Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I believe every person born or unborn is worthy of our protection. A majority of Americans--nearly 60 percent-- believe that Federal tax dollars should not be used to pay for the destruction of life. Hyde protections to prohibit taxpayer funding for elective abortions have been in place in this country ever since President Ford. Even President Biden supported them as a Senator. But now House Democrats have abandoned nearly a half century of bipartisan consensus.

I offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee to include Hyde protections, which have saved more than 2 million innocent lives in this $1.9 trillion bill. I also joined my colleagues in submitting a similar amendment for floor consideration. Democrats rejected both.

This is a moment that calls for healing and not destruction, for saving lives and not ending them, for bringing Americans together and not tearing us apart. It is sad to see partisanship take priority over the most vulnerable among us, the unborn.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting innocent life by opposing this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to a massive spending bill filled with payoffs to progressives.

We should be focused on defeating COVID, getting Americans back to work, and helping small business recover. Instead, House Democrats are tossing bipartisanship aside to ram through a one-sided $1.9 trillion bill.

We need a full accounting of the $1 trillion in existing COVID relief that hasn't even been spent before asking taxpayers to foot the bill for trillions more.

And this isn't even emergency relief. Less than 10 percent is for actually fighting COVID. The rest will only make it harder for small business to recover, hire workers, and rebuild our economy.

On top of that, it is a massive bailout for fiscally irresponsible cities and States. Put simply, Hoosiers should not have to pay for the bad decisions of progressives in California.

This is not the unity President Biden called for. It is not the bipartisanship Americans expect. It is certainly not the targeted COVID relief our country needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: I absolutely reject racism, anti- Semitism, and bigotry. I condemn conspiracy theories and calls for violence. I do not, in any way, condone these reprehensible views. I am not here today to defend any comments made by Representative Greene, whether as a private citizen, candidate, or Member of Congress.

I am here today to defend the precedent set by years of the majority and minority parties coexisting in this body; and I am here today to defend the House Ethics Committee, on which I serve as the ranking member.

H. Res. 72 is nothing more than a partisan power grab at a critical time when the majority party itself repeatedly calls for unity as our path forward. Bringing a majority resolution to the floor to remove a minority Member from her committee assignments is wrong and unprecedented.

Referring such a resolution to the House Ethics Committee is unprecedented. Referring such a resolution to the House Ethics Committee and then completely bypassing the committee's role is unprecedented. On this floor today we are witnessing one more effort to consolidate power with a majority party and diminish the rights of the minority.

This is not the first power grab effort by this majority in Congress. Earlier this year, the Democrats destroyed over 100 years of representation in Congress and effectively eliminated the only tool that safeguarded the minority's voice: the motion to recommit. And they are doing it again today with H. Res. 72.

In the last 20 years, several Members have been removed from their committee duties. Members on both sides of the aisle have been removed and for various reasons. But those reasons and that decision was always made by the Member's party leadership, or party's membership. Even if the decision to remove a Member was followed with a voice vote on the House floor, the decision itself was made by that Member's caucus following weeks of public and private infighting.

Last night, the Republican Conference met to discuss statements made by Representative Greene prior to her serving the Congress. We listened to Representative Greene. She made similar statements as she did on the floor today. She assured the Conference that her prior statements did not reflect her views today as a member of this body.

The Democratic majority claims the Republican Conference hasn't acted, but that simply isn't true. The Conference just hasn't done what the Democrats want it to do.

Regardless, the majority has brought this unprecedented resolution before the House today. The majority party could have brought this matter directly to the floor as a privileged question and the question of removal would have been a swift vote on the floor.

Instead, the majority referred the resolution to the Ethics Committee to then immediately and completely bypass the Ethics Committee and its functions by bringing this resolution directly to the floor.

Involving the committee, then to only bypass the committee, violates the collegial and bipartisan manner by which the Ethics Committee should operate.

This is my second term serving on the Ethics Committee and I was looking forward to working with Chairman Deutch in a collegial and bipartisan manner. You see, the Committee on Ethics is unique. It is the only standing House committee with equal numbers of Democrat and Republican Members: five Democrats and five Republicans.

There is a reason that neither party holds a majority on this committee and that reason is to avoid one party or the other weaponizing the committee's purpose for use in a political and partisan fashion.

The committee has publicly warned of this risk before. In 2012, following a particularly contentious investigation, the committee publicly expressed the necessity of bipartisan cooperation within the committee leadership.

The committee stated: ``Unlike any other committee, this committee avoids partisan legislative concerns and policies, and must have bipartisan cooperation for the committee to fulfill its constitutional mandate to police the Members, officers and employees of the House. That mission calls upon Members to step out of their partisan framework and approach the work of the committee without regard to their party. It is our recommendation, for any Member that serves on this committee, that he or she constantly evaluate their actions on the committee to ensure that they are living up to the highest standards of this committee.''

Today, we do not see the Ethics Committee's leadership upholding the highest standards of bipartisan cooperation. We don't see today the chair and ranking member presenting a resolution on the House floor together.

At the end of each Congress, the committee issues a report detailing the activities of the committee during the Congress. For each Congress Chairman Deutch has served on Ethics, the committee has worked in a collegial and bipartisan manner, to be able to state that--for the 113th, 114th, 115th, and 116th Congress--all votes taken in the investigative subcommittees were unanimous.

This stack of public reports represents all the hard work the committee has completed in the last four Congresses. All of this work of the committee--completed by its sitting

Members, the Members who were asked to serve in the investigative subcommittees and the committee's professional and nonpartisan staff-- was accomplished in bipartisan cooperation.

In fact, Chairman Deutch himself recognized in the committee report for the 116th Congress that: ``All of the committee's work . . . is made possible by the committee's talented, professional, nonpartisan staff. The members of the committee wish to acknowledge their hard work and dedication to the committee and the House. In addition, the committee wishes to thank its departing Members . . . for their service and for the thoughtfulness and collegiality they showed during their time on the committee.''

As you can see, the work on the Ethics Committee is extensive. In the 116th Congress alone, the committee commenced or continued investigative fact-finding gatherings for 50 separate investigative matters, impaneled six investigative committees, and filed five reports with the House, totaling over 3,300 pages regarding various investigative matters.

These tasks were agreed to by the chair and the ranking member of the committee. In fact, the phrase itself, ``chair and ranking minority member'' appears 38 times, 38 times in the committee rules. The Ethics Committee operates effectively because it is consensus driven with decisions made jointly by the chair and the ranking member.

But that is not what is happening today on this floor. The current chair and ranking member have not received a complaint and determined whether the information meets the requirements of the committee rules.

The current chair and ranking member have not jointly gathered information concerning this alleged conduct. Until yesterday's Rules hearing, the chair and the ranking member had not had a single conversation regarding Representative Greene.

As I stated earlier, involving the committee then to only bypass its function, violates the spirit of how this unique committee operates. Once a majority determined that the Ethics Committee was the place for the resolution, it should have allowed the committee to consider the issues properly.

I know our colleagues want to see the Ethics Committee function effectively and not to be used as a partisan political weapon on a manipulated platform. If the Ethics Committee is to consider reviewing statements made by Members of Congress before they were sworn in, then the matter should come before the Ethics Committee in a way that complies with committee rules, preserves the bipartisanship intended, and allows the committee to make legal conclusions and factual determinations in a collegial environment.

All I ask is that we let the committee work, as it is supposed to, to effectively serve this body. To do so, the majority should withdraw this resolution if it chooses, and pursue the matter properly through the Ethics Committee. I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz), my new colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely reject racism, anti-Semitism, and bigotry, as I said earlier. I condemn conspiracy theories and calls for violence. I do not in any way condone these reprehensible views.

Sadly, though, here we are today to effectuate another partisan power grab. The Democratic majority has taken unprecedented steps to marginalize Republicans just because we have not done what they want us to do, and that is wrong.

There is a reason that neither party holds a majority on the Ethics Committee, and the reason is to avoid one party or the other weaponizing the committee's purpose for use in political and partisan fashion.

The majority should withdraw this resolution and, if it chooses, pursue this matter properly through the Ethics Committee.

If the resolution is not withdrawn, then I will vote ``no'' and hope at some point the Ethics Committee will again be used to serve this body as intended.

Our colleagues deserve better, and the House, as an institution, deserves better. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

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

Madam Speaker, on June 27, 2019, I wasn't able to vote due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Roll Call No. 425; ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 426; ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 427; ``nay'' on Roll Call No. 428; and ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 429.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday June 26, 2019, I wasn't able to vote due to a family emergency.

Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 415; NAY on Roll Call No. 416; YEA on Roll Call No. 417; YEA on Roll Call No. 418; and YEA on Roll Call No. 419.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday June 26, 2019, I wasn't able to vote due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on rollcall No. 420; Yea on rollcall No. 421; Yea on rollcall No. 422; Yea on rollcall No. 423, and Nay on rollcall No. 424.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2940, to extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program for another 3 months, because families who use these critical benefits should not be penalized for the failures here in Washington.

We are here for the 39th extension of TANF because we are once again unable to move a longer term extension or a reauthorization of this program.

I certainly hope Democratic leaders in the House will allow Chairman Davis and me to work with our colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee in a bipartisan manner to develop a long-term TANF reauthorization that ensures this program focuses on helping individuals prepare for, find, and keep good jobs.

At a time when we have 7.5 million job openings and growing demand for workers that is driving wages up, we not only want every person to reach their full potential--we need them to.

We have the opportunity to make economic and social gains in ways not seen in decades so families are better off financially, helping to improve their overall well-being in the near and long term.

Better wages and stable work bring along a whole host of benefits, most importantly, the positive impact on children who are spared the trauma that comes from unrest in the home.

At the root of addressing these challenges needs to be a focus on human interaction, engagement, support, encouragement, and belief in the possible, not just assumptions about the probable.

It is time to focus on solving the root causes rather than pushing complex government ideas that will only address the symptoms.

That is why I, along with more than 50 of my colleagues, have come forth with a full reauthorization of the TANF program. Our bill, called the JOBS for Success Act, would return the program's focus to families by:

Expecting universal case management so we can rebuild the human connection and so no one is ignored or left behind in this process;

Holding States accountable for work outcomes, meaning folks can get and keep a job, and ensuring that dollars go to their families;

Prioritizing households below 200 percent of the poverty line so they get the services they need to be successful;

Using funds to support and encourage work over the long term, because we know life is hard, not just when someone is starting a job, but 6 months into the job when the car breaks down or one of life's many challenges happens; and

Increasing resources available to support childcare to more than $14 billion annually, better utilizing existing funds, and allowing up to half of a State's annual allocation to be used for childcare.

We all want families to succeed and to achieve their American Dream. The first step on that bridge out of poverty is getting a job, keeping a job, and moving through the ranks to higher pay and more benefits.

Unfortunately, under Democratic leadership, we have yet to see any proposals to reform or improve this program. And today, we are moving to the floor without any formal consideration by the committee or hearings on this bill.

Instead of reaching across the aisle to get things done for the American people, Democratic leadership is focused on investigating the President and going after his tax returns. They are proposing new entitlements that tax low-income workers and subsidize large corporations. They are passing bills that claim to protect people with preexisting conditions but, in reality, take away their health insurance choices. And they are continuing to allow infanticide by refusing to bring to the floor the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Republicans want to work on bipartisan changes to improve childcare under TANF, and we have come forward with a viable plan to improve support for families in need by nearly doubling historic funding levels.

I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the same desire, and I hope we can find common ground before the next bill comes to the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 20, I was unavoidably detained due to inclement weather. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call No. 218, and Yea on Roll Call No. 219.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Salvador Moya, owner of the Frame Factory in South Bend, Indiana.

For years, Salvador has been a pillar of the northern Indiana arts community. He has an unparalleled passion for creative expression and for helping Hoosier artists discover, celebrate, and share their talent with the world.

I am grateful for the steadfast support Salvador offers young artists across our state. He has contributed so much to our community, and his continued leadership and philanthropy are true testaments to his compassion. He can always be found helping others and lifting spirits. Throughout his distinguished career, he has made a difference in the lives of countless aspiring artists by giving them opportunities to succeed that they would not otherwise have had.

Since 2003, Salvador's business, the Frame Factory, has delivered high-quality products and services to its customers. Small businesses like this are the backbone of our economy, and entrepreneurs like Salvador exemplify the American Dream. Driven by his enthusiasm for cultural enrichment and sense of comniunity, Salvador's selflessness and hard work do not go unnoticed.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Salvador for his invaluable service to the northern Indiana community and to the State of Indiana.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Elkhart instrument manufacturer jj Babbitt Company, Inc., and to join them in celebrating 100 years of success.

In 1919, Jesse James Babbitt produced the first of many beautifully crafted mouthpieces in his garage in northern Indiana before launching a family business that would last for generations. A century later, jj Babbitt has now grown to help musicians at every level deliver great music and dazzling performances by producing the industry's finest mouthpieces for clarinet and saxophone.

From the beginning, the company has focused on unique craftsmanship and a commitment to innovation to produce the high-quality mouthpieces they have made for 100 years. Not much has changed about the Babbitt business model or vision, and even some of the original machines from the 1930s remain at the heart of production.

Elkhart, Indiana, is the Band Instrument Capital of the World, and as a community we are grateful to have this company as a leader and pioneer to inspire future generations of instrument manufacturers to carry on the legacy. It is an honor to represent the hardworking employees of the jj Babbit Company, who continue to play such a vital role in delivering the perfect mouthpieces for musicians.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of 2nd District Hoosiers, I want to thank everyone at jj Babbit for an incredible 100 years, and I look forward to many more incredible years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to stand with America's friend and ally Israel against a rising tide of anti-Semitism and the dangerous Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, or BDS movement.

BDS is a form of economic warfare aimed at marginalizing the world's only Jewish state. This radical agenda rejects Israel's right to self- defense and seeks to destroy its economy.

The House must stand with Israel and pass H.R. 336, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East

Act. This commonsense bill would combat the BDS movement by supporting State and local governments that choose not to contract with companies that discriminate against Israel.

It already passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support. Sadly, Speaker Pelosi refuses to allow a vote.

I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 336. This week, I signed a discharge petition to ensure it gets a vote on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, Republicans and Democrats must send a strong signal against anti-Semitism and the anti-Israel BDS movement. We need a vote on H.R. 336.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Stephen Mitros on his retirement from his orthopaedic surgery practice after 43 years.

Dr. Mitros has served the South Bend community for generations. His commitment to excellent care goes beyond treatment and recovery. He has always shown his patients he truly cares about each individual and wants to treat their pain in a way that works best for them. The team at Mitros Orthopaedics in South Bend, a true family practice, demonstrates unparalleled expertise, compassion, and dedication to their work. Family has always been central to Dr. Mitros's practice. His wife, Janet, was the office manager and a registered nurse, and their daughter Kellye was a medical assistant. He shared the lessons his father, Dr. Paul Mitros, taught him about caring for patients, and I have no doubt this legacy will continue far into the future.

Dr. Mitros has been a leader in addressing the opioid epidemic by focusing on a non-narcotic approach. He began to see a vast difference in his patients' health and well-being, as well as in their rate of recovery. He has been a guiding light in the orthopaedic community, and he has devoted time and energy outside of his practice to researching new techniques and training physicians across the country. Though Dr. Mitros said he ``did not do it with any crusading idea about cutting down on my contribution to the opioid crisis,'' his leadership in promoting non-opioid alternatives to pain management truly did transform his practice and made a lasting difference in people's lives.

On behalf of 2nd District Hoosiers, I am grateful to Dr. Mitros for his years of dedicated service and for the innovative approach he took to caring for each patient and identifying comprehensive treatment options that put their health and well-being first. I look forward to continuing to work with providers like Dr. Mitros to address the opioid epidemic by advocating for patient-centered care.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Mitros and thanking him for all he has done to improve lives and advance the practice of orthopaedic medicine.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dave and Kathleen Sparks on 50 years of growth, innovation, and leadership at McDonald's.

Dave began his career at McDonald's as a cashier while in college. In the beginning, he needed strong math skills, good customer service, and knowledge of the menu. These skills taught Dave the lessons that would stay with him through the launch of his career and would help shape his success as an owner-operator. His continued commitment to our community has helped grow our economy and provide good jobs for hardworking Hoosiers for decades. Dave's contributions to our state's workforce and franchise economy have been invaluable, and his entrepreneurial spirit and exceptional drive are inspirational to future generations.

Dave and his wife Kathleen have not only transformed the lives of their employees and other McDonald's owner-operators across the state, they have also been intimately involved with the northern Indiana Ronald McDonald House Charities. Their teamwork, leadership, and business acumen exemplify the strong Hoosier values that move our state forward, and they display the compassion that connects us all.

It is truly a privilege to represent Hoosier job creators like Dave and Kathleen, who never stop building opportunities for others and making Indiana a better place to live, work, and thrive.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dave Sparks on his 50th anniversary at McDonald's, and in thanking him for setting a positive example for business owners and franchisees across the country. I look forward to the incredible things that lie ahead for Dave, his family, and our nation's love of McDonald's, and I wish him all the best in this next chapter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1759, the Building on Reemployment Improvements to Deliver Good Employment for Workers Act, also known as the BRIDGE for Workers Act, which I have worked on with my colleagues, Representative Murphy and Representative LaHood.

This legislation builds upon the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, where we made a significant step forward in helping those unemployed, through no fault of their own, by pairing unemployment benefits with services.

Over the last few decades, there has been a focus on automation that has removed all human interaction from the benefit claims process. Beneficiaries have become nothing more than a number entered into a spreadsheet or into a computer database.

During the last recession, we saw that merely providing 99 weeks of unemployment benefits was not enough to help individuals return to the workforce. That is why, in 2012, we offered reemployment services and eligibility assessments, known as RESEAs, to the long-term unemployed based on successful State efforts to engage UI beneficiaries.

Since the recession, many States have rebranded unemployment to reemployment, and focused on efforts to promote rapid reemployment, because it is better for workers, their families, and an economy where we have 1 million more job openings than we have employed.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 provides States with funding certainty, so they can invest in these services and serve greater numbers of workers. That is why H.R. 1759 is so important. It makes permanent a technical correction first made in FY 2019 appropriations.

This bill clarifies that reemployment services and eligibility assessments shall promote quicker reemployment to shorten benefit durations for all unemployment insurance claimants, not just those likely to exhaust unemployment benefits.

In my home State of Indiana, RESEA was redesigned in 2016 to assist UI claimants through early intervention to aid in a quicker return to meaningful employment and eliminate UI fraud.

Indiana's RESEA program is two-fold. The initial RESEA expects beneficiaries to make an in-person visit to a WorkOne Center on approximately the sixth week of benefits. During that visit, they attend an orientation to learn more about these services, and then meet with a RESEA counselor for a one-on-one assessment interview to develop an individual reemployment plan. That plan may include workshops to improve job search or interviewing skills, or referrals to other supports or services beyond the UI agency.

Any of the RESEA initial participants who are still collecting at the 15th week of their UI claim are contacted for reengagement as part of the subsequent RESEA program. These long-term claimants are brought in for a one-on-one reassessment interview to determine if additional barriers to reemployment are present. At any point in the process where it becomes apparent that additional, more intensive services are needed, the customer then moves into the workforce system to gain more skills.

RESEAS are a valuable reemployment tool for those who have lost their job, through no fault of their own.

Again, I urge support of H.R. 1759, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

Mr. Speaker, having no other speakers, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, having no other speakers, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as you have heard today, the ability to pair benefits with services can have a profound effect on the lives of workers and their families. At a time with more than a million more jobs than we actually have unemployed, this effort is especially critical. This bill gives States the flexibility they need to make reemployment services a great success.

Again, I urge support of H.R. 1759, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, while I voted today for H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, I would like to note that this reauthorization is imperfect. I remain strongly opposed to firearm-related provisions that were included, and I am committed to ensuring the final bill protects the Second Amendment rights of law- abiding Americans. As a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights for Americans, I look forward to working in a bipartisan and bicameral manner to resolve these outstanding issues before this critical legislation to prevent violence and protect survivors is signed into law.