Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the legislation that we are scheduled to consider on the floor tomorrow, the so-called American Rescue Plan.

The sad truth, Madam Speaker, is that this bill does very little to address the real issues impacting communities across the country. Instead, the majority has elected to weaponize the reconciliation process to push through a Democrat wish-list of what are, frankly, left-wing policies.

Only 9 percent of this bill actually goes to combating COVID. But Democrats have found the wisdom to insert $510 billion to bail out poorly run blue States; $470 billion-plus for a policy that we know will kill jobs; a $100 million earmark for a rail project in the Speaker's district; a $1.5 million earmark for a bridge to Canada for the Senate majority leader. All the while, there is still $1 trillion in unspent funds from previous COVID packages.

Madam Speaker, these are just a few of the many deep flaws in the Democrat COVID bill, and I am grateful so many of my colleagues are coming forward to help highlight the shortcomings of this bill, and how we should move forward to best serve the American people.

I urge everyone to oppose this monstrosity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, which many have already labeled the inequality act because of the deep flaws contained in this bill.

H.R. 5 will undermine women's rights. It will strip parental rights. It will gut religious freedom, and it will open a Pandora's box of a universal right to abortion. And that is just to name a few of the legislation's outrageous provisions.

In addition to the well-founded, substantive concerns that you will hear a lot about in the next 45 minutes, the majority has decided to throw process out the window. They brought this bill directly to the floor.

We sit on the Judiciary Committee. We should have had a robust discussion on the impacts of the legislation. We didn't. There has been no committee action. There has been no hearing, no deliberation at all by the committee of appropriate jurisdiction. And I think, many of us think, that the reason for that is because the proponents didn't want the bill to be exposed.

Listen, let's make one thing clear. There are people on both sides of the aisle--all of us, everybody in this Chamber believes that all people are entitled to dignity and respect.

We believe that every single person is made in the image of God and, because of that, every single person has inestimable dignity and value. We believe, as our founding document said, that God is the one that endows us with the inalienable rights that we have. They ought to be protected and respected.

But unfortunately, the Democrats' misguided effort here tramples all over many of those fundamental rights that God gives us, the right to life, the right to religious freedom.

While it is true that H.R. 5 does not include the word ``abortion''-- our colleagues keep reminding us of that--it does reference pregnancy and ``related medical conditions'' as areas of protection against discrimination. Everybody knows that this historically has led to the inclusion of abortion. We are opening a door here for the rampant taxpayer funding of abortions on demand; in addition to the myriad number of conscience protections that exist for businesses and medical professionals. You will hear a lot about that today as well.

It is telling that the text of the bill also directly undermines the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Let's remember, RFRA was widely supported on both sides of the aisle and signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. RFRA's lead Democrat sponsor was our colleague, Representative Nadler. It passed the House by unanimous consent and the Senate by a vote of 97-3.

But now, the Equality Act, or the inequality act, explicitly undercuts RFRA by negating its application to the underlying legislation. In other words, those protections won't apply anymore.

This is unprecedented. It is dangerous. It is an attack on our first freedom, the first freedom listed in the Bill of Rights, religious liberty. This is something that our faith communities are deeply concerned about and all of us are as individuals.

Look, I have to save time for my colleagues, and I will just conclude by saying this bill is a severe blow to women's rights, to people of faith, to every parent, every student, every medical professional and so many more. Because we believe in the dignity and value of every person, we have to oppose this dangerous, un-American legislation. I pray that we will.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, our Special Order tonight is to honor a dear friend, one who would have been a colleague of ours here, and a great tragedy.

Congressman-elect Luke Joshua Letlow, from Start, Louisiana, passed away from complications due to COVID-19 on December 29, 2020. He had just been elected to Congress December 5, and he was only, as we know, weeks away from taking the oath of office and serving here with us.

He was 41 years old. He was in the prime of his life and, so far as any of us could tell, otherwise the picture of health and energy and excitement and positivity. He was excited to serve with us here. His death came as a terrible shock to all the people of Louisiana and to millions of people around this country.

Luke was known in Louisiana for having a servant's heart. He had a peaceful nature about him. When he talked to a constituent, or a friend, or anyone, he made them feel they were the most important person in the world. He was one of those guys who was a great statesman, and he would have left a big mark here.

I have also been encouraged since his passing to know that my friend was guided by his faith in Christ. A good friend of ours told me shortly after his passing that Luke was drawn even closer to the Lord in his final days. In fact, he called this trusted prayer warrior to share briefly about an experience he had just a few nights before he passed away.

He was in the hospital, and Luke said he felt the certain presence of God and his peace. Luke Letlow knew the truth of Christ and the peace of his salvation, and we all have taken great comfort in that.

Luke leaves behind his devoted wife, Julia, and their two young children, Jeremiah and Jacqueline. He leaves his parents, Johnny and Dianne Letlow; his grandmother, Mary Taylor; his brothers, Paul and Matt, and their families; and a huge network of people who were like family to Luke and loved him as their own.

He was raised in Start, Louisiana, just east of Monroe. For the people who don't know the geography, it is northeast Louisiana. Throughout his entire adult life, it was very clear how deeply he cared about the people of our State and those who live in the Fifth Congressional District, which is a sprawling 24 parishes, the largest by land area in our State.

He worked for Bobby Jindal during Jindal's stint here in the U.S. House, and also later when Bobby was elected Louisiana's Governor.

Luke also worked as chief of staff for his predecessor and our good friend, Dr. Ralph Abraham, who just retired and left the seat open.

Throughout Luke's time in each of those positions, he made it a priority to work every day to benefit those that he served. He wanted to make life better for the people of his home State and, in those efforts, he worked closely with our farmers and the oil and gas industry and countless small businesses to ensure they were given every opportunity to succeed.

Judging from his accomplishments and a remarkable record of public service, there is no doubt at all that he would have made an outstanding Member of Congress.

Many people are aware now that there will be a special election in March, March 20, to fill that seat that he has left open, and we are delighted to tell you that his beloved bride, his widow, Dr. Julia Barnhill Letlow, will be running for that seat, and we expect that she will be taking her place here shortly thereafter.

She is a native of Monroe, a dedicated mother, of course, and an education professional who has dedicated her life to promote and advocate for higher education, traditional family values, and our quality of life in Louisiana. We are excited to soon welcome her here to fill the giant void that our dear friend and brother, Luke, has left us.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), another member of our delegation.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for his remarks. We sat together at the funeral of Luke, and it was a great service. There were so many kind words said about him. And he is remembered to just be the great spirit and the great Louisiana homegrown talent that he was.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), who is also the freshman class president, the class that Luke of course would have been a part of.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership of the freshman class and for those kind remarks.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), another leader from that class.

Madam Speaker, we have a few others from the class that Luke Letlow would have been proud to serve in, some of the rising leaders here. I will call on them in no particular order here, but I yield to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon), if he is ready.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), another classmate of Luke's.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Kat Cammack, another bright light in this class and my friend.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to introduce another member of the Louisiana delegation for remarks in our Special Order tonight. We are going in, it seems to be, reverse order by seniority, but I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my friend. He knew Luke very well, and I know he will bring some good thoughts to us tonight.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, Garret Graves of Louisiana, for those poignant words. The funeral service was like that, with recollections from close friends. We could have sat there all afternoon and reveled in it.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the whip, my dear friend, and one of the guys who helped guide Luke on his path to get here.

Madam Speaker, I thank the whip for those great remarks and his great leadership, and I know Luke appreciated that as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for her words. That was very appropriate. I was going to cite the same scripture.

I will just say this as we close tonight: The night we got word of Luke's passing was December 29, and that word, the phone call we got shook my whole family, as it did everybody in the State.

As we were putting our children to bed at night, I reminded my youngest son, my 10-year-old son, that while grieving is part of our human experience, the Lord mourns with us. We know that from Isaiah 53:4. And as Lauren just said, He always remains close to the brokenhearted. Psalm 34.

So many are mourning this loss and so many remain brokenhearted. But I will close with these words from the Apostle Paul, as he wrote to the church in Rome, Romans 8:38-39: ``For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present or the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.''

Luke believed that and he lived it, and he would want us to remember it, too.

Madam Speaker, this concludes our Special Order tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.

Madam Speaker, we have a solemn responsibility today. We must vote to sustain objections to slates of electors submitted by States that we genuinely believe clearly violated the Constitution in the Presidential election of 2020.

This is the threshold legal question before us, and it is an issue before us for the State of Arizona. We have to repeat this for emphasis because a lot of people seem to be confused.

Because judges and not the State legislature changed the rules of the election, Arizona clearly violated the plain language of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution in its selection of Presidential electors.

The Framers of our Constitution recognized that elections were susceptible to corruption. We all know that. So, how did they fix it? How did they provide for that? They created the electoral college as a safeguard, and they expressly empowered State legislatures to ensure the integrity of our unique election system.

Only the State legislatures, because they are a full body of representatives and not rogue officials, were given the authority to direct the manner of appointing Presidential electors because it was so important.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged this over and over. They previously affirmed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: ``The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several States.'' That authority can never be taken away or abdicated.

The Arizona Legislature did enact detailed rules and procedures that the State was supposed to follow to choose its electors. But in the months preceding the 2020 election, as we have heard--and by the way, a thousand pages of evidence have just been submitted on the facts on this--those well-established rules and procedures were deliberately changed.

They weren't changed by the legislature, friends. They were changed by judges. And those actions taken by the judiciary were not limited to mere interpretations of existing law. No, they were substantive, wholesale changes to those statutes.

Madam Speaker, that is a usurpation of the authority that the legislature had. That usurpation was repeated across the country this year. It is the primary reason--it is one of the reasons why the election of 2020 became riddled with an unprecedented number of serious allegations of fraud and irregularities all over the country.

National polls, it has been said, indicate that a huge percentage of Americans now have serious doubts about not just the outcome of this Presidential contest but also the future reliability of our election system itself.

Since we are convinced that the election laws in Arizona and some other key States were changed in this unconstitutional manner, we have a responsibility today. The slates of electors produced under those modified laws are thus unconstitutional. They are not ``regularly given'' or ``lawfully certified,'' as required by the Electoral Count Act, and they are invalid on their face. That is just the conclusion that you have to reach.

Madam Speaker, given these inescapable facts, we believe we have no choice today but to vote to sustain objections to those slates of electors.

Mr. Raskin and others today have cited the 12th Amendment, and they cite Article II, Section 1, Clause 3--remember that, Clause 3. And they have asserted that Congress has only one narrow role today; we are just supposed to count the electoral votes that have been submitted. But those advocates have overlooked a critical first principle.

Their assertion is only true so long as Congress first is convinced that the electoral votes were not produced by a process that violated the Constitution is there. We have to get through Clause 2 of Article II, Section 1, before we get to Clause 3 is the point.

Look, in our unique system, Congress is positioned as the last bulwark in a Presidential election to ensure the Constitution has been followed. Indeed, just two decades ago, the Supreme Court spoke to this. They plainly acknowledged this important deliberative role of Congress. It was the famous Bush v. Gore litigation that everybody remembers from 2000.

In a per curiam opinion--meaning all nine Justices, that it was unanimous--they noted strict adherence to the provisions of the Electoral Count Act may create ``a `safe harbor' for a State insofar as congressional consideration of its electoral votes is concerned.''

However, unanimously, the Court said since title 3, section 5 contains a principle of Federal law that would assure finality of the State's determination if they followed all the proscriptions there, if the will of the legislature is attempted to be changed by a State court, that is a problem. That, they said, Congress might deem to be a change in the law.

That is precisely why we are here right now. Go read Bush v. Gore, and you will see this.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas joined in a concurring opinion 8 days later, and they reiterated this point.

A significant departure from the legislature's scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a Federal question. It is a big problem for us, and it is one we cannot get around. That is why we are here.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to look at the facts, to follow the law, and to follow our congressional oath. We are supposed to support and defend the Constitution. That is what we do here today. I urge everyone to do the right thing.

Madam Speaker, it is my great privilege to introduce my friend and Louisiana native, Reverend Asriel G. McLain, as our guest chaplain to lead the opening prayer today.

Reverend McLain has held leadership positions in numerous churches throughout the United States, including Louisiana, Michigan, and Texas. He has written over a dozen books and frequently gives lectures on equipping Christian education leaders for effective ministry and discipleship.

Reverend McLain received his bachelor of arts from Bishop College in Dallas, Texas, and his master of divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, New Jersey. He is the proud father of four children: David, Joseph, Desiree, and Danielle. Some of the family is here today. He is also a lifelong member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity.

In addition to his work behind the pulpit and inside the classroom, Reverend McLain followed in his father's footsteps, becoming a leading voice on advancing the cause of justice and equality for all Americans. Having witnessed and endured the hardships of racism personally, Reverend McLain has devoted much of his life to ensuring that future generations can enjoy equality in all aspects of life.

It is a great honor to ask God's blessings over us, and I ask my colleagues to help me in welcoming my dear friend, Reverend Asriel McLain.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Elsie Waites, who passed away on May 28, 2019.

Mrs. Waites was a native Louisianan from Gloster and was born on May 9, 1920. Throughout her life, she was always known as someone who loved and cared for those around her.

Of her many accomplishments, Mrs. Waites was an avid volunteer in her local community, helping young children achieve their dreams. She also took it upon herself to organize a local quartet group, where she sang for several years traveling throughout the State.

While Mrs. Waites lived an extraordinary life dedicated and devoted to service and compassion, her first priority was always her family. She was a loving mother and grandmother to 8 children, 21 grandchildren, 44 great-grandchildren, and 8 great-great-grandchildren.

One of Mrs. Waites' children, Mrs. Barbara Norton, is my good friend and former colleague in the Louisiana House of Representatives.

I wish to extend my sincere and deepest sympathies to all of the family and friends whose lives were blessed by Mrs. Waites. I pray that God's grace gives them comfort during this time, and that they are able to reflect on all the joyful memories that she provided.

Proverbs 31 reminds us that:

A woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. Honor her for

all that her hands have done . . . Her children arise and

call her blessed.

Madam Speaker, I ask that we do the right thing here. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today to solve this crisis.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my two amendments that were made part of the en bloc that we are debating.

My first amendment reflects congressional intent for the Army to prioritize necessary funding for its combat development centers. These centers throughout the United States play a critical role in ensuring a capable and ready ground force.

Take, for example, Fort Polk, which is home to the Joint Readiness Training Center, JRTC, located in Louisiana's Fourth Congressional District near my home. Fort Polk JRTC provides invaluable training to prepare for the unique situations and challenges a unit may face while being deployed.

As we continue to grow our ground forces, investing in the necessary infrastructure to replace the existing facilities at Fort Polk, such as the Joint Operations Center, we remember, is paramount. This much- needed upgrade would allow our troops better training and ensure full readiness for when our men and women in uniform are called upon to defend freedom around the world.

My second amendment ensures congressional intent that the Air Force continues to maintain its revised plan for construction and upgrades to the Weapons Generation Facility enterprise. Ensuring these critical upgrades to those facilities is critical to the national security interests of the U.S., especially given the recent aggressive actions from our adversary. Deterrence is a requisite to maintaining peace, and if Congress is going to be serious about preserving our nuclear infrastructure, these upgrades must be prioritized.

My home State of Louisiana has invested millions of dollars to pave the way for the Weapons Generation Facility at Barksdale Air Force Base, home to Global Strike Command. I urge the Air Force to continue to work with Congress and the Louisiana delegation to support the wide array of strategic deterrence that we do there at Global Strike.

Madam Chair, in closing, I am proud to represent both these vital military installations here in Congress. Both are critical to our national security interests in the United States, and I appreciate the Appropriations Committee for giving it due attention.

Madam Chair, I urge support of both amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the humanitarian crisis and catastrophe now at our border, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 217-- Passage of H.R. 5.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 131.

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, if the request cannot be entertained, I urge the Speaker and majority leader to immediately schedule the Born-Alive bill so we can stand up and protect the sanctity of human life, and I ask all Members to join in that request.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 74--MTR on H.R. 840 and ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 75--Final passage of H.R. 840.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the great State of North Carolina for inviting me to speak on this topic.

I stand before you in disbelief and in sorrow tonight. It has been mentioned that the State of the Union Address was originally scheduled to take place today, and it has been rescheduled for next week.

I think it is appropriate for us then to bring attention to what is happening here in the people's House. I think the American people deserve to know that. As we speak, I think the American people need to know that partisan tactics are underway by certain House Democrats to undermine American values and traditions that have been cherished and practiced here since the time of our founding.

As we finally begin our committee work in the 116th Congress, I am proud to serve again on the Judiciary Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee. We have just begun the process of adopting our committee rules there, and today, we were issued a list of proposed rule changes that the Democrat majority and the Natural Resources Committee will apparently push through at our hearing tomorrow.

Among the radical new changes to the rules is a stunning action to remove the phrase, ``So help me God'' from the oath taken by witnesses before they testify to Congress. Did you hear that? Let me repeat it. Among the radical new changes in our committee is a stunning action to remove the phrase ``So help me God'' from the oath taken by witnesses before they testify to Congress.

This latest example of the aggressive surge to the far left that we are seeing

has to be stopped. This new agenda is threatening the very fabric of our Nation. Throughout America's history, our Presidents and elected officials have taken a solemn oath of office including the words, ``So help me God.''

This goes back to our founding. Since the Judiciary Act of 1789, every justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and all lower-court judges have taken an oath of office which concludes with the same phrase and, of course, every court of law across this land, in every one of them, all witnesses have always been sworn in for testimony with those same concluding words.

For more than two centuries, immigrants from all around the world have come here and taken America's oath of allegiance to become naturalized citizens which also concludes with the phrase, ``So help me God.''

Madam Speaker, some of our Democrat colleagues need to be reminded of our history. Why did the Founders institute this practice? Well, let's remember what they said. Our first President, George Washington, was the Father of our country. And in his famous farewell address, he gave his advice that echoes down through the generations to you and to me as the elected Representatives of the people. He said, famously: ``Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.''

John Adams was our second President. He came next. What did he say? He said: ``Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''

In other words, what these two Founders and their fellow patriots all understood from our history, was that there are many important rules and practices that can help sustain and build a healthy republic, but the key they said, the essential foundation of a republic has to be a common commitment among the citizenry to the principles of religion and morality and accountability to God himself.

The Founders acknowledged this self-evident truth that all men are created equal and that God gives all men the same inalienable rights. However, they knew, that in order to maintain a government ``of the people, by the people, for the people,'' as Lincoln later said, those inalienable rights must be exercised in a responsible manner.

They, thus, believed in liberty that is legitimately constrained by a common sense of morality, and a healthy fear of the God who granted all men our rights.

The Founders understood that all men are fallen and that power corrupts. They also knew that no amount of institutional checks and balances or decentralization of power and civil authorities would be sufficient to maintain a just government if the men in charge had no fear of eternal judgment by a power higher than their temporal institutions.

That is just a quick review of our history, but that is the reason we conclude our oaths in this country with the phrase ``So help me God.'' Heaven help us if we ever forget that obligation.

Inscribed on the third panel of the Jefferson Memorial right here in Washington, D.C., just a few blocks from here, is his sobering reminder to every single one of us as American citizens. He said this, it is right there on the wall: ``God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.''

Madam Speaker, I just want you to know and I want the American people to know back home here on the night that should have been the State of the Union Address, as we talk about the State of our union, I want you to know that we are going to fight this radical rules change tomorrow in our committee because it matters. And we will continue to raise the alarm about the dangerous leftist agenda that is taking hold here in this Congress.

While I am at it, I would be remiss if I did not note, Madam Speaker, that this is not the end. The radical agenda is advancing in State legislatures now as well.

Last week, New York's Governor signed the infamous Reproductive Health Act, the RHA, into law. This bill's extreme provisions eliminate protections for the unborn, endangering the health of mothers, and eliminate New York's few remaining safeguards for developing human life.

As enacted, the RHA establishes the fundamental right to abortion. It permits nonphysicians to perform abortions; it repeals State protections for children born during an abortion; and it eliminates all fetal homicide provisions. The bill's broad health exception allows for an abortion at, literally, any point in their pregnancy.

Look, this measure is unconscionable. It is disturbing. And we expect our friends and all people of good conscience--even on the other side of the aisle--to condemn this outrageous attack on the vulnerable.

Madam Speaker, we are forgetting our history. We have to remember why we as Americans believe in the sanctity of human life.

I will conclude with this, by just reminding us, again, that our Founders openly acknowledged, they broadly proclaimed what has been called the American Creed. It is listed in the second paragraph of the Declaration that ``we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,'' and that God is the one that gives us our rights, and our rights are unalienable. The first listed is the right to life.

Have we thought about why the Founders said that? Because they understood that every single person is made in the image of God. And because every person is made in the image of God, every single person has inestimable dignity and value. Your value is not related in any way to where you grew up or the color of your skin or how intelligent you may be, what your talents are, what you make for a living. Those are irrelevant. Your value is inherent because it is given to you by your creator.

Madam Speaker, I conclude with this: As we reflect upon the State of the Union, the state of the Union is strong in so many ways, but we have our challenges. Among the challenges is an assault, an aggressive agenda to remove and erase these critical and important foundations.

So here on the People's Night, here in the people's House, we want to remind the people of what is happening on our watch. We will stand against these things. We will continue to defend what is best about our American traditions, and we are honored to have that opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 43, MTR for H.J. Res. 28