # # #
>>> Union bosses try to toss lawsuit from Southwest flight attendant
When Charlene Carter, a flight attendant for Southwest Airlines was fired in 2017, it raised a number of questions and concerns about how and why this happened. Carter had recently quit the Transport Workers Union Local 556 after voicing her opinions on why she didn’t like being forced to pay fees to union bosses pushing issues that had nothing to do with her job. So there was reason to believe that her firing was in retaliation to her opposition to the union president. Much of this controversy had to do with political and religious disagreements between Carter and the union president, allegedly challenging Carter’s rights to free speech and religion. As a result of the multitude of issues Carter faced with the union and its leadership, she filed a lawsuit shortly after.
Now, the union that once supposedly represented Charlene Carter and every other Southwest flight attendant is trying to get her case thrown out completely. They are doing everything they can to protect themselves and their image.
# # # #
>>> Airgas employees free from unwanted union bosses after Teamsters flee to avoid vote
Following Airgas USA employee Angel Herrera and his coworkers’ yearlong effort seeking to end the union’s control at their workplace, Teamsters Local 848 officials have filed documents with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ending their monopoly bargaining power over all workers at the Airgas Glass Welding and Safety Products facility in Ventura. Herrera and his colleagues received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys in filing a petition for a vote to oust Teamsters union officials.
Airgas Ventura employees’ effort began in 2020, when they submitted a petition asking Airgas management to rescind recognition of Teamsters Local 848. Though Airgas management prepared to withdraw recognition as the majority of employees had requested, Teamsters officials filed unfair labor practice charges against Airgas soon after in an attempt to retain power over the employees at the facility despite the employees’ overwhelming opposition to the union.
What followed was months of litigation at the NLRB, the federal agency charged with enforcing most private sector labor law. Ultimately the NLRB forced Airgas to recognize the Teamsters union and the union’s “representation” was imposed back on the employees.
Herrera and his coworkers tried again to get Teamsters union chiefs out of their workplace this summer by filing a “decertification petition” with the NLRB. Herrera’s petition, filed on August 30, contained signatures from enough of his coworkers to trigger an NLRB-supervised “decertification election,” a secret-ballot election after which union officials lose monopoly bargaining power if a majority of workers vote to remove them.
Before a decertification election was scheduled, however, Teamsters officials instead disclaimed interest in maintaining control over the workplace on September 13, in an apparent attempt to spare themselves the embarrassment of an overwhelming vote by workers to reject the union’s so-called “representation.”
This is just the latest in a series of successful worker efforts to oust unwanted union officials aided by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Earlier this summer, maintenance worker Tim Mangia and his coworkers at Chicago’s Rush University filed a decertification petition with free Foundation legal aid and voted out another Teamsters affiliate, Local 743, from their workplace by a more than 70-30 margin.
Relatedly, just last month in Las Vegas, Foundation staff attorneys filed an amicus brief for a Red Rock Casino worker contesting a federal judge’s order that casino management submit to bargaining talks with Culinary Union officials, despite a majority of Red Rock workers voting against unionization.
The Foundation has also fought to break down union boss-created legal barriers to unseating unwanted union officials. Early last year, following detailed formal comments submitted by Foundation attorneys, the NLRB finalized rules eviscerating union bosses’ ability to stop a decertification effort with “blocking charges,” i.e., accusations made against an employer that are often unverified and have no connection to workers’ desire to kick out undesired union officials.
“We at the Foundation are proud to have helped Mr. Herrera and his colleagues in the exercise of their workplace rights, but no American workers should have to file multiple petitions and endure protracted litigation just so they can exercise this basic right of free association,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “This is more important than ever given the Biden Administration’s focus on further empowering union officials at the expense of rank-and-file workers’ individual rights.”
“Foundation staff attorneys will not waiver in their defense of workers’ right to dispense with unwanted union so-called ‘representation,’ regardless of which way the political winds blow,” Mix added.
# # # #
YOUR MONEY
>>> Biden plots crippling new tax hikes on farmers and ranchers
U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, urged the agriculture community to continue to push back on the Biden administration’s proposed tax increases on family farmers, ranchers and foresters and delivered a strong rebuke of Secretary Tom Vilsack’s recent opinion piece in a letter to editor published in the Wall Street Journal.
“While some congressional Democrats point to the House bill as the final word on the debate over stepped-up basis, this is far from over. Just days ago, Secretary Vilsack told reporters that he is ‘confident’ that what he has said about stepped-up basis is ‘accurate’ and continued to call for changes to stepped-up basis as a means to pay for the Democrats' reckless tax and spend bill. As I have continually pointed out, most recently in the Wall Street Journal this weekend, the agriculture community strongly disagrees with Secretary Vilsack’s sales pitch,” Boozman said.
Boozman added, “My message to our family farmers, ranchers and foresters is continue to voice your concerns about these proposed tax increases. Secretary Vilsack needs to be listening to you, not liberal Beltway organizations or White House staffers.”
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s op-ed “Biden’s Tax Changes Won’t Hurt Family Farmers” (Sept. 9) should have been an opportunity to clear the air on the tax increases President Biden is pushing to fund his multitrillion dollar expansion of social programs.
Unfortunately, the piece consists of platitudes, talking points and anecdotes meant to deflect from the damage the president’s tax increases would have on America’s nearly two million family-owned farm operations. Mr. Vilsack even suggests that “the people who are going to pay tax under the proposal have never plowed an acre.”
America’s family farmers and ranchers strongly disagree. These are not absentee landowners. They aren’t a smoke screen of lobbyists, as the secretary so cavalierly alleged. Nor are they corporate boogeymen, a trope often thrown around by those detached from agriculture to justify increasing taxes on family farmers and ranchers.
These farmers and ranchers, represented by a coalition of 330 national and state farm organizations, are urging lawmakers to oppose altering or eliminating longstanding tax-code provisions that are fundamental to the financial health of the agriculture industry. They are not buying what the Biden administration and congressional Democrats are selling. They want evidence to reassure them that the future of their family businesses is safe.
Mr. Vilsack missed an opportune chance to reassure the agriculture community. It’s not hard to understand why. The facts that would lead to those reassurances simply do not exist.
# # # #
>>> Pelosi plots to approve $28 billion in ‘green’ mystery spending, reveal what’s in it later
After House Agriculture Committee Democrats forced through an incomplete reconciliation bill on Monday, many questions remain unanswered, including how and when the conservation piece – which was omitted from the bill that was marked up – will be added, whether or not the Committee will get the chance to markup the billions in associated spending, and exactly how much the missing provisions will add to the overall price tag. These and other questions and criticisms were submitted today by House Agriculture Republicans in dissenting views on the reconciliation measure:
"When text was finally released, both Republicans and Democrats were shocked to learn the legislative measure was more than $22 billion short of the Committee’s instructions under the House-passed budget resolution. Members were further amazed to learn from the Chairman during the markup that an additional $28 billion in spending would be added to the bill by Democrat Leadership after the Committee completed the markup—a stunning dereliction of process.
"We have grave concerns about moving forward without the opportunity to debate and vote on the full level of spending within the jurisdiction of our Committee. If the numbers stated by the Chairman are accurate, he either intends to exceed the Committee’s instructions or has plans to gore someone’s ox and include offsets that have never seen the light of day…"
ICYMI: WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING
Chairman David Scott said an additional $28 billion would be added "when this package is taken up on the House floor," forgoing proper procedure and exceeding the Committee's budget instructions by $6 billion.
Rep. Abigail Spanberger, Chair of the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee, voiced "significant concerns" during the markup over proceeding "without the $28 billion detailed related to the conservation spending," adding "I would like to see the committee have the opportunity to actually vote on them."
Rep. Jim Costa expressed his concerns over the missing conservation funds before falling in line with party leadership, saying, "for many of us who care about the conservation titles, that will determine how we vote on the final package."
# # # #
>>> IRS ripped for illegally leaking Americans’ private tax info to liberal activist group
House Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.) sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner Charles Rettig expressing concerns over the lack of information the agency has provided following the leak of legally protected tax information of American citizens and its subsequent publication by ProPublica. The American people deserve assurances that the IRS is taking every action necessary to protect confidential taxpayer information and Ranking Member Comer is once again requesting the agency clarify steps being taken to prevent the public dissemination of this information.
“On July 29, 2021, I wrote to you with a request for documents relating to the leak of legally protected tax information of American citizens and its subsequent publication by ProPublica. This afternoon, nearly two months later, you finally responded to my request for information. While I appreciate the response, some of the information provided is woefully insufficient and needs further clarification. It is critical you provide assurances to Congress that you are taking every step in your power to ensure ProPublica does not publish any more confidential taxpayer information,” wrote Ranking Member Comer. “This lack of information is either because you have not taken any steps to contact ProPublica to ask them to stop releasing information, or you have spoken with ProPublica but have chosen not to disclose that to the Committee. Therefore, please clarify your response…”
# # # #
>>> Biden Treasury Secretary dodging legal requirement to testify on $46 billion in mishandled COVID funds
House Committee on Small Business Ranking Member Luetkemeyer wrote a letter to Committee Chairwoman Velázquez asking her to issue a subpoena compelling Treasury Secretary Yellen to fulfill her legal duty to testify on COVID-19 relief programs for our nation's struggling small businesses.
It has now been 147 days since Secretary Yellen missed her legal deadline to testify before the Small Business Committee on COVID-19 relief programs administered by the Department of the Treasury.
Excerpts can be found below.
“This is not merely a request or invitation to testify made by a standing full committee of the House of Representatives. In fact, this is a statutory requirement of a law of the United States. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration are statutorily required to testify before the House Committee on Small Business on the operation of the COVID-19 relief programs within 120 days of the enactment of the Act.
"It has now been 147 days since that statutory 120 day deadline expired. As you will recall, during the previous Administration, on July 17, 2020, both Small Business Administration Administrator Jovita Carranza and Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin willingly testified before our Committee on the COVID-19 small business programs...
"This year, Secretary Yellen has appeared numerous times before other Congressional committees.
"As you are aware, under Committee Rule 11(A), this Committee may authorize and issue a subpoena in the conduct of any investigation or series of investigations or activities to require the attendance and testimony of a witness. A subpoena must be authorized by a vote of a majority of the Full Committee.
"We have waited patiently for months. Secretary Yellen’s repeated refusals to testify are nothing less than blatant disregard for the law, small businesses, and the American people. Enough is enough. I ask that you issue a subpoena for her to testify without any further delay."
# # # #
GREEN SCHEMES
>>> Hospitals may be banned from using backup generators by new federal office for climate hysteria
Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21), joined by 11 of his House colleagues, called out the Biden administration for injecting climate hysteria into the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through the establishment of the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity (OCCHE).
The letter sent by the House Members to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra points out OCCHE is a deviation from HHS’s core mission and explains that it poses a threat to hospitals’ ability to provide care.
“OCCHE will support ‘regulatory efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air pollution throughout the health care sector, including participating suppliers and providers,’” the letter reads.
The letter also urges the administration against taking actions that threaten hospitals’ ability to use natural gas or diesel fired backup generators, which hospitals rely on to save lives during power outages.
Below are some of the questions the letter charges Becerra to answer:
“Has HHS analyzed whether restrictions on hospital energy consumption will lead to increased patient mortality rates? If not, does HHS plan to?”
“Has HHS compiled comprehensive data on the types of backup generators hospitals rely on? If not, does HHS plan to?”
“Does HHS believe it has statutory authority to regulate the healthcare industry’s emissions?”
“How much taxpayer money does HHS intend to dedicate to OCCHE? Since Congress has not appropriated money for this office, where has it been diverted from?”
# # # #
>>> Biden EPA again takes aim at farmers with science denying chlorpyrifos ban
House Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.) and Subcommittee on the Environment Ranking Member Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan expressing concerns over the process EPA used to promulgate their final rule revoking the use of chlorpyrifos on food. The lawmakers highlighted the negative impact the Biden Administration’s action will have on the agricultural community, who were left with no guidance on how to proceed after the ban is effective.
“We are conducting oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s August 18, 2021 final rule revoking the use of chlorpyrifos on food. Committee Republicans are concerned about the process that EPA used to promulgate this rule and the impact that the action will have on growers, who are left with no guidance on how to proceed after February 2022 when the ban is effective. It is critical that EPA ensures the American people and the agricultural community that it is using the best science in its regulatory decisions. Unfortunately, in this case, instead of following the science, it appears EPA leveraged a Ninth Circuit ruling to ban a product to appease liberal activists without considering the impacts on the agricultural community… This decision not only leaves the agricultural industry in a difficult position as they try to recover from the global pandemic but also leaves the American people in scientific doubt,” wrote the lawmakers.
In order to understand EPA’s internal scientific and regulatory process underpinning this rule, the Republican lawmakers are requesting all documents and communications related to the final rule.
# # # #
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
>>> Congress must demand Biden turn over list of weapons he gave to Taliban
House Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.) spoke in favor of his amendment to H.R. 4350, National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2022. The amendment would direct the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) to investigate the withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces from Afghanistan with an emphasis on understanding what military equipment was left behind in Afghanistan, whether the Taliban have control of that equipment, and whether it is being moved or sold to third parties. In addition, SIGAR would also be directed to investigate the disposition of U.S. taxpayer funds provided to Afghanistan, and whether any Afghan government officials looted those funds or other U.S.-provided property.
“The Office of the Special Inspector General on Afghanistan Reconstruction has been one of the few candid voices on Afghanistan post-9/11. Known as SIGAR, that office has provided independent and objective oversight of the $145 billion provided by U.S. taxpayers to Afghanistan reconstruction for over a decade. The Special Inspector General has been particularly effective on my committee’s fundamental concern—How U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent and resources used. Unfortunately, SIGAR consistently found rampant corruption, waste, and fraud… The American People deserve an accurate assessment of the disposition of U.S. funds and property left in Afghanistan and SIGAR is the entity within the federal government best suited to the job. This Amendment should have garnered wide-spread bipartisan support. It is simple, straightforward, and necessary.”
Below are Ranking Member Comer’s full remarks as prepared:
Thank you, Chairman McGovern.
The Office of the Special Inspector General on Afghanistan Reconstruction has been one of the few candid voices on Afghanistan post-9/11.
Known as SIGAR, that office has provided independent and objective oversight of the $145 billion provided by U.S. taxpayers to Afghanistan reconstruction for over a decade.
The Special Inspector General has been particularly effective on my committee’s fundamental concern—How U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent and resources used.
Unfortunately, SIGAR consistently found rampant corruption, waste, and fraud. In the unclassified version of its last quarterly report to Congress issued on July 30, 2021, SIGAR provided a bleak and honest assessment, warning the Afghan government was facing an “existential crisis” in the wake of imminent U.S. withdrawal.
Unfortunately, this warning came to fruition after the Biden Administration’s disastrous withdrawal and the Taliban’s violent takeover.
And while I supported a withdrawal, I certainly never dreamed the Biden Administration would get it so wrong – stranding citizens and those with valid claims to come to America.
The American people spent over $145 billion on Afghanistan reconstruction efforts, in addition to $837 billion directly on warfighting.
Those monetary amounts pale in comparison to the almost 2,500 American service members who lost their lives in Afghanistan, and over 20,000 military personnel who were wounded in action, not to mention approximately 66,000 Afghan national military and police officers who lost their lives as well.
It is imperative that we understand the disposition of U.S. taxpayer funds and military equipment in Afghanistan.
The Biden Administration has no clue, and worse, appears to not care. In the wake of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Administration has been unable to account for the whereabouts of equipment, funds, and even more troublesome, stranded American citizens and green card holders.
Even without knowing the full extent to which military equipment fell into the hands of the Taliban, we do know that they now control innumerable M4 and M16 rifles and other advanced U.S. firearms, thousands of armored vehicles, communications equipment, night vision goggles, and even U.S. military aircraft and drones.
It has also been reported that Afghan government officials looted U.S. taxpayer funds from the country when they fled.
Even President Ghani has been implicated in spiriting millions of dollars in cash out of the country.
He denies those reports and invites an investigation. Well, my amendment would give him one.
The American People deserve an accurate assessment of the disposition of U.S. funds and property left in Afghanistan.
And SIGAR is the entity within the federal government best suited to the job. My amendment would direct SIGAR to investigate the withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces from Afghanistan with an emphasis on understanding what military equipment was left behind in Afghanistan, whether the Taliban have control of that equipment, and whether it is being moved or sold to third parties.
SIGAR would also be directed to investigate the disposition of U.S. taxpayer funds provided to Afghanistan, and whether any Afghan government officials looted those funds or other U.S.-provided property when they fled the country.
The amendment directs SIGAR to submit progress reports on this withdrawal investigation to appropriate congressional committees – specifically the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs – through its regular quarterly reports already required by law, and also to issue a final report at the conclusion of its investigation.
This Amendment should have garnered wide-spread bipartisan support. It is simple, straightforward, and necessary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
# # # #