I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for yielding to me on this important topic. I am privileged to be here on the floor listening to this discussion that we have today. I think of the many, many hours that roll back as far back as 2009…

It is my privilege to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and to continue the deliberation here that makes this the most deliberative body anywhere in the world. I understand that…

I took the President's actions to mean him saying: I am the executive and the legislative branch of government.

Because the President takes these actions, it relieves the Congress of actually engaging in this process, and this is actually very deleterious to the rule of law.

It just seems to be, and it causes me to think about this, if the Supreme Court's involved in deep policy effect deliberations and then configuring decisions so it brings about their preferred policy result, I wonder if this Congress could…

Well, am I just imagining a happier world that a Supreme Court would have looked at the plain language in the Affordable Care Act and realized it was missing three words-- 'or Federal Government'--and wrote a decision that it doesn't…

I have laid out a strategy to defeat that ideology. I would take it back to our ability some years past to be able to identify their cell phones...

This is much more than a mundane process problem. It is a tragic result for individual rights and liberties.

It is imperative that Congress reclaim it, not simply for its own sake, but because without it individual rights and liberties cannot flourish as the Founders intended.

I want to protect the constitutional rights of the American people, and I would like to be able to have this framed in law that reflects our constitutional rights.

I would add to that, that by some of the memos here I have in front of me, there is an indication that perhaps just valuable evidence in a criminal investigation might be delayed as long as 10 months.

we do not believe that courts should seek to resolve issues of 21st century technology with law that was written in the era of the adding machine.

So that would imply that there are many criminals going free because of these delays.

It is not up to an executive agency to determine law or intent. It is up to this Congress to do so.

we, therefore, agree wholeheartedly with Apple that the right place to bring this discussion is here, to the House of Representatives and the Senate.

I would say putting together insurance on this is a very difficult proposition.

I think we have done a reasonable job of reacting to it and overcoming that challenge.

I just had a couple of phrases here that I have seen emerge from the EPA over the years, and I wanted to start with this: water is hydrologically connected to.

It is my honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. I appreciate your attention to these matters that come before the House and the House Members that are in attendance, observing…

Can we get to the issues? Why is there not an answer why Donald Trump is flipped on pro-choice on partial birth abortion and same-sex marriage?

I don't know a respectable legal scholar that rebuts that.

There are only two ways that you can be an American citizen. You can either be natural born or you can be naturalized.

It's Donald Trump that laid out New York values on October 24th of 1999 when he said he is very pro-choice.

Iowans are a stood. And they understand that Ted Cruz reported that on inside of senate document.

Now I no longer have that confidence.