Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, Mary Cordelia Beasley Hudson, affectionately known as Aunt Cord, was the very first woman to ever vote in the state of Tennessee. Legend has it that Aunt Cord got up extra early on April 22, 1919, 100 years ago now, to be the first in line to cast her ballot at the courthouse in the city of Camden. She hurried down the half mile from her home through town along what is now South Forrest Avenue to Court Square to wait for the courthouse to open. She must have been excited. Just days before, the Tennessee legislature had passed a measure making it legal for women to vote. We remember Aunt Cord as a participant in a suffragette movement that forever changed our beloved United States. Just over one year later, Congress and the states ratified the 19th Amendment in August 1920, bringing us one step further toward realizing our Founding principle that all are created equal. I am proud to honor Aunt Cord and reflect on Tennessee's history today.

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, a commonsense bill to protect the smallest and most vulnerable among us, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, if this unanimous consent request can't be entertained, I urge the Speaker and the majority leader to immediately schedule the Born-Alive bill.

I would ask that the----

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of America's indispensable ally, Israel. Israel is the brightest beacon of hope and freedom in the Middle East.

I proudly attended AIPAC's policy conference this week. Their mission is more important than ever.

Anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment is rampant across the world and, sadly, is found even in this Chamber. I am appalled one of my colleagues is so brazen as to resurrect old lies of Jewish conspiracies, propaganda used to oppress the Jewish people for centuries.

Elsewhere, Iran's puppet, Assad, seeks to take Israel's land for strategic leverage in Iran's mission to wipe Israel off the map.

I am proud to stand with President Trump in defense of our ally, Israel. I am grateful he chose to recognize the Golan Heights as a part of Israel and proud we now officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Mr. Speaker, in 1781, General George Washington called the fortifications at West Point the most important post in America. Holding West Point meant preventing the British from dividing the Nation along the Hudson River Valley.

Following the war, President Washington made numerous efforts to create a military academy. His actual first effort was within a year of becoming the Commander in Chief. However, it fell to Thomas Jefferson to get it done and, in 1802, the United States Military Academy at West Point was founded as the Nation's school to teach the art and science of warfare.

Since its inception, West Point graduates have served to preserve our Nation's freedom in battle. From the Mexican wars to the war on terror, West Point graduates have sacrificed their lives and their youth to win our Nation's wars.

Off the battlefield, West Point graduates have served at the very highest levels of the U.S. military as legislators, Cabinet secretaries, Governors, Presidents, and CEOs leading the development of our Nation's infrastructure and the establishment of the world's greatest economy.

For young people who choose West Point over a traditional education, it is truly a different path.

From the moment you start in Beast Barracks, a cadet lives by the code of conduct of the military officer, recognizing that their life becomes second to the safety of Americans.

Almost 100 West Point graduates have given their lives in this most recent war. It is that commitment to the Nation made at such a young age that makes the place so special.

What sets West Point as an institution apart is just about everything that happens there: the grueling academics; the compulsory participation in sports; the military drill; the military training; and perhaps most noteworthy, the leadership and character development. West Point even uses our math classes to teach cadets how to present themselves and to hone their military bearing.

But for me, what took my experience at West Point to the next level were the men and women who made up my class, the class of 1986.

Our motto is ``Courage Never Quits, '86.''

We came to West Point from all over the country, men and women from every State, nearly every religion,

every ethnic origin; and we came together as one team fighting to get through the Academy's rigorous education. Almost one-third who started our class left before graduating.

Over the years, we celebrated together, served in the Army together. Many left the military to serve elsewhere in government and business. But each of us has tried to live by that motto, ``Courage Never Quits,'' and boy, have we.

Our class has produced 18 general officers: four 3-star generals; we have no 4-stars yet because we haven't been out of the Academy long enough; in addition, we have nine 2-stars and six 1-star generals.

Our class produced a Secretary of State, a Secretary of the Army. Two of us have served in Congress, one of whom went on to be the Director of the CIA and, of course, Secretary of State.

We have had at least two State legislators. Three judges come from our ranks, as well as at least four deans and chancellors of universities.

We have served at senior levels throughout the government, from the Department of State to the FBI, to the leadership of the Defense Logistics Agency, to consultants to Presidents of the United States.

Twenty-two-plus members of my class are presidents and CEOs of major corporations, from 7-Eleven to Mercedes-Benz USA.

And, yes, we, too, have had those in our ranks make the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. Be thou at peace.

More than anything, more than just the amazing location on the Hudson River, more than the unparalleled history of the place, more than the grueling academics, more than its unbelievable place in our Nation's great story, what pushes me to serve is the knowledge of what my peers have accomplished. Their hard work reminds me to never stop reading, learning, growing, and serving. They are my motivation, and they are why I will never quit.

Rangers Lead The Way.

Night Stalkers Don't Quit.

Courage Never Quits, '86.

Go Army. Beat Navy.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1, ironically titled the For the People Act. A more accurate name would be the ``For the Politicians Act.''

This bill would, essentially, ban the interstate crosscheck system which 27 States, including Tennessee, use to prevent voter fraud by ensuring voters are not registered in multiple States.

Is that for the people or for the politicians?

Another provision would mandate that States use unaccountable, unelected commissions to draw their districts, further isolating Americans from their elected officials.

Is that for the people or for the politicians?

Still, another section would create a 6-to-1 taxpayer-funded match for political donations, giving politicians a massive boost for their campaign coffers from taxpayer dollars.

Is that for the people or for the politicians?

H.R. 1 is not for the people; it is for the politicians. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just want to share a thought on this.

It is interesting that recently we just raised the alcohol purchasing age to 21. We don't allow a 16-year-old to buy a beer, and the decisionmaking is because of their ability to reason at that age. That is why we moved their ability to buy a simple beer to age 21. And now the other side wants to grant a 16-year-old the ability to decide the future of the country. I think this is foolish.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to offer my amendment expressing the sense of Congress that free speech should be protected.

H.R. 1 is a misguided bill with many problems. One problem, in particular, has united everyone from the Heritage Foundation to the ACLU. It is the bill's assault on free speech.

The ACLU itself says H.R. 1 will ``chill speech essential to our public discourse.'' When the ACLU admonishes a Democrat bill, everyone should take notice.

My amendment is simple. It reaffirms the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment, after all, guarantees the most fundamental right of our Democratic society: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.''

Our Founding Fathers knew that in order for the American experiment to work, the people must be free: free to participate in the democratic process, free to vote in elections, free to help candidates and causes they believe in, and free to speak up when their elected officials are no longer representing them.

The freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment has helped make America the most exceptional country in the history of the world. Unfortunately, H.R. 1 tramples on that very freedom.

Madam Chair, I offer this amendment to express the sense of Congress that the freedom of speech must be preserved and protected because, without it, the American experiment won't ever be the same again.

A vote against this amendment is a vote against free speech. If you don't believe me, ask the ACLU.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I just want to make a few specific comments in regard to the amendment and how it impacts H.R. 1 in general.

First, there are no special interest protections in this amendment, none whatsoever. I remind my colleagues of what the ACLU actually said about H.R. 1. It places a chill on ``speech essential to our public discourse.''

Further, I would like to stress that the Court has long affirmed the rights of individuals and organizations to have free speech.

With those comments and clarifications, Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I would just like to read that point five. This is what it actually says: ``Political speech, including the financial contributions to political or issue advocacy campaigns, is a vital part of our Nation's free exchange of ideas and avenues of free expression must be preserved and protected.''

That is all it says, let the American people decide. That is essentially what it says, that free speech should be protected.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, again, as I look at that point five, or paragraph five, supporting the free exchange of ideas and avenues of free expression, I struggle to see where disclosure issues are raised in that paragraph.

But as my colleagues, I have no one else to comment on the bill. I am ready to have the amendment considered, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the first responders who have been working around the clock tirelessly since the recent flooding in Tennessee.

Last week, I visited a few counties to see the damage and hear from the local officials firsthand. The damage to our infrastructure, homes, and businesses

was substantial. The flooding stranded many Tennesseans, who had to be rescued by boat.

It breaks the heart to see so many lose everything they own.

First responders and local leaders are out every day and have been since the flooding started. In many communities, mayors--in fact, in one community, Mayor Carroll was out in a boat delivering food and water to residents of Perry County.

We are working hard to help these Tennesseans return to normalcy, and I hope you will join me in keeping everyone affected by the floods in your prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask one question today: What happened to the Democrat party?

Democrats, up until just recently, were a lot closer to the middle. Take John F. Kennedy, for example, who argued in favor of supply-side economics and fought for tax cuts and personal responsibility.

Bill Clinton and Dianne Feinstein are recorded decrying rampant illegal immigration. Bill Clinton described Democrat policies on abortion as safe, legal, and rare. Even as recent as last decade, Barack Obama attacked companies for hiring illegal aliens.

But something new is emerging from their ranks. Dangerous extremist ideas are becoming the new normal on the left side of the aisle.

Let's begin with infanticide. Are Democrats truly accepting killing babies outside the womb now?

A Democrat head of State, last month, casually defended it on a radio station broadcasting in the Nation's Capital. He explained to listeners that an infant already delivered would be kept comfortable while a mother and a doctor discussed letting the child die.

When pressed for clarification, he explained that the scenario he envisioned involved a baby with deformities. Assuming he meant something like Down syndrome or something similar, this is an outrageous claim. If you go and ask people with Down syndrome, they think their life is worth living, and I couldn't agree more.

If all of that is not sitting well with you right now, well, we are just getting started, or I should say, they are just getting started.

How about the newly unveiled Green New Deal? This massive overhaul of the entire U.S. economy was reportedly drafted over a single weekend by a bunch of staffers and environmental activists. The visionaries behind this massive bill are hoping to eliminate air travel, gut and rebuild every building in America, eliminate 99 percent of cars, eliminate nuclear energy, and ban affordable energies like natural gas.

One of the authors of the Green New Deal laments that we aren't sure we will be able to fully get rid of flatulating cows fast enough to get down to zero carbon emissions. Of course, that has been pulled off their website, following the appropriate national response.

But don't worry, the authors tell us, if passed into law, the government will guarantee each and every one of us a high-paying job, free education for life, a house, free money, and healthy food for all Americans.

How about the various proposals to get free healthcare for everyone? The most popular one of these, Medicare for All, was introduced by a self-described socialist and has received enthusiastic endorsement of 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates. Cautious estimates of the cost of Sanders' plan start at around $32.6 trillion over the next 10 years.

Even if we implement the most aggressive tax plan to seize and redistribute wealth, the hard-earned work of some Americans, we only raise $720 billion over 10 years, or 2 percent of what Medicare for All will cost.

Keep in mind, our revenue for the entire United States over that same period will only be approximately $40 trillion, unless, of course, this bill passed and we tailspin toward a second Great Depression.

Democrats have abandoned all reason in the immigration debate as well. We are witnessing Democrat officials offering homes, voting rights, welfare, and taxpayer-funded education to anyone and everyone who is able to sneak into the interior of the United States. It has been estimated that each illegal border-crosser is a net fiscal burden of $74,722 to the United States, and that is before all the goodies I mentioned previously are added.

Moreover, we have one primary agency in charge of identifying and apprehending illegal aliens who go on to commit other crimes, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Democratic officials are demanding we eliminate them. Instead, they tell us to give everyone amnesty, something estimated to cost taxpayers another $2 trillion.

With all the free programs available to illegal aliens in the United States, it is no wonder they are flooding over the southern border. According to the White House, 400,000 migrants were apprehended attempting to illegally enter the United States in FY18 alone.

Along the way, reports from nonpartisan organizations state that one in three women are sexually assaulted on the trip north. They also have to pass through something called the route of death. Do we really want to incentivize people to make this trek?

A wall and a crackdown on illegal immigration would surely disincentivize migrants and save lives.

Madam Speaker, like many Americans, chills ran through my spine when I heard Governor Northam casually endorse killing a baby after it was born. It has been over a week since those comments, and I ask, Why are our Democrat colleagues still silent?

Killing a baby, once born, is infanticide, pure and simple.

It is 2019, and we live in the most advanced country in the world. Surely, every Member of this body can agree that, at the very least, babies, once born, should be protected.

That is why I come to the floor today to urge Speaker Pelosi to allow a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill that would require medical care for infants born alive during an abortion procedure.

I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join us to end infanticide.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to stand in support of the most defenseless among us, unborn children.

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, we have seen more than 60 million fellow human beings lose their lives. This is the greatest human rights violation, largest humanitarian crisis, and gravest assault on inalienable rights of our time. We will not sit by and watch this happen.

As a doctor and a soldier, I have spent my whole life fighting to save lives, to protect the innocent. I work now to see the end to this assault on life.

Part of that starts with ending funding to Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion provider, which performs more than 320,000 abortions every single year. This is more than one out of every three abortions.

Abortion must end, because America stands on the equal worth of every human being.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Missouri for putting this Special Order together highlighting the need for border security and, most importantly, to put our American citizens first.

We could spend our time debating what a physical barrier should consist of, but let's make one thing clear: whether it is in the form of a wall or a fence or some barrier combined with 21st century surveillance technology and increased Border Patrol agents, a barrier is an effective defense against entry by criminals, gang members, drug smugglers, and, yes, even terrorists.

My colleagues across the aisle are now arguing that physical barriers are ineffective. Some have even said that they are immoral. Now, this is not the position they held in the recent past. President Trump has asked for $5.7 billion to help secure the border. Under President Obama, Democrats were willing to spend $40 billion for border security.

What has changed?

Is it possible the only difference is the occupant in the White House?

Some argue that border security is not necessary because too few known or suspected terrorists have been captured on the southern border. They say that only eight have been captured. I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that one terrorist gaining entry into this country is too many. I would like to point out that there were only 19 terrorists who carried out the attacks on 9/11--just 19. The fact that we know ISIS is encouraging their followers to try to enter the United States across our porous southern border should itself warrant better scrutiny.

This leads me to direct some questions to my colleagues and friends across the aisle.

Is it worth the risk?

Is it worth the possibility that one or two or a dozen or 19 terrorists could cross our southern border and carry out an attack that kills innocent American men and women?

I would pay $5.7 billion to stop the next 9/11.

Terrorism is not the only threat to our national security. In 2017, an estimated 72,000 Americans died from drug overdoses with the biggest increase in drug overdose deaths being attributed to fentanyl and heroin. It has been reported that roughly 85 percent of the fentanyl and 90 percent of the heroin is coming across our southern border.

Does that death toll not warrant putting aside the issues with our President long enough on this national crisis to fund additional barriers and to fund additional and better drug detection technology and surveillance technology to try to stop the flow of these deadly drugs across our southern border?

Would it be worth it if we saved 1,000 lives? 100? A dozen?

What number would justify putting differences aside and joining this effort?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for this opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a public servant and great American, the late Mr. Bill Horner of Pocahontas, Tennessee. President Ronald Reagan once said, ``Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in this world. Marines don't have that problem.''

Mr. Horner retired as a Major in the United States Marine Corps after serving our country and making a difference for twenty-two years as a Marine pilot. He then helped spread the Gospel message for sixteen years by flying from churches in Alabama and Tennessee to many places in South America. And as one of his greatest accomplishments, he maintained a loving marriage with his wife Mrs. Emilie Horner for 46 years. She, his children Teresa and Chip, grandchildren Donald and Judith, and his eight great-grandchildren survive him.

We know that he made a difference to their lives and to our country in the honorable 82 years that he lived.