Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I recognize and appreciate my constituent, Mr. Jason Smiley, for the actions he took to save strangers from an overturned vehicle on Christmas Eve. His service to this country has been exceptional and I thank him for the sacrifices that he and his family have made time and again.

On December 24th when a family found themselves in a dangerous and scary situation, he took action to ensure their safety. He should be commended for his action and his willingness to respond quickly, calmly, and without hesitation. In Colorado there are often severe weather conditions which lead to emergencies like this. It is not uncommon for Coloradans to be dependent on their neighbor's vigilance and kindness for assistance on the roads. I hope that Mr. Smiley's unhesitating willingness to intervene after an accident can be emulated by all my constituents.

What I admire most about Mr. Smiley's story is not only his eagerness to help others, but his willingness to do so after having already given so much for our country. Through injury and decades of military service, Mr. Smiley has been an exemplary member of his community and a good citizen.

In choosing to help others, he demonstrated the best characteristics of a serviceman: selflessness, attentiveness, and calm in the face of danger. It is an honor to represent Mr. Jason Smiley in Congress and it is my absolute pleasure to thank him not only for his eagerness to help, but for his consistent dedication to the defense of The United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, Hamas terrorists paraglided into a music festival and began an unprovoked spree of violence. Babies were beheaded, young girls raped, hundreds kidnapped, and many murdered in vile ways.

To compare a modern democracy with a repressive terrorist state is wrong, but it is also wrong for Congress to take this action at a time when we have serious issues that we face. To take an action and take down the words, to strike the words, to censure a fellow Member, no matter how incorrect we believe she may be, is wrong.

We lower ourselves when we try to take action against someone else for their words. We all go back to our districts, and thank goodness social media hasn't caught every one of us with everything that we say back in our districts because we would all be standing here.

This is a wrong time to do this. It is the wrong action to take. Let's pass a resolution condemning this kind of language, condemning anti-Semitism on college campuses and elsewhere, but it is absolutely wrong to vote for this motion.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, it is my honor today to recognize the accomplishments of three outstanding women. Ashley Ferris, Yvette Marquez-Sharpnack and Alice Jackson who will be honored by the Northwest Douglas County Chamber & Economic Development Corporation as ``Women Who Soar.''

Ashley Ferris, a law enforcement officer, left an indelible mark in Denver from 2018 to 2023. Even before her tenure as a dedicated law enforcement officer, her background as a United States Army Intelligence Analyst and project manager showcased her remarkable skills.

Ashley's heroic efforts were exemplified during the critical incident on December 27, 2021,

where she confronted and took down the Lakewood, CO mass shooter, despite sustaining injuries herself. This act of bravery earned her accolades, including the Law Enforcement Officer of the Year 2022 by the National Police Hall of Fame and the Valor Award. Her unwavering determination and resilience, even in the face of adversity, make her an inspiration.

Yvette Marquez-Sharpnack, a celebrated cookbook author and Emmy Award-winning creator and chef, blends her Texan roots into culinary masterpieces. Drawing inspiration from her grandmother's Mexican traditions and her mother's home-style dishes, she crafts delectable creations showcased on MuyBuenoBlog.com. Besides her blog, Yvette, based in Colorado, is a sought-after brand ambassador and recipe developer, engaging her audience on social media.

Alice Jackson is a trailblazer in the energy sector, shining as Xcel Energy's Senior Vice President of System Strategy and Chief Planning Officer. Her leadership in this male-dominated field has been transformative. With a decade of contributions, Alice has redefined the standards of excellence in executive leadership. Her success story is not just inspiring but a testament to her resilience, making her an inspiration for aspiring professionals in the industry.

From saving lives during a mass shooting to Emmy winning inspiration, this year's recipients have made a lasting impact on those around them and in our community. It is leaders like these women who will allow us to achieve a more prosperous and inclusive future and I congratulate them all on being recognized as ``Women Who Soar.''

Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, I rise today to honor the All Veterans Honor Guard, who provide the final Military Honors at Fort Logan National Cemetery in Colorado. Only those who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces are permitted to provide such services but in 1993, the U.S. Military ceased to perform these final rites for deceased veterans.

That's why approximately 100 Colorado veterans formed the All Veterans Honor Guard in 1994 to carry on this sacred duty for their late comrades in arms. Aside from a small stipend from the state of Colorado, the organization receives no additional funding or compensation to maintain and repair the World War II-era weapons or to purchase uniforms for their volunteers.

During their first year, the All Veterans Honor Guard provided Military Honors for 63 veterans at Ft. Logan National Cemetery--and since 1994, they have stood as the Honor Guard for over 23,400 military funerals; with Chief Master Sergeant Retired Morris Smith serving as the backbone for over two decades. But as time has gone on, the number of requests for their services has grown as our aging veterans pass away. The number of volunteers, however, has diminished. In 2021, the All Veterans Honor Guard had less than 80 veteran volunteers, who provided the final honors for 1,554 veterans.

Despite these challenges, the Honor Guard remains as dedicated to serving their late brothers and sisters in their afterlife as they were in serving alongside them in life. That is why, Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, on behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Colorado, it is a distinct privilege to recognize and commemorate the tireless efforts of the All Veterans Honor Guard over the past 29 years. Our country is blessed to have such heroes who care enough to honor their comrades as they are laid to rest.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the opening of The Capstone at Centerra Senior Living in Loveland, Colorado. Capstone at Centerra is a leader in innovative housing and medical solutions for seniors in Colorado's Fourth District. As an organization, Capstone serves its residents at every stage of the aging process, providing assisted living, memory care, and respite care designed to encourage independence and support individuals with personalized care.

Colorado is one of the fastest aging states in the Nation, and by 2040, 1 in 4 Coloradoans will be over the age of 60. With a rapidly aging population and a shortage of assisted living facilities and memory care services there is a critical need for more facilities, like Capstone, especially in rural areas like the Eastern Plains.

Organizations who face the healthcare crisis head-on and continue to provide high-quality, personalized, and innovative care deserve to be recognized and supported.

I am proud to recognize the Capstone at Centerra for improving the quality of life for seniors in Northern Colorado. I hope that their perseverance in advancing care will inspire other communities to provide continued, personalized housing and medical care for older adults.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I will take the next half hour to talk about the national debt, our spending, and our deficit.

Somebody asked how big is our national debt?

Well, Federal debt is $32 trillion. The $32 trillion mark arrived 9 years sooner than pre-pandemic forecasts had projected, reflecting the trillions of dollars of emergency spending to address COVID-19's impact on our sluggish economy.

How much does each individual owe?

According to the U.S. Treasury's official figure for the debt, the Federal Government is at $32 trillion in debt or, more precisely 32-- well, I am not even going to go into it. It is just a lot of money, and it equates to $95,660 for every person living in the U.S., or $242,570 for every household in the U.S. This is an existential threat to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), my good friend, to talk more about the big picture of the debt, then we are going to talk about some specific issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) to ask some questions.

How much do we currently pay to service the debt?

On an annualized basis, what is that number, a ballpark?

So $600 billion?

My question is this: How many jet fighters do we get for that money?

Let me ask another one: How many submarines, nuclear submarines, do we get for that money? How many people get help, food for pregnant moms? How many do we feed with that money?

All right. We are going to start talking about what we can do about that. I thank my friend from Arizona for joining us tonight and giving us that advice.

Folks, you may have heard of Dave Ramsey. He has helped millions of Americans get out of debt, turn the corner on their finances. May have read one of his books or taken one of his classes.

The key to his get out of debt programs, he offers simple steps. These are reasonable measures that anyone can take. The first step he often recommends is to make a list of your current debt and your current spending. The actual first step is to decide that you are done being in debt.

Our Nation's debt stands at, as we just heard, almost $32 trillion. We need a Dave Ramsey program here in Washington, D.C. The United States debt stands at $32 trillion. Every year, the Government Accountability Office puts together reports on wasteful spending and ineffective programs in the Federal Government. These reports, if read and applied, would help us streamline government programs, reduce waste, minimize fraudulent payments, create oversight, and greater accountability to taxpayers.

As we head into the appropriation season, I am asking all of my colleagues to join with me and others who have read these roadmaps from the Government Accountability Office with recommendations for how we can reduce Federal spending, save taxpayer funds, and most importantly, start paying down the debt.

Here are some key findings from the General Accounting Office. In 2022, 18 Federal agencies reported an estimated $247 billion in improper payments. Over the past two decades, the Federal Government wasted $2.4 trillion on payment errors. Federal taxpayers pay $2

billion each year maintaining empty government buildings. GAO identified $552.7 billion spent on duplicate and redundant programs in 2022.

If our Nation is ever going to dig its way out of this debt, we will have to start tackling wasteful spending. That includes going after the improper payments made in error.

What is an improper payment? First, fraud. An individual or business willfully stealing from the government. Secondly, mistaken identity. Payments going to the wrong person. Third, payments going to a deceased person.

Here is just one example: More than 47 percent of the payments to the Veterans Administration Department, particular program in the VA, made in 2022 were improper. Let me say that again: More than 47 percent. That is almost half of the payments in one program. The good news is that is an improvement because 5 years ago that number was at 100 percent of that program's budget. One hundred percent went to the wrong people and they are down to just 50 percent now. Maybe in 5 years, if they keep going at this rate, they will be down to 25 percent. Maybe not.

In 2022, just 18 Federal agencies reported wasting an estimated $247 billion on incorrect payments. That is just 18 agencies, not the entire government.

Our government also holds thousands of vacant, unused properties. We pay every year for lawn maintenance, electricity, security, energy costs for these unused properties. The Government Accountability Office estimates that we spend $2 billion each year just on maintaining these empty buildings.

Another major area of concern is redundant programs. In 2022 alone, the Federal Government wasted $552.7 billion on duplicate programs. Taxpayers receive no benefit for these redundant programs that create more inefficiencies and run up the costs needlessly.

Unauthorized programs are also an additional source of wasted funds. If Congress hasn't authorized a program, why is the executive branch spending taxpayer funds on it? There are over a thousand unauthorized government programs that Congress continues to fund without reauthorizing or reviewing these programs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) to talk about that more in depth and to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask my friend a question, if I may.

We talk about authorizing programs. How does Congress authorize a program?

A committee would hold a hearing, would invite in administration officials, executive branch officials, and would review the effectiveness of the program. There may be an inspector general's report about a wasteful part of the program. There may be newspaper articles or other sources of information. You hold a hearing, and the staff would be investigating this before the hearing. Then, we vote to recommend to the whole House whether that program should be reauthorized or not.

How long have you been in Congress?

We have just identified the process for one agency or one program to be reauthorized. We are talking about 1,100 unauthorized programs that Congress needs to authorize before it appropriates money to them. That is not even including the 325 programs that will need to be reauthorized at the end of this year. We are going to be close to 1,500 programs, and over half of the discretionary budget will go to unauthorized programs.

I thank my friend for that compliment. I have really just stolen a lot of ideas from a lot of people and tried to put them together in one place.

One of the things that aggravates me the most about unauthorized programs--and I am so happy that you raised it and are talking about it--is that it really was a fraud on Members of Congress.

For example, with the Endangered Species Act, it was a problem with eagles and this chemical called DDT. It was thinning the eagles' eggs, and the eagles weren't reproducing, so we had a declining bald eagle population in the United States.

We passed the Endangered Species Act, but the promise to the Members of Congress is: We will review this every 5 years. This isn't going to go on forever, folks. When we take care of this bald eagle problem and a few other critters, we are going to be done with this program.

I think Ronald Reagan said that the closest thing to eternal life on this planet is a Federal program, and that is what we have seen. Congress doesn't bother reauthorizing these programs, so they just go on and on because we would have to actually make a tough decision if we were going to reauthorize these programs, amend these programs, or cut these programs. Nobody wants to make a tough decision. It is much easier just to make our grandchildren pay a huge debt because we are too lazy, too unfocused, to actually do our job.

The Endangered Species Act is no longer used as a shield. It is now used as a sword, yet we don't authorize it. We don't hold hearings, and we don't examine the impact of the Endangered Species Act. Parts of it undoubtedly are good, but a large part of it is a program that needs to either be cut, amended, or certainly examined.

Mr. Speaker, I invite our good friend from Virginia, who has a wealth of information for Americans, to join us and tell us what he knows.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to ask Mr. Good a couple questions.

As a fellow deficit hawk, you heard about the vacant buildings that the Federal Government owns. I think the most accurate number I have heard is 77,000 vacant or underutilized buildings that the Federal Government owns. There have been some estimates that it is a little bit lower than that, but anywhere in that range is absolutely incredible to me.

It costs approximately $2 billion a year to just keep those vacant buildings up to speed, whether it is the electricity, the security, the lawn maintenance, all those things--$2 billion a year. We also spend billions of dollars to house Federal employees in office buildings that are privately owned.

This has been going on for 10 years. The GAO has been reporting this to Congress. My question to my good friend--and I am not accusing my good friend at all--why doesn't Congress--this is the worst part of it--the GAO, the Government Accounting Office, is a congressional office. Why do we pay for reports to find out about the waste and then ignore the reports that we are paying for about how the executive branch wastes money? What is the answer?

Mr. Speaker, wouldn't it be a great idea to tell the executive branch that when they get done selling 10 percent of these buildings or 20 percent of these buildings they will start seeing funding again?

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

Mr. Speaker, as National Beef Month ends, I rise to recognize the enormous impact that the beef industry has on Colorado, our nation's economy, and our western way of life.

The American beef industry is the world's largest producer of beef and accounts for 21.7 percent of the world's total beef production. With 91.9 million heads of cattle and roughly 720,000 beef farms in the United States, the beef industry accounts for the largest share of total cash receipts among agricultural commodities and accounts for 35 percent of all U.S. farms.

This multi-billion-dollar industry employs hundreds of thousands of hard-working American men and women, most of whom work for family- owned, small businesses. With cattle raised in all 50 states, beef has grown to be the second most popular choice of meat in the United States and has contributed greatly to both domestic and international economies.

Often a great source of essential nutrients such as protein, zinc, iron and B vitamins, high-grade beef provides our bodies with the strength needed to thrive and grow throughout all stages of life. Lowering bad cholesterol, building muscle, and improving cognitive health are among the many benefits derived from a healthy, balanced diet that includes protein-rich animals such as beef. For years critics have unfairly alleged that the resources needed to sustain such an industry have done damage to our environment and raised greenhouse gas emissions, when in reality, the beef industry has undergone tremendous technological, genetic, and management reforms in an effort to preserve our environment. As ranchers who rely on healthy soil and good seasons for the well-being of their cattle, cattle ranchers have long placed environmental stewardship at the forefront of their operations.

Today, I show my appreciation for the hardworking men and women of the American beef industry who rise before the sun each day and work tirelessly to provide food to our nation. Working alongside their partners in the agricultural sector, the American beef industry has been a key contributor to our nation's fight against food insecurity and has provided much needed, nutrient-dense food for the world's population.

The beef industry is deeply ingrained in American culture and has been a valued economic partner in many communities across the United States and the world. Eastern Colorado, which I represent in the U.S. House of Representatives, has the ten most agriculture producing counties in Colorado, with 2.85 million heads of cattle valued at over $2.8 billion. This ranks Colorado 10th in the United States for total cattle and makes it the 4th largest exporter of beef in the United States.

These hardworking men and women deserve our gratitude. I am proud to honor their work during National Beef Month.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 398, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 40) expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 40.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 40 expresses our support for the brave men and women who serve in law enforcement across our great Nation. These individuals put their lives on the line every single day to protect our communities and keep us safe, and it is time that we acknowledged their selflessness and dedication.

Law enforcement officers are the backbone of our justice system. They are the first line of defense against crime, and they work tirelessly to ensure that our neighborhoods are safe places to live, work, and raise families.

While most people fear danger and flee, police officers rush toward the threat, and they do so without hesitation or reservation. They are truly the embodiment of courage and bravery.

Unfortunately, over the past several years, we have seen an unprecedented level of hostility toward law enforcement in this country. The defund the police movement greatly fueled this hostility.

We have seen police officers subjected to unwarranted scrutiny, harassment, and even violence. We have seen protests turn into riots with law enforcement officers becoming targets of angry mobs. This kind of behavior is not only unacceptable, but it is also dangerous and destructive. It undermines the very fabric of our society and puts innocent lives at risk.

As a former prosecutor, I am acutely aware of the vital role that law enforcement plays in keeping our communities safe. I have seen firsthand the sacrifices that these men and women make, and I am truly grateful for their service.

That is why I am committed to doing everything in my power to support our law enforcement officers and to ensure that they have the resources and tools they need to do their jobs effectively. They are the unsung heroes of our communities, and we owe them a debt of gratitude that could never truly be repaid.

Let us work together to ensure that they have the support they need to continue their important work and to keep our neighborhoods safe for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will mention in response to the gentleman from New York's remarks about empty rhetoric, that this resolution says that Congress recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion demonstrated by the men and women of local law enforcement who keep our communities safe and condemns calls to defund, disband, dismantle, or abolish the police.

This is hardly empty rhetoric when we are thanking America's finest for the work that they do to protect us.

I also appreciate the distinction that the gentleman tried to make and the great difference that we have when Democrats across this country called for defunding local police departments, they did so in the face of rising crime.

What was the congressional response to the colleagues in various parts of the country embarrassing Democrat Members in the House?

Of course, they did what Democrats do so well. They threw money at a problem. They tried to cover up the embarrassment of defunding police at a time when rising crime was occurring by throwing money at a problem.

We are now faced with $31.5 trillion of debt because of strategies like that, and we have to recognize that that no longer works.

Yes, there were Republicans who stepped up and voted knowing that the vote might cause some commercials and some other issues about how they don't support police, when the reality is that an overwhelming percentage of police funding comes from local government--as it should.

Finally, the ranking member talks about how there have been efforts with some of my colleagues to hold Federal agencies responsible for their actions to make sure that Federal agencies don't overstep their authority.

At one point in time, the civil libertarians in this country were on that side of the aisle. Now it appears that the ATF, the FBI, and other agencies can overstep their authority and not be held accountable. It is a sad day when we can't come together and agree that this country is stronger and better when we don't allow the Federal Government to spy on our citizens, to interfere with political campaigns, and to otherwise disrupt our normal life outside of their law enforcement functions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I quote my good friend from the State of Washington. ``Law enforcement as a whole has a culture of brutality that you cannot deny if you look at all of these incidents. . . . Most of the protesters are calling for a complete transformation of policing?''

To paraphrase, this reporter writes, Jayapal said that governments should ``shift significant sums of money from police'' and put it in other community-based programs.

I am happy to work with my friend and cosponsor a January 6 resolution of some type thanking the police officers.

Outside the door of my office in the Rayburn Building, there is a ``Thank You, Capitol Police'' sign. There is a flag representing the dedication that police officers have flying outside my door. I absolutely thank the Capitol Police for their hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I do think we need to look at what the FBI, ATF, and some other agencies have done in a fair, responsible, nonpartisan way and address some of those issues. I actually think I probably will work with my friend on this, also.

Some of my colleagues have started that process with an appropriations angle. That is something I will look at. I may support it. I may not. You may probably not. However, we have other ways to deal with Federal law enforcement that have overstepped.

I also agree with my friend that an overwhelming percentage of Federal law enforcement agents are great, hardworking people who protect us from foreign terrorists and all sorts of violence in this country, organized crime, other things that aren't dealt with as well at the local level, and I appreciate what they have done.

The leadership in some of those agencies has gone astray, in my opinion, and that is why we need to take a serious look at them, but I thank my friend for her comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing absolutely clear. There is not a single Republican in the United States House of Representatives, to my knowledge, that does not condemn the violent acts on January 6; period, end of story.

If somebody wants to work on a resolution condemning the violence on January 6, I welcome that and will work with them, but let's not talk about January 6 when we are talking about a bill that is designated and intended to compliment and uplift those who have been the targets of really destructive action in terms of the defund the police movement.

I have heard my good friend from Washington--one of the leaders of the Progressive Caucus here in the House--say that Progressives in the House who we have quoted were not involved in that. That is fine. However, certainly the leftists in this country moved to defund the police. They succeeded.

As a result, we have seen rising crime, we have seen more victims, and nobody on their side--nobody--takes accountability for the fact that there are more murder victims, there are more robbery victims, there are more people getting their cars hijacked, there are more crimes being committed in this country as a result of failed leftist policies.

If you want to talk about January 6, let's work together and thank the Capitol Police. You want to talk about defunding the police, you want to talk about how we need to uplift the police for their great work, then we need to pass this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is highly disingenuous for my colleagues to suggest that because this resolution doesn't thank all sorts of other groups that we can't thank local law enforcement.

This resolution doesn't thank Governors. It doesn't thank Lieutenant Governors. It doesn't thank secretaries of State. It doesn't thank State attorneys general. It doesn't thank the generals and admirals at the Pentagon. It doesn't thank the folks who are working so hard in the cafeteria to provide us with food today. It doesn't thank a lot of people.

It does thank local law enforcement, and for that we should unite. For that, we should come together. For that, we should overcome these ridiculous arguments and pat someone on the back.

Then let's work toward another resolution. Let's make sure we thank those FBI agents who are working in the field, not the ones who planned to dismantle our political system, but the ones who are working in the field to protect us. Let's thank those ATF agents who are arresting convicted felons who are in possession of a firearm. Let's thank them. Let's thank Federal law enforcement. Let's thank the Capitol Police for their great work on January 6.

Don't vote against this resolution thanking local police officers just because it is not broad enough and doesn't include every single category you can think of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my colleague from New York, but I reiterate what this resolution is about and what it says.

Congress recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion demonstrated by the men and women of local law enforcement who keep our communities safe and condemns calls to defund, disband, dismantle, or abolish the police.

It is absolutely correct that this resolution doesn't include everybody and everything. There will be time in this Congress where we can work together to do that. To not pass this resolution, to not vote for this resolution during police week is a slap in the face to local law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all the people who are watching today and all Americans to tune in to the weaponization committee as they listen to witnesses, whistleblowers from Federal agencies, talking about the abuses in those Federal agencies.

It would be inappropriate, until we reach conclusions, until we pass legislation protecting Americans and protecting our political process, for us to take that extra step with Federal law enforcement.

I have said over and over, I absolutely respect the men and women who are on the streets in Federal law enforcement protecting us. It is the leadership that we have issues with at times. That is not in this resolution. This resolution is a unifying resolution, and I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle can join us in thanking local law enforcement.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the 2020 Presidential Elections, Mrs. Tsikhanouskaya has been an inspirational voice and global symbol of the ongoing peaceful struggle for democracy and freedom in the world.

Mrs. Tsikhanouskaya selflessly stepped in to replace her husband, Mr. Siarhei Tsikhanouski, following his illegal arrest during his campaign for the Belarusian presidency.

While initially disregarded by Belarusian Dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, she went on to win the elections, and has since been forced into exile where she continues her peaceful campaign for the restoration of democracy in her country.

She continues to do so under the threat of arrest in Belarus, recently receiving a 15-year prison sentence in absentia from Belarus's autocratic regime.

Following Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, Mrs. Tsikhanouskaya has met with leaders around the world to underline that Belarus's people do not support this conflict and stand in solidarity with their Ukrainian brothers and sisters.

Mrs. Tsikhanouskaya's character is the epitome of `Asking not what her country can do for her, but what she can do for her country. She is not just an inspirational leader in the fight for democracy, but a symbol of global female leadership.

Among dozens of distinctions, she received the Sakharov Prize awarded by the European Parliament, the 2022 International Four Freedoms Award, and the Charlemagne Prize.

In 2021 and 2022, she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda and Members of the Norwegian Parliament respectively.

I welcome her to the United States of America and praise her strength of character and determined campaign to provide her citizens in Belarus the opportunity for a brighter, freer, and democratic future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of heroic American veteran, George Hekowczyk. On February 18th, Mr. Hekowczyk will turn 100 years old. It is my distinct privilege to wish him a happy 100th birthday, especially because it is rare that I find someone older than myself.

Mr. Hekowczyk served in the United States Navy as a Boatswain's Mate Second Class from 1942 through 1946. During his tenure, he served as a deep-sea diver. Mr. Hekowczyk would regularly disable torpedoes on the ocean floor that had failed to detonate. Mr. Hekowczyk's courageous service warrants tremendous praise and recognition; the entire Nation is indebted to him and his generation's commitment to freedom over tyranny.

Our Nation's men and women in uniform are America's greatest assets, and Mr. Hekowczyk's value to this Nation is priceless. That's why, Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege as the United States Representative of the 4th District of Colorado to recognize the

honor, courage, and sacrifice of Boatswain's Mate Second Class George Hekowczyk. I wish him the happiest of birthdays and thank him for his dedication and Service to this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the threats facing conservative speech in this country. When members of government take it upon themselves to declare certain speech illegal or undesirable, they effectively silence opposition. This isn't the American way.

We have seen this kind of censorship in Saudi Arabia, Communist China, and Soviet Russia. We never want to see it in America.

Tonight, we are gathered to call attention to a shocking, coordinated attempt by progressives in business and government to suppress dissent, stifle debate, and threaten free speech.

Last week, one of the largest satellite TV providers, DIRECTV, chose to deplatform Newsmax from their lineup.

Newsmax is the fourth highest-rated cable news channel and is watched by more than 25 million Americans. This decision means that more than 13 million homes will lose access to Newsmax programming.

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, Democratic members of the Energy and Commerce Committee wrote to AT&T and DIRECTV encouraging the censorship of One America News, FOX News, and Newsmax. Two years later, two out of three of those networks are now deplatformed.

One year ago, after pressure from Democrats, AT&T and DIRECTV removed the One America News Network from its programming, and now DIRECTV has removed Newsmax.

The Energy and Commerce Committee has immediate jurisdiction over the business interests of DIRECTV. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why AT&T and DIRECTV felt pressured to comply with committee demands.

Simply put, Democrats in that committee disagreed with the content coming out of One America News Network and Newsmax and decided they wanted them canceled.

This is a clear case of free speech infringement and viewpoint discrimination. Government colluding with telecommunications giants should chill us all.

We are facing a concerted, unabashed effort to shrink the limits of debate by corporations in an unholy alliance with political activists and their government avatars. These companies have become willing prosecutors of dissent.

Woke corporations are actively interposing themselves between Americans and the conversations they need to have. Why? Because they are afraid, afraid that the lessons they learned in progressive universities won't stand up to objective scrutiny; afraid that vigorous debate breeds societies of citizens, not sheep; above all, afraid that if they cannot anoint themselves enlightened arbiters, their ideas will just have to stand on their own merits like the rest of us.

I urge my colleagues across the aisle to rethink their desire to silence opposition. The people who want to silence opponents are people who can't win debates.

I urge American businesses to stiffen their spines and stand up in favor of free speech and open speech.

We acknowledge that we may never know the exact mindset of the decisionmakers who decided to join hand in glove with progressives' drive to silence their opposition, but what we know is more than enough.

Democrats asked, and DIRECTV delivered. Progressives spoke up, and One America News was silenced. Newsmax is now on the chopping block.

Where does that leave us? Under the lengthening shadow of censorship or at the beginning of a new era when freedom fights back.

I know what side I will be on. Which one will you join?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), my colleague from the Tar Heel State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, the Grand Canyon State (Mr. Biggs), America's favorite Arizona podcaster.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, the Palmetto State, one of Biden's many vacation spots (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), the best dentist in Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the Old Dominion State, the State for Lovers (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman who has been described as New Jersey's best dentist.

Now, we are going to Arizona's best dentist.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), a marine mom.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), whose district borders the sweetest place on Earth, Hershey Park.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), my good friend and a Super Bowl champion.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms.

Hageman), my neighbor to the north from the Yellowstone State.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), the best Florida podcaster from the Sunshine State.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Grothman. Mr. Speaker, I am honored that Congressman Buck has asked me to be a speaker this evening as we defend the U.S. Constitution.

Our U.S. Constitution is under attack like never before. I am not talking about the Second Amendment, which, of course, is disliked by so many people on the other side of the aisle. I am not talking about the right to a speedy trial, as we see in Washington, D.C., itself, people spending months and months in jail without ending their ordeal there.

I am talking about the First Amendment. Throughout my life, the First Amendment is almost the amendment that would have been most unanimously agreed to. Nevertheless, in part, I assume, because of the popular culture and in part because of our educational system, we are in a situation in which the Pew Research Center found 76 percent of Democrats support tech companies censoring online.

Even more amazing, 65 percent of the Democrats support censorship by the government. How in the world did such a large, important party in this country it become apparently the accepted view of the First Amendment to be that it is obsolete?

Just last year, the then-chairman of the Intelligence Committee wrote to Meta, the parent company of Facebook, threatening congressional action if Facebook did not continue to censor conservative views and maintain bans on conservative figures, such as the former President. Can you imagine people in this body saying the way we are going to deal with political disagreements in the future is we are just going to censor one side?

That is what is going on here.

Their message is loud and clear: Get in line, or we are going to use the levers of government to silence you. It is a chilling message, reminiscent of the practice of communists in China or Russia or Cuba.

It surprises me what open criticisms of the government you can find in Russia. In China, the Communist Party exercises complete control over the internet, restricting what its citizens can search for. It is hard to believe people in this country want this country to become more like China.

It is not unfounded. You can even bleed into freedom of religion.

In Canada, recent court rulings have held LGBTQ rights trump an individual's right to freedom of religion. Freedom of speech should be a given. Liberal college students when I was in college used to pride themselves on defending free speech.

Look at Canada, censoring views that come from the Bible. In other words, censoring religion in Canada. That is what it is coming down to in our country.

I thank my friend from Colorado for giving me an opportunity to defend the Constitution, and I hope anybody back home listening to this educates their children and grandchildren. We do not have the government censoring free speech.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's passion. I yield to the

gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett), the gentleman from the Butternut State. That is a new one for me.

Mr. Speaker, if the stenographer needs help with dadgummit, we will try to get a spelling for her on that.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert). She is from my home State, and she is a young person who has set this place on fire since she has been here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and wish her safe travels back to our great State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison), who is a hunter, a fisherman, and a great American.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I thank all 18 of our speakers. All 18 felt so strongly that they came here during their evening and dedicated themselves to making sure that a message was heard in America, a message that we will not tolerate censorship in this country and that we will not tolerate the left. Whether it owns a corporation or whether it is colluding with the government, we will not tolerate the unacceptable behavior of taking news shows off just because they reflect a conservative viewpoint.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that many of the speakers today, many of the Members of Congress who spoke, made it absolutely clear that they are going to dedicate time, energy, and staff resources to make sure that we look into this further.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience and the patience of the staff here. I very much appreciate being able to speak directly to the American people.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend from Colorado that we should condemn all violence. We should condemn violence to unborn children, also, but that doesn't seem to be something that is shared on the other side of aisle.

One of the pregnancy centers that was targeted last year was Life Choices Pregnancy Medical Center located in my home State and at the time in my district in Colorado. On June 25 at 3:17 a.m., first responders responded to a fire at the pregnancy center. The fire was the result of angry protestors acting out after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. Not much was salvageable from the fire, but what remained were hateful and extreme messages graffitied on the exterior of the building.

Kathy Roberts, the executive director of Life Choices, is here today to commemorate passage of this resolution. I am honored to have Kathy here and to introduce this brave and dedicated woman.

I thank Kathy for being here.

Sadly, our Nation has become all too familiar with the violent attacks on pro-life centers. In 2022, over 100 pro-life centers were violently attacked, and there has been minimal accountability. Instead of Democrats accepting the Supreme Court Dobbs decision and condemning this violence, they have egged it on, including some who told pro- abortion protestors to rise up and commended their violence by stating it was a way for individuals to channel their righteous anger into meaningful action.

Our Nation is a Nation of law and order, and violence is never the path we should pursue to create effective change.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this bill is very simple. It removes a muzzle from employees if they have been raped or harassed in the workplace.

By allowing women to expose predators in the workplace, this legislation further protects future victims. It also puts employers on notice that they must be more careful in performing due diligence and doing background checks on applicants.

Finally, this bill is limited to cases of rape and sexual harassment. This bill doesn't stop a worker from waiving their constitutional right to free speech in any other circumstance.

If you have trade secrets, you may be subjected to a nondisclosure agreement. If you object to the management practices of your employer, you may be subjected to a nondisclosure agreement. If you are raped, you may not be muzzled.

This legislation gives us a choice. We can protect rapists, predators, and perverts in the workplace, or we can give voice to victims, survivors, and the most vulnerable among us. We can assure Americans that our employers will only hire those employees who respect others in the workplace.

This bill received unanimous support in the Senate and has bipartisan support in the House. The reason is simple: We all had mothers who faced antiquated attitudes in the workplace. We don't want our daughters and our granddaughters to face those same attitudes.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this commonsense legislation. I very much appreciate the Speaker and Representative Frankel's leadership on this issue, and I hope that Republicans step up and do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to use my time to quote other conservative voices.

The Heritage Foundation just issued a report:

This package equips the American people's Representatives with targeted, commonsense tools to constrain Big Tech companies' abuse of power. These bills represent an important step towards restoring self- governance, shoring up our national security, and enforcing current antitrust laws to promote competitiveness without expanding or unduly empowering the Federal bureaucracy.

Senators Lee, Grassley, and Cotton issued a statement on September 26: `` . . . these bills improve antitrust enforcement without appropriating any more funds to President Biden's out-of-control FTC. We call on all of our colleagues in the House of Representatives to strongly support this package.''

The American Mind on September 28 issued a story, ``While GOP views on antitrust have evolved, one thing has remained constant: `antitrust enforcement is law enforcement.' You can't provide `legal amnesty' to Big Tech companies that flout antitrust laws. Defunding the antitrust police will have the same result as defunding the municipal police: enabling bad actors to harm the public.''

Finally, The American Conservative on September 29, I guess today, issued this story, ``While Buck is pushing restrained, politically viable legislation that would strengthen the average American's position in the cultural battle against Silicon Valley, some of his colleagues seem to be sticking to an overcooked theory derived from a notion of corporate personhood.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following articles:

``Heritage Tech Policy Experts Applaud House Antitrust Package'';

``Republican Senators Urge House Republicans to Support Antitrust Reform Package'';

The American Conservative: ``Tech Hawks Meet Resistance to a `Modest Proposal''';

The American Mind: ``Don't Defund the (Antitrust) Police''.

[From the Heritage Foundation, Sept. 29, 2022]

Heritage Tech Policy Experts Applaud House Antitrust Package

Washington.--This week, the House of Representatives is

expected to vote on a package of three antitrust bills that

would begin the important work of reining in Big Tech: the

State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, Merger Filing Fee

Modernization Act, and Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act.

Experts from Heritage's Tech Policy Center--Kara Frederick,

director of the center; Will Thibeau, policy analyst; and

Jake Denton, research associate--released the following

statement ahead of the scheduled vote:

Heritage Tech Policy Experts Applaud House Antitrust

Package I The Heritage Foundation

``Big Tech companies should not have outsized authority to

shape and control society. However, we have all watched these

companies take an increasingly troubling share of control

over our politics and culture in recent years. Conservatives

should champion targeted, commonsense policies that constrain

Big Tech companies' abuse of power. This package equips the

American people's representatives with tools to do so. These

bills represent an important step toward restoring self-

governance, shoring up our national security, and enforcing

current antitrust laws to promote competitiveness--without

expanding or unduly empowering the federal bureaucracy.

``From providing state attorneys general with a more level

playing field in critical litigation against Big Tech to

exposing Big Tech's cozy relationship with U.S. adversaries

like the Chinese Communist Party, this package is a requisite

starting point to rebalance the relationship between American

citizens and the Big Tech companies that abuse them.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the arguments against this Big Tech bill by my Republican colleagues.

My Republican friends ask why would we give President Biden a win within 41 days before an election?

Let me be clear. This is not a Democrat bill, and this is not a Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, holding Big Tech accountable is an American bill. It is American legislation. We are United States Congressmen. We are serving in the United States Congress. We serve United States citizens. It is never the wrong time to do the right thing.

My friends say this Big Tech bill doesn't prevent discrimination and censorship. Competition is the solution for viewpoint censorship. MSNBC may not support my views, but Newsmax and FOX will listen to me.

The New York Times and The Washington Post may disagree with me, but The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times will hear me out.

Google controls 94 percent of online searches, and when it changes its algorithm to discriminate against one side, there is no alternative. The same goes for Facebook, Amazon, and Apple.

The real threat is that when a monopoly controls information in a democracy, it controls the results of elections. That is the threat that Big Tech poses to America. I am afraid that America may not be able to withstand that threat.

Finally, my friends ask, Why give money to the Biden FTC and DOJ?

America is about to give Republicans control of the oversight and appropriations process. Americans expect us to use those levers of power responsibly and effectively. It is not too much to ask for Congress to walk and chew gum at the same time? We can create competition for Big Tech and level the playing field and at the same time make sure our government treats everyone in this country fairly.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Big Tech is crushing competition and crushing conservative speech. H.R. 3843 contains three important measures that will help America with Big Tech.

The first gives State attorneys general the ability to file their lawsuits and keep those lawsuits in their States. The 48 State attorneys general have asked Congress to move this bill forward. It received broad bipartisan support in the Committee on the Judiciary.

The second is a bill that Senator Hawley and our colleague, Congressman Fitzgerald, have supported. It basically prohibits China from buying small high-tech companies so that they can steal our innovation.

The third bill that is combined with H.R. 3843 raises filing fees. Make no mistake, there are controls on these filing fees. They have to be appropriated for the FTC by the Appropriations Committee. That is a control. The Appropriations Committee, I hope, will be under Republican control in the next Congress, and it will be controlled so that nobody in the FTC is using these funds in an inappropriate way, other than reviewing the mergers at issue.

Mr. Speaker, my friend Senator Cruz has said it absolutely correctly: The greatest threat to democracy in this country is Big Tech.

Senator Lee, Senator Cotton, and Senator Grassley support the House version of this bill because it is a conservative bill, a bipartisan bill, and a bill that will help America deal with Big Tech. I hope my colleagues will support H.R. 3843.