Now I look at that $5.7 billion as basically forcing manufacturers overseas for anything that is energy intensive.

I must yield back.

It does seem if you raise the cost of that energy production by these measures ultimately you increase the input and change the model so companies are more likely to move overseas.

My primary focus will be to identify, oversee, and improve the authorities within DHS to help them assist our Nation's critical infrastructure.

I look forward to continuing that tradition of bipartisanship with Chairman Ratcliffe.

Which is very important to me and the district I represent, considering that we have the Port of New Orleans, Port of South Louisiana, Port of Baton Rouge, that, if you add them up and make them one port complex, we are probably No. 3 in…

It is in the National interest to ensure that such critical infrastructure is adequately protected.

I think that, you know, it is very critical that we fund it. I know that both sides differ much on immigration, and we will fight on immigration, and it is a legitimate difference of opinion.

I am here to try to give voice to my constituents, who are angry over the President's unconstitutional Executive amnesty.

So let me make it clear, I represent hardworking, law-abiding Texas taxpayers in my district. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and I think these amnesty rewards--and that is what they are--need to be stopped.

Last year, a woman from Iowa, Sue Martinek, came to our committee and reported to us that the IRS had targeted her pro-life group for extra scrutiny before it got its tax-exempt status.

I think that is true. Although I would again emphasize that of the $242 million that was seized by the IRS under the structuring law, $116 million--so almost half--was never forfeited.

I don't think anybody on this panel actually violated the law. Yet the IRS is pursuing them anyway.

It is also a problem at the State and local level because of the equitable sharing process.

What would be incredibly valuable, obviously, to any property owner would be an opportunity to say, Look, sure, there is a bunch of $10,000 deposits. But I have got an insurance policy. It only covers up to $10,000.

The problem is that the law simply does not provide any penalty for the Government if it disregards those deadlines because any penalty that is provided is simply toothless.

So of the seizures, the $242 million that was seized between 2005 and 2012, as I mentioned earlier, $116 million was never forfeited.

No. I don't believe that it is good enough.