Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, listen, the American people expect and deserve free and fair elections. They deserve to have one legal vote cast and one legal vote counted, but H.R. 1 turns all of our election process upside down. It upends our entire election system.

Why are we doing this?

As my friend mentioned, on the Oversight Committee, the entire year last year in Oversight, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to push H.R. 1 because of COVID, and we saw what that did in our elections this past year, it totally created chaos. But now we want to nationalize it.

The worst thing in the world that can happen is for the Federal Government to nationalize our election system. Part of what is in here is universal mail-in ballots to everyone on the voter registration files. What a disaster. We know those files are probably 10 percent inaccurate. So we are going to have millions of illegal voters receive live ballots. Then there is zero voter ID associated with this.

Why in the world would we want no voter ID, unless this is some sort of scheme to give illegal voters the opportunity to vote without any proof of who they are, that they are legal?

This is an absolute disaster, and ballot harvesting is a part of this, restricting the right of States to run their own elections.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this.

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot today about discrimination against the LGBTQ community and them being kicked out of housing or whatever. No one wants that.

But my question, Madam Speaker, to my friends on the other side was: Would they also agree that no one who disagrees with their views should be kicked out of their homes or lose their job?

Should adoption agencies not be allowed to continue operating if they don't believe in that?

Should houses of worship close because they continue teaching the traditional biblical values and principles of male and female?

And I would suspect the answer would be no; that they should be fired, they should close, because the bill itself clearly states that religious rights and freedoms are not protected in this bill. And that is what is so dangerous.

This is a bill of tyranny, where government is telling people what they must believe and punishing them if they do not believe and do not conform. This is a dangerous bill. It codifies in itself discrimination.

I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this and he's a very dear friend from Texas. And I am grateful.

Listen, I don't know that there are many issues that are much more significant, if any more significant, than what we are watching unfold in our society these days, with the cancel culture movement. And the gentleman brought up so many great examples. Everyone certainly, I believe, probably everyone on this side of the aisle has experienced this cancel culture in one degree or another, and it is, frankly, not a new thing. It started quite some time back.

But certainly, it has built to the point of enormous momentum now to the point of literally destroying lives, destroying businesses, destroying careers, and that is what is disturbing to me.

And I would just go on to say that this cancel culture--two main points that I just want to bring up, and I would love to have a bit of dialogue with the gentleman on this.

But number one is: What is underneath it? What is causing it? What is the purpose? What is the motive behind cancel culture?

I don't think we need to just deal with the results of it, but what is behind it. And I would suggest that it is a lust for power. And, as a result, there is an attempt to intimidate, an attempt to cancel, an attempt to threaten, and it is also that I am king of the hill and you are not.

There is this desire for power behind the cancel culture movement, and I believe that is a significant issue, and I would like to hear the gentleman's thoughts on that, and then I will come

back to another thought that I have and bounce that off you as well

Absolutely. That is extremely well said and very potent in the way you presented that. And it has come to the point, even in just the last couple of days, I had a woman face to face I was speaking with about this, and she was hesitant to get involved in a relatively small way in trying to make a stand in her local community.

And her words to me, I am afraid that if I do this, the FBI is going to come knocking at my door. And she had received those kinds of threats, those kind of whatever. She didn't go into details with me, the specifics of what had brought her to that point.

But the realization to me is this cancel culture is like a cancer that is now infiltrating our society and its tentacles are reaching, they are far-reaching. And what contributes to part of this, I am afraid, we are participating in right here in this Chamber.

And a quick example, we just passed the Equality Act. And I could not help but think, while this is being passed, and even some questions I had with it, sure, we don't want discrimination for anyone. This is the land of the free. Everyone has rights.

But the bill itself specifically says there are no religious exemptions to this, that RFRA does not apply, which means people who have deeply held religious beliefs are going to be canceled from participating in their routine life if they disagree with the premise of this bill, and if they personally have convictions otherwise, that is being forced upon them.

It is very concerning to me that we in this Chamber are actually participating in throwing gas on the fire of this whole cancel culture, even with legislation that is coming out of this body. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy here is an outrage. My fellow Georgian, Congresswoman Greene, stood right here in this House and took full responsibility for her statements. That is more than we can say for any of the many in this Chamber who have made outrageous, hate-filled, and vile statements and comments over the past years--and recent months, in particular.

For example, a Democrat member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has repeatedly made blatant anti-Semitic statements. She still holds her position.

The Democratic chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee encouraged supporters to aggressively assault anyone who supported President Trump. She still holds her position.

The Speaker of the House has called Republicans enemies of the state. She still has her position.

While we watch cities in flames, businesses being destroyed, officers killed, and civilians attacked, a member of the majority party called for further unrest in the streets. She still has her position.

I have got four pages of similar comments, and this is by no means exhaustive. Inflammatory rhetoric around here has become commonplace, unfortunately, and Members of this House have absolutely crossed the line by calling for violence and making other similar remarks. The majority refuses to hold its own members accountable. This is the zenith of hypocrisy and injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I call on and urge our Members to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 21, the FedRAMP Authorization Act.

As Ranking Member of the Government Operations Subcommittee, it's my focus to ensure the American taxpayer enjoys the benefit of efficient, effective, user-friendly I.T. systems.

We all know the appropriate use of cloud computing technologies can help achieve all of those goals, and I thank Subcommittee Chairman Connolly for his work on this legislation.

As we work to understand and respond to the recently discovered SUNBURST cyberattack, the underlying purpose of the FedRAMP program-- the security of cloud operations--has never been more important.

But as we also continue to respond to the ongoing pandemic, the demand for constituents and federal employees to interact remotely has never been greater. Thus, the flexibility that comes with cloud technologies has also never been more important.

I am pleased the FedRAMP authorization includes provisions that will reduce the time required for companies to be certified as FedRAMP compliant at a given agency after they have already been certified elsewhere in the federal government. This provision will go a long way towards giving agencies the cloud-based tools they need in these trying times.

Codifying FedRAMP is an important step in realizing the savings offered by cloud adoption and the savings offered by a more efficient security authorization process.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill and look forward to continuing to work to improve government services for the American people.

Mr. President, myself, members of the Georgia delegation, and some 74 of my Republican colleagues and I object to the electoral vote from the State of Georgia on the grounds that the election conducted on November 3 was faulty and fraudulent due to unilateral actions by the secretary of state to unlawfully change the State's election process without approval from the General Assembly and thereby setting the stage for an unprecedented amount of fraud and irregularities. I have signed the objection myself.

Mr. President, prior to the actions and events of today, we did, but following the events of today, it appears that some Senators have withdrawn their objection.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I urge the Speaker to immediately schedule this important bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, it is true that on June 21, 2018, President Trump's Office of Management and Budget released a plan to reorganize the executive branch. In that plan, they identified numerous ways to eliminate duplicative programs, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the government. One of the recommendations would merge the Office of Personnel Management with the General Services Administration.

I think it is important that we highlight the word ``merge.'' This is not an elimination of OPM. It is a merger of the two.

OPM's employees work hard to serve retiring Federal employees. Unfortunately, they are working with outdated 20th-century technology. It is extremely difficult for them to be able to attract IT talent necessary to operate this outdated IT system.

The intent of OPM's proposed merger is to fix this problem by creating one agency focused on delivering efficient, effective employee services governmentwide.

Admittedly, OPM has not shown that this is an effective way to address the many problems that are facing OPM. Further, it is true that despite repeated requests for legal analysis on the administrative authorities and cost-benefit analysis, the Oversight and Reform Committee continues to wait for supporting information.

The gentleman from Virginia knows that we have supported that effort to try to get that information so that we can do our job.

The whole challenge that we are facing is, indeed, ongoing. And while I share the gentleman's frustration with the lack of information to inform our committee, this amendment is not the answer. We have the same goal. We want to find ways to improve services for Federal employees and get retirement benefits for Federal retirees. But while we search for a solution, we need to keep all solutions and all options on the table.

Maybe a merger could gain considerable operational efficiencies, including providing support to OPM's beleaguered IT operation. If we see any evidence to support that, we should give this proposal serious consideration.

We should also give serious consideration to other proposals. If the chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee's Government Operations Subcommittee is aware of any other proposals, I would certainly hope and encourage him to incorporate those proposals into bipartisan oversight efforts.

But in the meantime, this amendment does nothing to help OPM's mission, and actively closes options to help OPM. For that reason, I stand in opposition to this amendment, but look forward to working with the gentleman as we move forward.

Madam Chair, I would just again reiterate that we need to keep all options on the table, and this amendment takes a possible solution off the table.

I think we just need to do further research and consider this. I just encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment is nothing other than, once again, an attack on President Trump and his family.

We have seen this time and time and time again from the Democrat majority. They are simply obsessed with President Trump. Instead of doing the hard work of governing, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are continuing to waste our time here in Congress with their never-ending attempts to go after the President.

And as it relates to this specific amendment, we have already seen this amendment. It was in H.R. 1, the so-called For the People Act, which passed the House here on a party-line vote. It was a bad idea then in March, and it is still a bad idea.

If an incoming President, Vice President, or Cabinet member took office while owning a business that held a previously existing contract with the Federal Government, this amendment would criminally fine that individual after taking office. And since the President has not committed a crime under existing laws, this majority is considering making new crimes, again, in order to go after the President.

How far will they go in their attempt to go after the President?

But even if we ignore the reprehensible aspects of this bill, this amendment has real implications that go far beyond this administration. For example, we have seen, with this President, talented individuals with backgrounds in business, not politics, that can bring a refreshing change to the swamp here in Washington. But this amendment would drive qualified people away from public service by imposing more and more disincentives on individuals with actual, real-world experience.

This amendment is nothing more than a weakly veiled attempt at harming this administration by trying to make new crimes out of business decisions that occurred long before the President took office.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would remind my friend that the executive branch is already required to divest.

As it relates to finding it laughable that I made a comment about the inability of the majority party to govern, I don't find that a laughing matter at all.

Week after week--week after week after week right now--we are coming into this people's House, wasting time on messaging bills and amendments, as we are doing even right now, that have no chance of going anywhere.

It is an absolute waste of time and continual evidence being proven right before us that this majority has lost its capacity to govern because of its obsession to go after this President. This amendment before us here is a clear example of yet another step in that direction. This is what it is.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, on the afternoon of June 25th, I was delayed in returning to the Capitol due to a meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY Roll Call No. 403; NAY on Roll Call No. 404; YEA on Roll Call No. 405; and NAY on Roll Call No. 406.

Madam Speaker, we have been hearing for quite some time Democrats saying that the President and Republicans have not been coming to the table on this issue. What nonsense.

For months, we have watched Democrats absolutely deny that there is a crisis. Actually, I have, on my desk, a list of page after page after page of quotes from my colleagues who are denying a crisis at the border.

Not only have Republicans for nearly 40 years been ringing the alarm on this issue, but we have been highlighting caravan after caravan after caravan coming to our southern border.

In May, we had 144,000 apprehended, nearly 700,000 to date, and that number is expected to go well over a million.

Do we have a humanitarian crisis at the border? Yes. Do we have a border security crisis? Yes.

But this bill does not even adequately fund ICE. It does not pay overtime for border personnel.

Madam Speaker, it does not have any means to investigate human traffickers. It lacks funding for the Department of Justice immigration courts. It ties the hands of the President to take action on securing our borders.

Madam Speaker, it is time for Democrats to come to the table. Let's address this issue the way it ought to be addressed.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Allen, for his leadership in this.

The U.S. Army's Cyber Center of Excellence is critical for cyberspace operations, signal and communications networks, and electronic warfare. The center carries out its important mission by developing mission doctrine, educational programs, personnel, and facilities solutions. It is of the utmost importance that we make sure this tradition of training world-class, highly skilled cyber professionals is kept intact.

Madam Chair, I urge passage of the Allen-Hice amendment to fully fund this project, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same.

I thank my neighbor and my friend for yielding the time, and it is an honor to work with Mr. Allen on this important amendment.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of my deep concerns over our national debt.

At a time when our Federal debt exceeds $22 trillion, I believe it is time that we make every effort possible to rein in spending so that we are not shackling future generations with this burden.

Division C of H.R. 3055 funds the EPA, Department of the Interior, and other land management agencies at $37.4 billion and increases spending by $1.6 billion over fiscal year 2019 levels.

The spending level in this division is 23.6 percent over the President's budget request. That is almost $7 billion over the request, Mr. Chairman. We are not even close.

Without question, there are areas within these Federal agencies that need improvement. For example, we need desperately to fix the National Park Service maintenance backlog, and I commend Ranking Member Bishop for his diligent work on that effort, and would urge passage, and at least bring to the floor his thoughtful and cost-effective bill to address that issue. But at the end of the day, the bottom line is our constituents back home are required week after week, month after month to make tough choices when it comes to planning their own household budgets, and we need to do the same right here in Congress.

My proposed amendment will reduce spending levels to the President's original budget request so that, just like our constituents back home, we go back to the table, we go back to the drawing board, and we make those same tough decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment to rein in spending, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.