Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the leadership and perseverance of Appomattox County High School coach, Doug Smith.

Doug Smith has led the Appomattox Raiders football team since 2012. Under his leadership, the team has boasted a 32-game winning streak, and won State championship titles in 2015, 2016, and 2017. While Coach Smith's record is amazing, his leadership extends well beyond the field.

Coach Smith has truly united the community behind their team, as evidenced by the large groups on Friday nights. One cannot visit Appomattox County without seeing the impact Coach Smith has made on his students, his coworkers, and the community at large.

Modeling by example, he has taught his student athletes to be productive citizens, such as when the team famously came out in full force to help those affected by the devastating tornado that hit Appomattox in 2016.

However, Coach Smith is best known for his relationship with Jesus Christ, his eternal perspective, and his focus on those things that matter more than football. This has been most clearly displayed since the fall of 2020, as Coach Smith has faced a great personal challenge of his own with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma, a cancer of the plasma cells.

He has been a tremendous testimony through this journey. Thankfully, it appears that the Lord has him on the road to recovery. My continued prayers are with Coach Smith as he continues to fight this terrible disease.

I thank Coach Smith for his commitment to service and leadership. Coach Smith is an inspiration to us all about the importance of serving others, even through personal challenges.

Commemorating Sailors and Marines aboard USS ``Forrestal'' on July 29,

1967

Madam Speaker, I rise to remember and express gratitude to the brave sailors and marines who were wounded or lost their lives fighting the catastrophic fire aboard the ship, the USS Forrestal.

July 29, 2021, marked the 54th anniversary of one of the most tragic fires in U.S. naval history. On July 29, 1967, the USS Forrestal, which was supporting combat operations off the coast of Vietnam, was impacted by an accidental rocket that ignited a fire and triggered several bomb explosions on the flight deck.

Sailors and marines on board, including several Virginians, bravely fought the fire for 18 hours. Despite the courageous efforts of the crew, 134 men died, 161 were wounded, and 21 aircraft were destroyed. Sadly, veterans wounded that day are still fighting their claims with the VA, such as my constituent, Mr. David Cephas Smith, of Vinton, Virginia. These heroes were not awarded the Purple Heart because their wounds did not occur during enemy combat, but their bravery still merits recognition.

We are forever grateful for the service of veterans, like Mr. Smith, who were wounded or sacrificed their lives battling this fire aboard the USS Forrestal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to identifying this as the worst of the many crises created by this President. It is hard to identify, with so many things going in the wrong direction in our country, what is the worst crisis. But the absolute worst crisis we are facing is the crisis of the illegal invasion at our southern border.

I submit that never in the history of the country has our own President intentionally done more to harm the United States than this President has done in the first 10 months of his administration.

Here we are on pace for over 2 million illegal aliens to cross our southern border. We have had over 200,000 a month for some 2 or 3 months in a row. But the good news is, we are going to stop that 200,000 pace this month. We are expected to smash it by setting an all- time record, with 400,000 illegal crossings this month.

I have been to the southern border three times already in my first 10 months here in Congress, something that our President apparently has never done, Mr. Speaker, been to the southern border, and something our Vice President apparently has never done, been to the southern border.

I have been there to meet with ranchers, local law enforcement, folks who live at the border, and the Border Patrol, who are living every day with what is happening at our southern border.

Everything and everyone that crosses the southern border does so under the control of the Mexican cartels. There is no compassionate piece to our border situation, our immigration policy at our southern border, when you have drug trafficking, human trafficking, child trafficking, sex trafficking. People are coming through all kinds of terrible conditions across our border. They are making every town a border town, every city a border town, every State a border State.

I was there to witness illegals being placed on planes as we flew back from McAllen, Texas. They were being flown wherever they wanted around the country.

When my colleague from Illinois asked the lady beside her to show her the paperwork from DHS, it said: You have to report at a date to be determined in Miami; we will get back in touch with you and have you report to a court date. No specific time, no specific way in how we are going to get control of that person.

Get used to, American people, what we are seeing from the Haitian crisis at the border. The 15,000, 25,000 that assembled most recently, they are not being stopped, not sent home, but distributed into the interior of our country.

Now we find out they are even flying them during the night to places around the country at taxpayer expense. They are not trying to fix it. They are trying to hide it from the American people. They are willfully, intentionally, purposefully facilitating this invasion of our southern border.

You have to ask why. Why is this happening? Why would an administration, why would a majority party, the Democrat Party, support this invasion of our southern border? No borders.

Why would they intentionally stop the already-funded completion of the southern border wall? Just because it was started by the previous President? Why would we pay contractors not to complete the wall? Why would we allow hundreds of thousands a month to come across our border unvetted? Whether it is because of a health issue or a criminal background, or whatever the reason is, why would they allow that to continue to happen?

In the short run, it is because it is Democrat voters. In the long run, it is because they don't believe in American exceptionalism. They don't believe it is worth preserving the culture of our country, and they want to change our country to look like socialist Europe.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Person Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

This rule provides for debate on H.R. 3110, which, as you know, is entitled the PUMP For Nursing Mothers Act, and I am very concerned this majority doesn't seem to be concerned about the men around the country who identify as nursing mothers.

Does not the title of this act violate the rules of this 117th Congress because it recognizes distinction between men and women in biological terms? Would not this act be required to be called the pump for nursing persons act or the pump for nursing birthing persons act? I am very concerned that we are not concerned about the men around the

country who identify as nursing mothers and how we would allow a debate on this bill or this act as presented.

Well, I am just very concerned that we would have this kind of debate that is inconsistent with the apparent rules of the 117th House, and Person Speaker, I just don't think it should be permitted that we would have this kind of debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my three amendments to GOP en bloc 1.

My first two amendments would cut wasteful spending in the SNAP contingency fund which functions as a bureaucratic slush fund for the Department of Agriculture. Though its purported use is for emergencies, the funds sit unused in an agency account just waiting for the Democrats or career bureaucrats to come along and direct it at their will.

My amendments would strike the funding for $3 billion directed toward this fund in the bill and rescind all of the money currently in the fund, effectively abolishing the slush fund from being piled up by the majority. Congress should not have to play whack-a-mole with slush funds for the other side.

My final amendment would simply strike the provision in this bill prohibiting any limitation on Federal telework or union activity on official Federal time and in Federal office

space. This House is about to vote to require American taxpayers to continue to pay for bureaucrats to phone it in from home and perform union activities while on the taxpayer dime.

In short, Congress is subsidizing bad service to the taxpayers.

Remote work has created a backlog of over 2 million passport applications. I expect that everybody in this body is hearing from their constituents, as I am, about the backlog for passport applications. If someone needs a passport sooner than 4 to 5 months now, their only option is to pay an additional fee to expedite the process to 12 weeks. That is the expedited timeframe, 12 weeks with an extra fee.

The House is now debating a government funding bill that prevents the ability of Federal managers to end telework and require that union activities be performed outside of Federal time and away from Federal office space. We must stop rewarding workers for not showing up for work.

Without my amendment, this bill is nothing more than an abuse of the American taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on June 30, 2021 due to travel arrangements. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: NO on Roll Call No. 197; NO on Roll Call No. 198; NO on Roll Call No. 199; NO on Roll Call No. 200; NO on Roll Call No. 201; YES on Roll Call No. 202; NO on Roll Call No. 203; and YES on Roll Call No. 204.

I oppose H. Res. 503, ``Establishing a Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol'' because politicizing justice undermines trust in the rule of law.

Since January 6th, I've called for the full prosecution of anyone who broke the law. The Department of Justice is already working on an investigation that has resulted in hundreds of arrests. In contrast Democrats have spent this time smearing elected Republicans, 74 million Trump voters, and undermining the efforts of our law enforcement. After one failed vote to create a similar commission, Speaker Pelosi is asking the House to vote for a partisan select committee. I oppose this political theater.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on June 29, 2021 due to travel arrangements. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: NO on Roll Call No. 189; NO on Roll Call No. 190; NO on Roll Call No. 191; NO on Roll Call No. 193; YES on Roll Call No. 194; NO on Roll Call No. 195; and NO on Roll Call No. 196.

I oppose passage of H.R. 3005 because I believe in preserving America's rich history and I support each state's right to choose which two statues they want representing them in the U.S. Capitol Building. The Left has devoted too much energy to tearing down statues and monuments, including those of the Founders. We should learn from our history, not desecrate it.

I oppose passage of H.R. 2662 because it would dangerously expand subpoena power so that it could be weaponized against prior administration officials, rather than focusing investigative authority on the current government.

Madam Speaker, the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and to ensure we remain a free people is a God-given right, not a government-bestowed privilege.

We are, however, privileged to live in a country whose Founders correctly and appropriately recognized this God-given right and codified it in the highest law of the land, the Constitution.

The wording of the Second Amendment is assumptive in nature. The right to keep and bear arms is assumed to already exist, and our Founders merely provided legal clarity and protection that it not be infringed.

Government officials who do right and follow the Constitution have nothing to fear from an armed citizenry. However, government officials who oppress their people and violate their Constitutional oath and the rights guaranteed by that Constitution for

the people should rightly fear those people.

As has been said: ``When people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.''

But this administration believes that the greatest threat to our country is its own people, its own citizens. This is what oppressive regimes say.

This administration never misses an opportunity to attack the Second Amendment by seeking to tax and regulate away our constitutional rights.

They have blamed law-abiding citizens and licensed firearms dealers for the recent surge in violent crime in Democrat-run cities.

They have nominated a gun-grabbing radical named David Chipman to lead the ATF.

President Biden has himself repeatedly belittled gun owners and their belief that the right to bear arms is essential to freedom. But President Biden's opinion does not change the Constitution or the Second Amendment.

In fact, with Biden's crime surge, Biden's border surge, and Democrat efforts to weaken and undermine law enforcement, it is no wonder someone recently said to me: ``I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.''

Thomas Jefferson once wrote: ``What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.''

The Second Amendment protects all other rights and freedoms.

As my friend Chip Roy from Texas said last week at an event we were at together: ``We will live free.''

The Second Amendment is critical to ensuring that we live free.

Mr. Speaker, as a Nation founded on a history of rugged individualism, the American people are resilient and self- reliant. They will flourish and prosper absent the intrusion and heavy- handed weight of the government.

Apart from national defense, safety, and security, the less our government does, the better, especially here at the Federal level.

In fact, our country would be far better off if we had just paid this President and his administration to stay home, and they did nothing over these past 5\1/2\ months. It is sadly true that the less this government does to us while pretending to do things for us, the better off we will all be.

Incredibly, this administration's disastrous economic policies have produced fewer jobs in their first 5 months of the year than the Trump administration produced in the last 5 months of 2020 when the government restrictions and lockdowns in the name of the China virus were far more widely and strenuously enforced.

Unfortunately, at present time, we have employers, businesses, and job creators literally competing with their own government for employees because of the enhanced $300 a week Federal unemployment benefit.

Every business owner that I talk with in my district tells me that this is a major, ongoing problem. Every business has up signs saying: ``Help Wanted,'' ``Employees Needed.''

We even have this problem in my home district in the city of Charlottesville, in Albemarle County, with the Postal Service. They can't get people to come to work for the starting wage of $18 an hour for a mail carrier because they are getting paid $17 an hour to stay home and not work.

However, the tone-deaf, economically illiterate Democrats, especially those I serve with on the Education and Labor Committee, they tell businesses they simply need to raise their wages so far above what the Federal Government is paying folks not to work--again, $17 an hour in my home State of Virginia--that folks will finally refuse the free income not to work and return for a higher paycheck--this as businesses are struggling to recover from the government shutting them down for a year, again, in the name of the China virus.

We need to fully reopen our economy, end all restrictions, open our schools so parents can go back to work, and stop sending confusing and harmful messages, like requiring masks on public transportation.

In this very House, it was only a couple of weeks ago that we were pretending that even in a Special Order, speaking to an empty Chamber with no one near you--within how many feet?--you needed to wear a mask to keep us safe because we wanted to appear to the American people back home that we were doing something, the theater of wearing masks just a few weeks ago.

That is continuing now on public transportation. What kind of a myth and harmful message does that send to folks?

We need to stop paying folks not to work, reopen our economy, and turn the American people loose.

Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Hern for his work as chairman of the Republican Study Committee Budget Task Force and for leading this effort. Also, I would like to thank RSC Chairman Jim Banks for his outstanding leadership overall of the RSC.

This team has done remarkable work to try to keep money where it belongs: in the wallets of hardworking American taxpayers.

The RSC budget proposal would balance the Federal budget within 5 years of implementation, and I am thrilled to say that it is the most pro-life RSC budget ever.

The RSC budget would cut Federal spending by $14.4 trillion over 10 years and cut taxes by $1.9 trillion. In fact, it reduces the burden on American taxpayers by nearly $16,000 per household.

Unlike Biden's budget buster, this budget prioritizes American families and hardworking taxpayers.

I am proud to have served as a member of the RSC Budget Task Force, and this budget is historic for two reasons. First, it unapologetically and unequivocally affirms the conservative values that we were elected to fight for. Second, it courageously addresses our unsustainable entitlement programs, preserves and protects our commitment to America's seniors and those nearing retirement, builds the framework for responsible fiscal management, and secures the future for younger generations of Americans.

The RSC budget contains many of the conservative principles that I have fought for since my first day in office nearly 6 months ago. From protecting people of faith from government intrusion to shielding small businesses from the heavy hand of government regulations to putting the needs of our students before teachers' unions, the RSC budget contains many pieces of legislation that I have personally introduced.

This includes my ALERT Act, which would require monthly updates from executive agencies about any rules they are working on, including the costs to taxpayers of those regulations.

My Article I Regulatory Budget Act would restore direct, accountable congressional control of the Federal regulatory system, as the Founders intended, and require a budget from the President for all regulatory costs, similar to the annual budget for other taxes and spending.

My Right to Earn a Living Act would prevent Congress from subsidizing costly lockdown policies like those handed down by State and local Democrat officials. As a free-market conservative, I know there is no better way to stimulate our economy than by opening it up and turning the American people loose. Congress cannot continue bailing out poorly run States whose economies have been devastated by these lockdown orders.

My Protecting Religion from Government Act seeks to preserve all Americans' First Amendment rights by allowing citizens to sue State or local governments that seek to prevent or regulate religious services. Government has no constitutional authority over religion.

My Students Before Unions Act would put children first and make COVID funding contingent upon the transparency of local teachers' unions.

My bill to repeal the Jim Crow-era Davis-Bacon Act, which requires the Federal Government to pay the prevailing wage, would end this inexcusable, long-held practice that drives up prices for taxpayer- funded construction and eliminates opportunities for hardworking Americans.

Finally, my SHUSH Act would deregulate firearm suppressors at the Federal level and preempt State laws that regulate, tax, or prohibit the possession of suppressors. No constitutional right should be at risk of public opinion or subject to regulatory and tax burdens.

As a freshman, I am truly grateful and humbled to have so many of my bills included in the budget, second only to the number submitted by RSC Chairman Jim Banks.

At $28 trillion of debt that we have now, that equates to about $85,000 per American citizen. Every time we recklessly and foolishly spend another $1 trillion, that is about $10,000 per household. This is unsustainable. The majority in this administration is, at best, economically and fiscally illiterate and incompetent, or, at worst, they are intentionally crushing our financial future and our very Republic.

Our work on this conservative budget shows that it is possible to do what the Democrats seem to find impossible: balance the budget through practical solutions that put American taxpayers first while preserving the values that have made this the greatest country in history.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Hern again for his leadership in crafting this budget that deserves a vote in the House Budget Committee and on this very floor so that the American people can see if their Representatives are serious about fighting inflation and restoring our fiscal sanity.

Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that House Democrats are claiming to champion the cause of pregnant worker fairness when they are so radically anti-life.

How can Democrats claim to support fairness or champion pregnancy when they support taxpayer-funded abortion for any reason at any time on demand?

How can they claim this with a straight face when they minimize the sanctity of life and the family?

Democrats say they are pro-choice. So you would think they must at least be okay with the choice of some religious employers to object to helping their employees get an abortion and would provide an accommodation for religious reasons under this bill.

It would seem reasonable for someone who says they are pro-choice to support the notion that if someone gets an abortion, they can't force their employer to be part of this choice.

But Democrats refuse to allow language to protect religious freedom in this bill. The fact is, Democrats are only pro-choice when the choice is abortion, the taking of innocent human life.

Protections already exist for pregnant workers through the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I oppose these additional heavy-handed regulations. I trust America's small business owners to treat their employees fairly. I honor the constitutional mandate that States should make their own healthcare policy.