Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to note an odd philosophy that I have seen amongst my Democrat colleagues, and it is this: The belief that if one regulation is good, then ten must be better. Of course, that is not true, but it is actually worse than that. The Biden administration is proposing 2,500 new regulations; they call this ``the unified agenda.'' I am not sure what is unifying about suffocating American businesses and workers under D.C. bureaucrats.

We are killing our economy by the death of a thousand cuts. Our products will be more expensive, and that is if

their manufacturing isn't just immediately shipped off to China.

Biden said he wouldn't ban fracking outright, but will make it impossible to build new projects, build pipelines, or export our clean American natural gas that would decrease global carbon emissions.

These new regulations will take away our choices on healthcare, encourage illegal immigration, discourage the enforcement of our immigration laws, and more than that, this philosophy of regulate at any cost will result in silly regulations like this: Reducing disturbances to Hawaiian spinner dolphins from human interaction.

This is not how we govern.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1. I have always found it interesting that elections are the one thing my colleagues on the other side don't want to strictly regulate.

You see, Madam Speaker, there is this mythology amongst Democrats that commonsense rules in an election are synonymous with voter suppression. They make it sound as if you have to go through an obstacle course to go vote. This isn't true. It is nonsense, and everybody knows it.

The truth is that four out of five Americans support voter ID laws, and countless Americans have expressed concern because they received mail-in ballots for other people addressed to their homes. They want this fixed, and they don't want the problem to get worse. But this bill makes elections less trustworthy, not more.

Trust is everything. When people can see the faults in the process, whether it is ballots at the wrong house or careless verification processes, they believe people are cheating. You can't just dismiss that, Madam Speaker. We have to fix it. But instead this bill makes permanent the problematic election practices that cause distrust.

For example, Madam Speaker, ballot harvesting creates serious chain of custody issues, and universal mail-in voting without safeguards creates the kind of chaos where your ballot ends up in someone else's hands, as does forcing States to disregard their own voter ID laws and use sworn statements instead of an ID.

The integrity of our elections must be self-evident, wherein the mere possibility of fraud is improbable because the process itself is airtight and secure. Many States today do not meet that standard. We should be working together to make elections more secure, not less. If that is indeed our mutual goal, and I pray that it is, then I implore my colleagues to work with us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep disappointment on the bloated, partisan bill that my colleagues are calling a COVID relief package.

That is the name on the bill, but the reality is far from it. The reality is that we just passed a $900 billion package in December. The package wasn't perfect, but it was bipartisan. This one is not.

The reality is that hundreds of billions of dollars remain unspent. As of last week, there were unofficial estimates of unspent or non- disbursed relief that included $183 billion for another round of PPP; $199 billion for healthcare; $136 billion for expanded unemployment insurance; and $46 billion for direct stimulus payments. That is money we still have, unspent.

The reality is that this administration can't or won't even give Congress an honest estimate of where that money is and what they will do with trillions more.

The reality is that this bill is not for emergency relief, but for leftwing spending programs years from now. Nearly half of the funds under this bill won't be spent until 2022.

There are billions of dollars for State and local governments, mostly to blue States that impose costly lockdowns, even though California is reporting a $10 billion surplus; billions to bail out multiemployer pension plans; billions for subsidies to cover the cost of rising ObamaCare premiums; and a massive expansion of Medicaid with no reforms to address waste, fraud, and abuse within the program.

Meanwhile, a mere 1 percent of this is for vaccine distribution. Really? Maybe that is, perhaps, because the Trump administration, indeed, did have a plan for vaccine distribution. I don't know.

Of the billions they provide for schools, less than 5 percent will be spent this fiscal year with zero requirements to get kids back in the classroom.

The reality is that some provisions, like a $15 minimum wage will only hurt the small businesses that Democrats claim they want to help. Many in my district have already told me they are going to lay off workers or shut down.

So I say this to my colleagues who seem to believe that the size of their heart is correlated to how much taxpayer money they are willing to spend: This is not how you help. This is not how you govern responsibly. This is not a contest to see how much debt we can rack up for whatever constituency or special interest you favor at the moment.

Americans don't want handouts. They want a vaccine. They want their businesses open. They want their kids back in school because they know it is safe, despite what the teachers' unions are saying. And they don't want to be told to wear three masks after they get a vaccine.

If you want to work with Republicans, assess what has been spent and what hasn't and focus on small business relief that increases jobs instead of killing them, then Republicans will be right there with you. Until then, expect some serious opposition.

Recognizing the Tremendous Strength of the People in Houston

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to recognize the tremendous the strength of the people in Houston, who I am honored to represent in Congress.

As we all know, last week, an historic arctic blast hit most of the South, including the great State of Texas, plunging millions of Texans into darkness. In the middle of freezing cold temperatures, people weren't able to heat their homes or access water. I personally had to gather water from a swimming pool in our apartment complex after our water was shut off.

I know that many had it much, much worse than I did. But through it all, the community came together. My friend Jim McIngvale, known as Mattress Mack, in Houston opened up his furniture store as a shelter last week to give people in need a warm place to sleep, eat or just get out of the cold for a few hours.

There are countless others who stepped up. Plumbers helped their neighbors repair their pipes free of charge; food and water distribution centers opened up across the city, including in my district office; and people who had power used it minimally so electricity could flow back to their neighbors faster. This is what we call Houston strong.

It got us through Harvey and Imelda, and it is what will get us through this difficult time as well.

Happy Anniversary to Federal Protective Service

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish a happy 50th anniversary to the Federal Protective Service.

I thank the 1,400 members of FPS, the men and women who protect the more than 9,500 Federal facilities, and the 1.4 million employees who work in those buildings on a daily basis.

All too often, you only gain attention when tragedy strikes, whether it is the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing or, just last year, bravely defending the Federal courthouse in Portland.

I wish to remind Americans that it is every day that they are there holding the line.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell you we are thankful and we are appreciative of their service, and their commitment to keeping our Nation safe.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the FPS and I wish them a happy 50th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, another hero laid to rest here in Arlington Cemetery. I know this place well. Some of my dearest friends are here.

This is a place for America's best. It is not just that these men and women are heroes, of course they are, it is that they are our best. And in my experience, we always seem to lose the best of us.

Brian lived with purpose. He lived asking what he could do for his country, for his community, and small animals. Sandra tells me he was the type of guy that would get out of the car and run across the parking lot to move a small turtle to safety. He was a real man, because real men are comfortable owning two small Dachshunds, as Brian did. I am not saying that just because I also have two small Dachshunds, I am saying it because it's true. Real men don't need to prove anything with big dogs.

Everyone has purpose in this life, I firmly believe that. You're here for a reason. But not enough of us act as if that is true. Brian did.

He lived for his family, his mother, Gladys, his father, Charles, his brothers, Ken and Craig, and his girlfriend, Sandra. He joined the Air Force with a mission to serve our nation's defense. He lived for others. After he was injured on January 6th he spent his last remaining hours texting fellow officers and checking in on them. People needed Brian, because he was a good man, because he was one of our best.

There is another common thread that links those buried here at Arlington with Brian. These are protectors. These are the men and women that stand in the breach. That gap between the helpless and the aggressor, between right and wrong, between good and evil.

Many like to think they too could stand in that gap, but they'd be wrong. So many these days think they know better, think they could do it better, and they'll be the first to tell you so.

But this job is not for the weak and loud, it is for the strong and silent. It is for the brave, those like Brian that quietly and professionally carry out their duty. Because that gap that they stand in isn't always so clear. It's messy. It's complicated. It's not always obvious what is right and what is wrong, who the victims are, or who is good or bad.

And so, we take our best, and we say go forth and stand in the breach and figure it out. Be there to make those split-second choices so that we don't have to. Be there to keep our families safe so that we don't have to. Go overseas and make sure the enemy doesn't come here so that we don't have to.

You be there, and the rest of us will be here waiting, to judge you and second guess you.

We ask them to do the impossible, we don't even ask that nicely, and they do it with pride and with honor.

If I may be so bold as to guess what Brian might have asked of us. I think that he, and the heroes buried here with him, might simply ask us all to be better. I think they appreciate our gratitude and our deference to their memory, but I think most of all they just want us to be better.

And I don't mean trying to make others better, or even our country better. I mean I think they want us to start with ourselves. To make ourselves better. Because that is in fact the hard work.

He might ask us to ask ourselves what went so wrong--in our country and in our hearts--that fellow Americans did what they did to Brian on that day. He might ask us to reflect for a moment before we lash out at each other, before we blame, before we chastise, before we judge, before we lose patience. He might ask us to recall that the greatness of the American spirit lies in a sense of responsibility, of accountability, and perhaps a bit of appreciation for freedom.

Being better means decency. It means citizenship. Living with the duty that Brian exemplified. It means running toward danger not because there is glory in doing so but because you must. It means trying to live up to the memory of the heroes buried here, to be worthy of their sacrifice.

This past year has been a low point, no doubt, but it is men like Brian that remind us of the grit and tenacity and good character that America was built on. He may not be with us anymore, but if we are to honor him then we should do so by using his memory as a reminder of what this country can be.

A reminder that there are indeed more like him. A reminder that the bravery and love inside of Brian Sicknick is not peculiar to him, but part of the American DNA. A reminder that our duty is to make these heroes proud, prove to them that their sacrifice was for a country worth sacrificing for. That we are a people worth sacrificing for. With men like Brian standing in the gap, it is hard to imagine that we are not.

This is still the greatest country on earth. This is still the great American experiment that has done more good for mankind than any other civilization in history. We will not forget that fact just because times are hard. We will persevere and strive to be better and do justice to the memory of those buried here.

May Officer Brian Sicknick rest easy here on these hallowed grounds. He is in good company. He has undoubtedly earned his place here amongst America's best. God bless him. God bless this great country.

Never Forget.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 12, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 13, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 14.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 542. This bill authorizes the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory in New York City, a one-of-its-kind testing lab for first responders.

The NUSTL evaluates and validates emerging technologies for use by first responders. Their work provides valuable information to first responders to increase their ability to save lives and property as departments across the Nation respond to incidents.

H.R. 542 will ensure that the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory's work will continue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2476, the Securing American Nonprofit Organizations Act of 2019.

The Nonprofit Security Grant Program provides critical funding to harden security at houses of worship, community centers, schools, and other cultural institutions located in Urban Area Security Initiative, or UASI, regions.

This legislation expands the grant program so eligible entities not within UASI regions can also apply. These grants are used for target- hardening activities and physical security upgrades as well as for necessary security training.

The unfortunate reality is that threats to religious institutions and other soft targets are not going away and, in fact, are increasing at an alarming rate.

There have been a number of attacks, both overseas and in the United States, at places of worship. It is a stark reminder of the continued threat.

The Nonprofit Security Grant Program assists the most at-risk organizations in hardening their defenses, while allowing them to remain focused on providing services and counsel in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do so. I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 1158, the DHS Cyber Incident Response Teams Act of 2019.

H.R. 1158 authorizes cyber hunt and incident response teams to assist operators, free of cost, to identify unauthorized cyber activity while promoting the proper strategies to deter future threats.

This legislation helps us stay vigilant in our efforts to respond to cyber incidents in both the public and private sectors as threats to our digital networks continue to evolve.

I support this important bill, introduced by my colleague, Ranking Member McCaul, and I commend him for his leadership on this issue. I urge all Members to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 2539, the Strengthening Local Transportation Security Capabilities Act of 2019. This bill will provide important support to surface transportation security at a time when our transportation sector faces evolving threats.

This bill ensures that the Secretary of Homeland Security will prioritize the assignment of intelligence analysts to fusion centers in areas with high-risk surface transportation assets to bolster security, improve coordination, and enhance information sharing.

This bill underscores the critically important work of State, local, and regional fusion centers in protecting the homeland. These centers analyze current threats and push critical threat information to the front lines.

It is important that Congress pass bills like this to strengthen the relationships among Federal, State, and local jurisdictions so that relevant threat information reaches the right people in a timely manner.

I am pleased by the support of my Democratic colleagues for fusion centers and hope this will lead to quick

passage of another bill, introduced by Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Rogers, H.R. 480, the Homeland Threat Assessment Act.

Keeping transportation systems secure is part and parcel to protecting the American way of life and keeping America moving forward. I commend this legislation for raising the baseline on how the Department of Homeland Security supports the security of surface transportation systems, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2083.

This bill will encourage the Department of Homeland Security to purchase uniforms and protective gear for its law enforcement officers from ethical manufacturers and sellers. To do business with DHS, contractors that supply frontline operational components must abide by the code of business ethics, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and any quality control standards deemed appropriate by the Secretary. These conditions will ensure that we are purchasing the very best products for our men and women on the front lines.

The bill also protects the security of DHS law enforcement personnel by requiring that uniforms and equipment that bear a law enforcement insignia be properly stored and disposed of if they are unusable. This will help prevent law enforcement badges and patches from falling into the wrong hands or being used for nefarious purposes.

H.R. 2083 will also help to promote small businesses by encouraging the Secretary of DHS to utilize small businesses for at least one-third of DHS uniform needs. Small businesses are the backbone of America, and this bill will help to ensure that the Secretary considers them for the agency's needs whenever possible.

H.R. 2083 requires that the Secretary purchase uniforms at a fair and reasonable price.

Further, the bill requires a study on the adequacy of uniform allowances to ensure that DHS law enforcement personnel do not have to pay out of pocket for the basic items they need to carry out their duties.

Mr. Speaker, this bill goes a long way toward improving the process for procurement of uniforms for DHS personnel, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 2609, the DHS Acquisition Review Board Act of 2019.

The Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General have both identified weaknesses in the Department's management of its major acquisition programs. Poor management of these programs costs the Department billions of dollars each year.

GAO has placed DHS management functions, including acquisition management, on its ``High Risk List,'' programs that are highly susceptible to fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement or are in need of transformation.

The Department struggles to ensure that major acquisitions are delivered on schedule, provide the capabilities needed, and do not exceed budget. In recent years, GAO has identified 9 out of 26 major acquisition programs that experienced cost growth or schedule slips. Cost overruns totaled $988 million, and schedules frequently slipped by an average of 6 months.

GAO also determined that approximately half of major acquisition programs deployed capabilities before all key performance parameters had been met.

It is essential that DHS establish better management tools to provide accountability in its major acquisition programs and ensure that problems are identified and addressed early.

My bill requires DHS to establish mechanisms for accountability to better manage components' major acquisition programs by establishing an Acquisition Review Board within DHS. The board would oversee DHS' acquisition process, review major acquisition programs, and evaluate the use of best practices.

The Under Secretary for Management will serve as the chair of the board, and the board would be required to meet regularly. The board would be responsible for determining if a proposed acquisition has met planning requirements necessary to move into the production and deployment phases.

It would also oversee a major acquisitions business strategy. The board will review the cost tradeoffs, schedules, and performance objectives of the programs.

As we seek to ensure the homeland is protected and DHS has the resources it needs to do its job, we must also ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2609, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form.

Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Much has been made of election security as of late, much of it for good reason. In the end, these concerns, the concerns that many Americans rightfully share, are built around the fundamental notion that our vote should count, our vote should mean something; and we should know that, when we cast it, it is sacred and unchanging.

Our vote is a signal of what direction we want our country to move toward, and that vote is an element of trust that we place in the men or women elected to take it in that direction.

We vote because this country is governed by the people, by the citizens of this country. We in this body humbly serve at their pleasure.

The quickest way to erode a democracy, erode faith in our institutions, is to erode that trust, erode the notion that your vote truly counts.

The truth is this is already happening. In places like San Francisco, Democrats have fought hard to ensure that U.S. citizens must share their civic duty, their vote, with illegal immigrants. The city of San Francisco has effectively canceled out the votes of its citizens and replaced it with illegals.

When I say it out loud, it sounds like I am making it up, because what kind of government would cancel out the votes of its own citizens and replace them with noncitizens--but not just any noncitizens, ones who entered our country illegally.

It is with this in mind, this sacred duty to protect our citizens, protect their vote, protect their voice, that I propose this motion to recommit.

This motion to recommit would show the American people that, despite the deep and growing differences between us, we can at least agree that the people who vote for us are citizens of this country.

Madam Speaker, this is a simple affirmation. It is an affirmation of the fact that the elected representatives of this body answer to the citizens of this country who voted for us. We will not stand by and let their voices be muted. We will not let their trust be eroded. We will not let our democracy be questioned.

Last year, Congress voted on this very idea. Forty-nine Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with us.

It should not be a partisan idea that the people who do not legally live in our country cannot legally vote in our elections. If you are not legally here, if you entered our country against the laws and wishes of our citizens, then you should not vote for representation in our government, diluting the voices of Americans.

I am proposing this MTR not because it feels good, not because we want to attack anyone, but because it is clear to all of us that voter integrity actually needs to be defended.

It has become clear because San Francisco is not the only municipality that has fallen into this radicalism. Other cities have done or attempted to do the same.

The men and women in this body are here because we were duly elected as such.

Our citizens expect much of us. They expect us to protect their most fundamental rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They expect us to respect their voice. Often, the only way they have to express that voice is through their vote.

If we no longer agree to protect that voice, as we did last Congress--if we don't, in this moment, agree that their voice should not be canceled out but protected, then I worry a great deal

about our democracy. I worry that radicalism has made its way into this sacred body, as it already has in so many other places across our great country.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. Vote to protect the voices of your constituents. Vote to preserve the notion that our Nation's government is elected by--and only by--the citizens of this country. Anything less is a disservice to the very people who put us here.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for setting this up and for having me speak here today.

I rise today to address the urgent issue of border security. There are two elements to the border debate. One is political, and one is policy.

The political element consists of the circumstances regarding the shutdown, the negotiations or lack thereof, and the points of compromise from either side.

The policy side is simply the question of whether or not we need a wall as part of comprehensive border security.

Let me begin with the political gamesmanship.

Democratic leadership has been running a victory lap this week because they ``won'' the shutdown. I keep wondering, what exactly did they win?

If you think winning means a porous border with 400,000 people apprehended every year, then your definition of winning is different than mine. If you think winning means standing strong against any sort of negotiation or compromise that would have allowed Federal workers finally to be paid, then your definition of winning is different than mine.

The President didn't cave to Democrats. The President gave compassion to Federal workers who needed it. If that is your idea of losing, then you and I have different definitions of what it means to lose.

The truth is that the President has compromised time after time because, for us, this is not about who wins or loses the political game; it is about securing the border.

First, the President agreed that a 2,000-mile, sea-to-shining-sea wall

would be a logistical difficulty, so he agreed to 234 miles of fencing, a mere tenth of his original campaign promise.

Then the President agreed to $5.7 billion in border wall funding instead of the originally requested $25 billion, a fifth of the original request.

Democrats then said that they could discuss border security only if the government was open, so the President opened the government.

At every turn, the President has reached out and compromised in order to get a deal done. And at every turn, Democrats scoffed at compromise.

This brings us to the second element of this great debate, the policy element. Democrats have laughed at a wall. They call it medieval and ineffective, and they dismiss it without any rationale or reasoning.

The reality is that walls do work, as every rational security expert acknowledges. Border agents overwhelmingly attest to this. After all, the President's plan came from the experts at the Department of Homeland Security.

An integral part of this multifaceted plan is a 234-mile border wall. Everywhere we put walls, illegal crossings drop. Look at San Diego, El Centro, Tucson, and El Paso. The drop in illegal immigration and apprehensions after constructing a wall is enormous and immediate, yet Democrats pretend these facts don't exist.

They point to common myths about how walls function. They like to claim people will just climb over or tunnel under them. Oh, yeah? Just like that?

Well, I am a Navy SEAL, and I know better than most what it takes to infiltrate hardened areas. I would much rather be infiltrating a place with no barriers than one with a giant, 20-plus-foot wall. The planning considerations, training, and equipment necessary are considerable. And, yes, it takes a lot more than a tall ladder, especially when discussing huge groups of migrants like the ones we are seeing.

The obvious truth is that walls make a difference and clearly mitigate movement, and we actually all used to agree on this.

Democrats claim they are for security but would prefer a virtual wall with sensors, drones, cameras, et cetera. That is fine, and that is exactly why that technology is included in our plan, but to say we need only that technology is effectively asking our Border Patrol to chase migrants endlessly across large swaths of territory.

It is one thing for a sensor to go off when we see a group of migrants go by. But guess what? When we see that go off, they keep going unimpeded. Asking our border agents to simply chase them down when there are literally hundreds crossing each day is complete insanity.

This dishonest, so-called debate must end. We must start having serious discussions and secure our border because that is what the American people want. That is what it means to be with the people.