Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H. Res. 734.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 45 to H.R. 4394, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2024.

My amendment No. 45 prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from closing campgrounds around Lake Lanier. My amendment will ensure that these campgrounds are open for my constituents and for people all over the country to enjoy the outdoors of Georgia's Sixth District.

Lake Lanier is the most visited lake of the 464 federally operated lakes in the United States, with well over 10 million visitors from all over the country annually. The Army Corps of Engineers runs the lake and the campgrounds and parks surrounding it.

Over the past summer, the Corps suggested they close some of the campgrounds around the lake citing the lack of appropriations and need for maintenance. Congress provided $8.31 billion in annual appropriations for 2023, which was 26 percent above the fiscal year 2023 Presidential budget request. Frankly, the Corps seems to have not properly budgeted.

This is Big Government at its finest, wasteful, always asking for more, and never trying to save or be more efficient. The Army Corps must do better by focusing on the needs of the community where it operates. The more control locally, the better.

The families of Georgia's Sixth, as well as all those who seek to visit Lake Lanier, should not have to bear the consequences of mismanagement of funds. These campgrounds must remain open.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am glad it is agreed that this is a problem nationwide. I am focused on my district, however. I think I am the representation for my district.

I think, in fiscal year 2023, the operations and management budget for the Army Corps was 11 percent more than the previous year, at $5.08 billion instead of $4.57 billion, which makes our case that there is no reason to use these funds to close the most popular destination for people from all over to come to our lake in our district.

Therefore, Madam Chair, I now, more than ever, think it is important to protect our outdoors. Keep the campgrounds around Lake Lanier open and accessible to the public.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendment No. 10 to H.R. 4367, the Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2024.

Amendment No. 10 will increase the amount of funds withheld from the Office of the Secretary of DHS if it does not submit the ``State of the Border'' report and the report on detention facilities by the designated time required by law.

Agencies have a strong and problematic tendency to ignore or loosely follow congressionally mandated reports. This amendment would put pressure on DHS to provide these reports in a timely manner.

With the ongoing crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, it is vital that Congress receives accurate and up-to-date information from the agencies.

A cornerstone of any Nation is its boundaries. A border defines where one government ends and another begins. It denotes the separation between two distinct peoples, cultures, and languages. Without a border, we have no nation, no sovereignty.

In the first half of September alone--that is only 2 weeks--U.S. border authorities had more than 142,000 encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border. Fentanyl seizures at the border increased 164 percent from 2020 to 2022. This year, there have been over 21,000 pounds of fentanyl confiscated. We have had over 110,000 overdose deaths just this last year.

As an ER doctor who treated overdoses every shift last year, and somebody who could not revive four of my patients from an overdose, I take this very personally.

This isn't the only public health consequence of an open border. Whether it is tuberculosis, measles, COVID, which many of the members from the opposing party seem to be so concerned about, there is no way to ensure that those who are crossing the border do not bring these diseases into our country. This doesn't even address the chronic problems such as congestive heart failure, emphysema, kidney failure, cancer, which these patients will come to the ER for and you will wait behind them in order to pay their bills.

The Biden administration has ignored the rule of law and refused to secure our border. Not only will President Biden not do what is necessary to stop the flow of migrants and drugs but encourages problems by using humanitarian parole as a loophole to bring in up to 30,000 migrants each month from Central and South America.

Many of those individuals crossing the border are coming to make a better life for themselves. However, too many of them have ties to terrorist organizations and dangerous criminal cartels.

Worst yet, the Biden administration has lost count of 85,000 children. Our open border is giving the child exploitation industry a huge boost.

We must secure the southern border. This is not just a bipartisan problem and not just a bicameral problem. It is an American problem.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 10 for better accountability of DHS to provide Congress with the information needed to make the right decisions for America.

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

Mr. Chair, I understand that he would get us the report. I want a timely report, an accurate report, and I want it as we agreed.

The one thing we have noticed is that agencies react very well when we take away their money when they don't do what they are supposed to do.

We cannot make the right decisions and the right arguments in front of the American public unless we have complete and accurate information.

This is just another tool to encourage the agency to do what they are already obligated to do for us anyway. That should be a bipartisan appeal to do the right thing and to be punished if they do the wrong thing.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 68 to H.R. 4368, the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Amendment No. 68 prohibits funding for the implementation of the Unapproved Drug Initiative. This initiative causes generic drugs that have historically low prices to have their prices skyrocket, which ultimately hurts families across the Nation.

Because of the Unapproved Drug Initiative, many generic drugs that have been used for centuries were removed from the market and awarded to large pharmaceutical companies to seek new drug applications, which has led to monopolistic practices.

On top of this, the new drug manufacturer was granted a period of market exclusivity and aggressively used the courts to block other drug companies from marketing cheaper generic alternatives for years.

The best example of this issue is in the pricing of the therapeutic drug colchicine. When I was a resident at Grady Hospital through the Emory ER residency program, I treated patients with colchicine for gout.

The drug had been around for centuries. It was a cheap drug. The average American could afford it. It cost about $11.

After this initiative, colchicine increased nearly 16-fold from about $11 in 2009 to $190 in 2011. The average family cannot afford that.

As of 2020, price increases of drugs through the Unapproved Drug Initiative have increased U.S. health spending by $3.2 billion.

High drug costs do not only interfere with appropriate use of medications, but they force families to make impossible choices between their healthcare and other basic needs.

If reinstated, the Unapproved Drug Initiative would target an estimated 1,500 drugs. Even one increase would punish all of us, whether destitute or well-insured.

The only one who wins is Big Pharma. We all lose. That is why I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 68, which serves as a safeguard to ensure that the FDA does not continue to implement the Unapproved Drug Initiative, which is hurting Americans and placing an undue burden on the healthcare system.

To be clear, there will never be a good use for this. It can only be used to profit and cannot benefit people we serve, especially the most vulnerable.

I appeal to my fellow Georgian, my fellow servant, my fellow Christian, join me in a nonpartisan effort to protect the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the bullying and threatening of American businesses being conducted by the United States Department of Commerce.

This was brought to my attention by a small business owner just this week.

In the Census Bureau's Annual Business Survey, businessowners are now asked if they invest in a list of so-called ``green'' initiatives to fight climate change.

If your local baker, dry cleaner, or peanut farmer hasn't been able to invest in geothermal energy or a renewable purchase power agreement or extra battery storage, they are asked these threatening questions:

Are you afraid of lost sales?

Do you foresee getting a bad reputation?

Do you think it might be harder to raise capital or secure lines of credit?

Do you think you might be fined by the government?

Do you think your business will suffer if we implement a carbon tax?

The bottom line from the radical leftists in charge of our executive branch: That's a nice business you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.

Surveys with leading questions are often called push polls. This is more like a shove poll. This is the Federal Government threatening American businesses to engage in government-pushed policy, or else.

Here is a warning of my own. If you work at the Department of Commerce and you are responsible for this disgusting language, you will be hearing from Congress very soon. Be prepared to explain yourselves. The time for bureaucratic overreach must come to an end.

The Federal Government exists to serve and protect Americans and their livelihoods, not to pick winners or losers, not to destroy industries, and not to impose climate change ideology on hundreds of thousands of businesses that bring prosperity to American families every day.

Semper Fidelis.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 305, I mistakenly voted ``present'' when I intended to vote ``no.''

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Davidson

Mr. Chairman, I applaud Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith and the House Armed Services Committee and its staff for crafting the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

This is not an easy process, but even as a freshman member of the committee and as a veteran of over 20 years, I always felt my voice was heard, as well as my colleagues, and that we were heard and considered.

This NDAA secures the future of our military and our Nation. It makes critical investments to improve the lives of our servicemembers and give our warfighters the tools they need to meet tomorrow's needs.

H.R. 2670 also combats another concerning trend, which is on the mind of every American, particularly those who serve, the politicization of our military.

In the military we may be different shades of green, but we all bleed red.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to support the NDAA that ensures our military is squarely focused on the mission set outlined in the oath of office that my fellow servicemembers and I swore to uphold.

Once again, I thank Chairman Rogers for bringing this year's NDAA to fruition, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan piece of legislation.

I rise today to commemorate and honor the 190th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Kingdom of Thailand. As our two nations celebrate this historic milestone, I want to acknowledge the enduring bond of trust and collaboration since the signing of the 1833 Treaty of Amity and Commerce.

I want to reflect on the remarkable journey we have shared with our oldest treaty ally in the Asia-Pacific region and celebrate the invaluable partnership that has flourished between our nations. Thailand was designated a major non-NATO ally in 2003 and is one of the strongest security partners of the United States. The annual Cobra Gold Exercise remains the largest multinational military exercise in the Indo-Pacific region. Our two countries have fought side by side in countless conflicts such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and most notably Thailand was one of the first Asian nations to commit troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The longstanding friendship and partnership between The United States and Thailand has been a cornerstone of stability and progress in the Asia-Pacific region with multilateral agreements that have furthered our shared commitment to democratic values, human rights, and economic cooperation. This is reflected in the U .S.-Thailand Communique on Strategic Alliance and Partnership, signed last year, and the first ever U.S.-Thailand Strategic and Defense Dialogue held last year.

We must recognize Thailand's unwavering commitment to our shared values throughout the ebbs and flows of shared adversity and prosperity. Therefore, I warmly thank the Royal Thai Embassy in Washington, D.C. for organizing the Sawasdee Thai Festival, which commemorates the enduring friendship between our two nations.

As we celebrate this significant milestone, it is essential to recognize the individuals who have contributed to enhancing the understanding and strengthening the ties between our nations. I want to extend my heartfelt appreciation and recognition to Park Boonnuch, who has provided invaluable assistance to my Congressional Office and been a valuable help in various matters of Foreign Affairs.

Through Mr. Boonnuch's dedication and expertise, we have gained a deeper understanding of the Thai people's rich culture, history, and aspirations. Mr. Boonnuch has also demonstrated a strong passion for understanding the intricacies of the United States government system. We have witnessed his desire to acquire knowledge and share this newfound wisdom to improve U.S.-Thailand cooperation .

As a result of his tireless efforts, not only have we witnessed an enhanced spirit of cooperation between our nations, but we have also borne witness to the blossoming of a profound fellowship that unites us ever closer.

As we look ahead, let us reaffirm our commitment to the enduring friendship between Thailand and the United States--``as long as heaven and earth shall endure''--as reflected in the Treaty's preamble. May the next one thousand years be marked by even deeper diplomatic relations, cultural exchange, and mutual respect. Together, we can build a future that upholds our values and paves the way for continued prosperity and friendship.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to take this time to explain to my constituents why consistency in political thought is important.

Many people were excited and encouraged when I voted against lifting the deficit cap recently. The reason I did this was that I did not want an unidentified amount of debt accumulation while we shaved a small portion of 11 percent off the budget. Meanwhile, we did not address executive power and bureaucracies that were out of control and that could cost us far more than we could save. In short, I wanted the REINS Act in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

Ironically, I have made unpopular votes that are consistent with the same philosophy. For example, I voted against keeping a fee for all VA loans, that all veterans have to pay for every loan. The fee is taken in order to pay for IT training for a small number of veterans. I did not think it was fair that every veteran would pay for the education of just a few veterans that would otherwise be paid for by the GI Bill already. Just because the name ``veteran'' is attached to a bill does not make it the right thing to do.

Likewise, I voted against creating more government oversight on the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords are working great. It has created some of the most innovative peacekeeping processes in modern history. However, creating more government, especially in the form of another executive appointee, to a process that is already working well did not make sense to me. Well-intended bureaucracy and increasing executive power is the greater part of what I have been fighting against since I arrived in D.C.

We are already out of balance. The REINS Act was meant to bring back into control executive power and bureaucracies. Why would I vote for something that would increase more bureaucracy and more executive power?

No one should doubt my support for Israel or my admiration of the Abraham Accords. In April of this year, I voted in favor of H. Res. 311, a resolution encouraging the expansion and strengthening of the Abraham Accords, a resolution urging nations throughout the region to improve their relationships with Israel and strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance.

With that said, whether it is about government spending, debt, increasing fees on an entire veteran population for the sake of a few, or increasing executive power and bureaucracy, I will remain politically consistent and thoughtful. That is my promise. I believe in the individual, not more government.

We need to bring back the balance of power that was designed by the Constitution for a purpose. More government, more debt, and more fees are seldom the answer. I remain semper fidelis to this philosophy, and to the people.

Madam Speaker, we have a massive problem. We just got done talking about the budget and the deficit, but there is no possible way to address that without addressing healthcare.

Healthcare is the biggest spending item for the government. Madam Speaker, $1 out of every $5 spent by the government is spent on healthcare, and it is the quickest growing inflationary cost to Americans.

Right now, if we consider Medicaid and Medicare, and we consider the amount of money we spend on private pay, which is about one-fifth of the economy also, in a GDP of roughly $24 trillion, we are spending $6 trillion on healthcare alone. If it were taken by itself, it would be the third largest GDP in the world. It would have twice the GDP size of India, which has 1.47 billion people. This is a massive problem.

What are we going to do? How do we take on something so complex? I think it is an underserved problem in the

United States Congress. We have been kicking the can down the street for far too long, from the Clinton administration all the way to the Obama administration. The Affordable Care Act did nothing to make it affordable.

We have done nothing to curb the inflationary costs, and it is certainly not the doctors' problem because doctors took a 2.3 percent pay cut last year alone. If you are an ER doctor in Georgia, you probably took about an 18 percent pay decrease in 1 year, and that is after serving during COVID for 3 years on nights, weekends, and holidays. That is your congratulations.

How do we address this? Quite frankly, we are going to have to make some hard choices. America has to understand, first of all, how complex this issue is when you have PBMs, GPOs, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, Medicaid, Medicare, when you have the government involved, private pay, when you have hospital systems and healthcare providers. These are just some of the problems we have.

Right now, 90 percent of the ingredients that go into drugs are produced in China. You have almost all of the market for amoxicillin and Augmentin cornered by an adversarial nation.

We have admin costs that have grown in the hospital system from 25 percent to 40 percent in just the last 10 years. Take that into account. Forty percent of every dollar spent on healthcare is spent on administrative costs. That means too much regulatory burden, not enough competition.

We continue to talk about a single-payer system as the end-all, be- all to healthcare. Let's take that into account right now. Medicaid is done at a loss. It doesn't pay the bills. As a matter of fact, we have an act right now that talks about supplementing people with a tax break so they can actually see more Medicaid patients and afford it and stay open. It is not the answer.

If we go to a single-payer system, you are talking about adding $30 trillion of expense to the government in the next 10 years. That means $30 trillion more in either tax or debt.

We have pretty much lost our minds over the $32 trillion of debt we are already in. Imagine adding $30 trillion more to spending. It would be the largest increase in spending and government control there has ever been in American history. We have a massive problem.

On top of that, despite spending about $32 billion on electronic medical records and spending a lot of money on coders, in many cases, we still have 45 percent of claims not being reimbursed by insurance companies. This simply can't continue to happen.

People are using their insurance companies the wrong way. If we used car insurance the same way we use healthcare insurance, you would be spending your car insurance to actually change your car oil. It would probably cost about $500 per pop, and you wouldn't be able to afford car insurance.

We need to look at this in a different way. The problem is, if I talk about cutting administrative costs in medicine, people will immediately vilify me for trying to cut Medicaid and Medicare. This is why it has to be a bipartisan issue. We have to have a real conversation, and it can't be about calling people names but about actually solving a problem.

If we want to talk about a real solution, I think we have to start thinking about not just taking this as subcommittees, not just a subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, not just a subcommittee of Ways and Means, not just a subcommittee of VA or a subcommittee of Foreign Affairs. We actually have to have staff that are dedicated to a process that is so complex, so big, has so many lobbyists involved that it is impossible for a physician with an MBA to figure out how to handle it himself.

This is something we are going to have to take as a problem that all of us have to solve without vilifying each other. If we don't do it soon, we will increase government and increase spending, and we will have rationing simultaneously.

Final point: If you want a good example of a single-payer system, the VA is exactly what you are going to get, and it is not popular.

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to address a very important visit by Prime Minister Modi this week.

I am excited that this person is coming to America to extend goodwill between our two nations in one of the most strategically important relationships we have in the world.

If you consider their relationship to Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh, and the economic power that they hold, it is an economy that has been blossoming in the last 10 years and has increased by over 30 percent while Canada and Russia have actually maintained a flat or decreasing GDP.

The reason this has happened is because they have embraced a constitution very similar to the United States' and values very similar to ours.

I call that we continue to extend our military actions, our military purchasing power, and our economic reliance on each other into the future as we accept Prime Minister Modi here in the United States in the most important accolades that we recognize leadership across the world.

Madam Speaker, I am new to Congress, so maybe I don't see the same problems that other Congressmen and Congresswomen do, but I will tell you one thing, I know the people.

I have yet to hear one constituent say we need more regulation. Nobody is telling me that they want the President to make universal decisions for all of us.

The fact is, we are out of balance. Congress doesn't have the same power it is supposed to have enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The fact that we have a President that can spend more money than we can save is the exact reason why I just voted against the lifting of the deficit cap.

I can sum this up in one thing: You just made mention from the other side of the House, look, we make hundreds of rules by bureaucracies, hundreds of rules per year. How can we address that in Congress?

Well, that is exactly the problem. We spend half our time in Congress litigating and debating the rules that were made by bureaucracies. You are right. We don't have time for that.

We don't have time to tell you that we shouldn't put people in jail for something that was made, essentially, law by a bureaucracy.

We don't have time to fight over money that was given away by bureaucracies or spent by bureaucracies.

We don't have time to fight a President in the Supreme Court because of a decision that he made without the approval of Congress when it comes to the budget which we, by the Constitution, should have responsibility for.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the legislation efforts that we have had recently to define fentanyl as poison and to address a very serious problem in the United States where we had 110,000 people die last year alone.

As an emergency medicine physician, to see anywhere from one to five overdoses per night, to see four patients come in that I could not revive and that are no longer with us is a serious problem.

I caution everybody in Congress--from my conservative roots and the conservative values that made this Nation what it is--not to turn to legislation to solve this problem. We need to understand that this is a people problem.

Ultimately, you can spend a trillion dollars overseas, you can fight wars, you can secure your border, but until we get our hearts straight, we will not solve this very real problem.

Until we understand that when our children are taught that they are supporting murderers and rapists and child traffickers, people who would do harm to all of us, then they will stop the incentive of creating the demand, and the problem will go away.

This is a problem of our house but not this House, the house of our family.

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

Mr. Chair, I am here today to discuss my amendment to H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act.

Currently, firearms from agencies such as the Secret Service are destroyed once they are retired from service or replaced with new models. This is wasteful and makes no sense. Many law enforcement officers have a special connection to their firearms they use in the line of duty. They would like to take them home to cherish as family heirlooms.

It is only fair to allow the courageous men and women of law enforcement to purchase their service weapons upon retirement, and we should let them do that at a low cost because these are going to be thrown out anyway.

This shouldn't be a revenue-raising scheme for the government. Our law enforcement officers should be able to keep their firearms at a reasonable cost.

My amendment simply changes H.R. 3091 by changing the term ``fair market value'' to ``salvage value,'' which is what would be done to the weapons anyway, salvaging it.

Salvage value is defined as: ``The value of the asset after it becomes useless to the owner or the amount expected to be obtained when a fixed asset is disposed of at the end of its useful life,'' which is exactly what is happening here.

This definition is for the lawyers, appraisers, and accountants, but what I want to talk about is what it means to our law enforcement officers.

This change would allow them to purchase their retired service firearms, which in many cases they discharged in the line of duty to save lives, at a lower cost than the current ``fair market value,'' which it would not be disposed at.

Under current policy, these firearms are destroyed, so the purchase is at salvage value by definition. It would still increase government revenues, because you are actually purchasing it at the same amount and you wouldn't have to actually have the expense of salvaging it, while allowing Federal law enforcement officers to purchase the service weapons that have protected them throughout their careers at a fair price.

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

Mr. Chair, the basic premise is a misunderstanding of what this is about.

First of all, the weapon would otherwise be destroyed. The only money that would come from it is either the money that is spent on destroying the weapon or the money that was obtained from it by destroying the weapon which would be salvage monetary price, which would be approximately $100 for an average Glock. That is weapon scrap. That is what it is worth. That is how much you would get back from the government.

The gentleman from New York talks about the government supplementing police officers who served an entire career. I was a career military person with over 20 years in the military. My father was a deputy sheriff. This isn't a money-making scheme. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite. This isn't for the government to make money off of. This is to do the right thing.

This is at best a neutral bill. This shouldn't be about the military people who just spent 20 years of their life paying money to expand the coffers of the American government when otherwise it would be worth about $100 as scrap metal.

The misrepresentation that this should be money that our retirees spend on a weapon that would otherwise be destroyed--and nothing else would be done with that weapon, by the way. When the gentleman talks about fair market value, the fair market value in the market for this is salvage. It is what would be done with the weapon to begin with. The misnomer, the misrepresentation that retired officers that have spent their entire career protecting this Nation, bonding with something that saves their lives and protects other people, is actually kind of offensive to me as a guy who has carried around a service rifle and a service pistol, when I was overseas, in harm's way, the same way my father carried around his service pistol in harm's way.

This is not to make money for the government. This is to do the right thing by those police officers and those law enforcement individuals who served their entire life doing nothing but serving their community. That is what this is about and nothing else.

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

Mr. Chair, I am going to define once again what this bill is about because I disagree wholeheartedly. If it is at the end of its service life, if it is no longer useful, it is going to be salvaged. Salvaged. We are defining what is happening at the end of a useful life value. Salvaged. It is going to be destroyed. That is what the government will do with it. The government is not going to sell it; the government is going to salvage it. The government is not going to put it on the market, the fair market for a used weapon, they are going to destroy it.

Therefore, the value of the weapon is whatever it is destroyed for. That is the definition. That is clear in this bill, and that has been defined. Trying to mislead the public on what this is about is, once again, offensive to me.

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