Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this National Police Week, I rise today in gratitude for those who protect our homes and families, bring justice to the evildoer, and comfort to their countrymen in distress.

These dedicated men and women, who put their lives on the line as they put on their uniforms every day, often do not receive the support that they deserve.

From corporate media to Hollywood, even to this Congress, American police officers frequently receive abuse instead of thanks, and blame where they deserve applause.

However, hardworking, law-abiding American families and citizens know better. They know the importance of fighting crime and protecting the innocent, and they know the cost.

In 2022, 11 Georgia police officers died in the line of duty. So far in 2023, we have lost another.

Last week, I had the honor of presenting a wreath at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, D.C. dedicated to those courageous men and women, the heroic peace officers of Georgia, and all across America.

May their service and sacrifice never be forgotten and may Americans always proudly back the blue. Semper fidelis.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 213.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel.

Seventy-five years ago, 11 minutes after David Ben Gurion announced the creation of the new Jewish state, President Harry Truman became the first world leader to recognize Israel. Our nations have been friends and partners ever since.

The people of Israel have won against overwhelming odds and repelled many attacks over the decades. They have not merely survived; they have created a free and prosperous society, becoming our most valued ally in the region.

What they have accomplished is nothing short of miraculous. They have revived a dead language and rejuvenated agriculture, technology, and prosperity. No matter what acts of terror or threats they face, Israel will always have the right to self-defense and self-determination.

I congratulate her people for this anniversary of independence in their historic homeland, and pray that they may be blessed with strength, peace, and unity for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I too have major concerns about this nomination.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of President Biden's nominee for Secretary of Labor, Julie Su. America's labor secretary should defend both American workers and understand the economy which provides jobs, feeds families, and keeps our communities strong.

Unfortunately, Ms. Su oversaw and distributed about $32.6 billion in fraudulent unemployment claims paid out to death row inmates, international criminal syndicates, and other fraudsters. She has tried and failed to obscure this fact in front of the Senate Committee.

While she was doing this, Su also denied or delayed over 5 million legitimate unemployment insurance claims. She was also an architect and key enforcer in California law that effectively outlaws freelance work in California, destroying the livelihoods of thousands of families.

Our Nation's 1099 employees are just as important to this country as the liberal elite donors that are so set on destroying the American working class.

The facts are clear, President Biden should pick someone else to be his Labor Secretary.

I urge my colleagues in the United States Senate to stand with America's workers, to stand for American prosperity, and stand for a better nominee for the Department of Labor.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of my favorite debates. In my short time in Congress, and even in observing Congress, here you have people from both sides of the aisle actually taking opposition to each other so we can have a real conversation. There are people that I respect on my side of the aisle and people that I respect and disagree with on the other side of the aisle having a real debate that has little to do with partisanship but really about principle. It is refreshing.

Much like H.R. 21, which was probably the most fascinating vote we have taken to date since I have been in Congress, we actually had a Republican, somebody whose credentials as a conservative are not questioned at all, who had more people from the Democratic Party vote for his bill than from the Republican Party. He had the squad vote for him and his bill. That is bipartisanship in a certain way.

Yet, we have this debate right now in a similar fashion on Somalia. This is not a place that is unknown to me. I was there during part of the U.N. withdrawal in 1994 off the coast on the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit. I spent time in Entebbe, Uganda, as part of Operation Restore Hope when we had our problem with Rwanda. Africa is a place of many troubled nations. There is no doubt about it.

The question we have today is: What is good for America?

This isn't about nation-building. This is about protecting our Nation. This is a debate over whether we are going to save lives or lose lives that are American by what our actions are in the near future; and into the future of how we plan our force structure and what we deploy with around the world.

I am very much concerned that if we are not in these regions, especially in Somalia, which is one of the most war-torn areas we know of, that we will have an increase in terrorist activities. When you see a country like Afghanistan and the way it is deteriorating right now-- you have 27 terrorist cells training there--because of the lack of presence of good guys trying to make sure that bad guys don't propagate and proliferate and making sure they are not recruiting people and sending people over here to do harm to us, it is a minor miracle that we haven't had another 9/11 in so long.

If you think about it, the incredible work that we have had done by our intel community and our Special Forces and other Americans around the world to circumvent that from happening is nothing short of Herculean.

I would make the case that because we have forces all around the world, we have been a safer place. We have saved American lives. This isn't about building a nation of 17 million people. This is about protecting the Nation of 330 million people.

I want to make sure that we are clear in this argument that this is not about seeking war. No one who spent time in the military wants war. I spent over 20 years in the military myself. I spent years away from my family, as well. I served with three different forces: Marine Corps, Army, and Navy. Nobody wants war less than I do.

Nobody wants to see Americans killed more than any military commander. As a matter of fact, when we send these people, it is not because a politician wants to go over there. Usually it is because a general or an area commander has requested these troops in collaboration with each other. We are talking about decades of experience in the region, and they understand what is at stake. They don't want war. They don't want American troops to lose their lives.

As a matter of fact, they are judged historically on how many American lives they save, on how many American troops that they don't put in harm's way. This isn't about seeking war. This is about avoiding war. This isn't about protecting their nation. It is protecting our Nation.

We have an obligation to watch over this great Nation of ours. I think it is not by pulling back, but engaging in other countries in a way we can work together to protect American lives, both civilian and military.

Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration has declared war on Title IX protections for female athletes. They want to force American schools to allow biological men and boys to compete in women's sports. In fact, they show no intent to protect women at all.

As a doctor, I know this is ridiculous. Where does it stop? What would it take for liberal women to stand up for themselves?

Perhaps when all the scholarships for women are given to biological men, when all the female sports records are broken, all the medals are taken, all the awards stolen, and every woman of the year title or best actress Oscar is given to a man, perhaps then President Biden and his media allies will finally decide to enforce Title IX and protect young women.

We are not going to wait around for them. I am proud to cosponsor the GOP bill to protect women's sports and save Title IX for America's female student athletes.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk to H.R. 5.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss my amendment to H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act.

I speak to all of you as a father of seven, an educator for 4 years, both in public and private schools, and a youth minister for over 20 years.

It is important to note that as we discuss this legislation, we are not guaranteed just local control in our Constitution, but we are also guaranteed inalienable, individual rights even when inconvenient to the local government, because the ultimate minority we need to protect is the individual.

For amendment No. 16, it clarifies H.R. 5's language to ensure parents have the guaranteed opportunity to address the school board regarding any violation of their parental rights. This right is implied within the bill but deserves stronger language.

As we have seen too frequently across the country, including two counties within my district, concerned moms and dads have been silenced, thrown out, and threatened when standing up for their children. This is simply unacceptable.

Amendment No. 16 serves as a form of accountability. We must ensure parents should be able to provide school boards with feedback to make necessary changes when the rights of the parents or the children are infringed upon.

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

Mr. Chair, the attitude that only some parents should be considered, that only some parents

should be heard, and that some parents should be arrested is not what we are talking about.

We are not talking about the parents who were arrested for doing violent things, and that is a very rare exception. We keep on using these rare exceptions to make a rule.

Clearly, there is a need for us to step up and represent these parents that are unheard, because when parents are told they cannot come before a school board, there is a reason for us to step up and take action.

I think it is simply untrue to say that we already have laws that cover this and you already have access to your school board when clearly, just in my district alone, that right has been denied.

That is what we are fighting over right now, a parent's right to address a school board when a school board says: Nope, I don't want to listen to you. That is what we are arguing about right now.

If it weren't happening, I wouldn't be standing in front of you right now. In fact, I probably wouldn't have been elected, because this is one of the main things that parents want, are their rights back for them and their children.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I take offense in thinking that mob rule is a parent standing up for their child.

I take offense in thinking that teachers and school systems are the only ones that can say so.

I take offense that just given the opportunity for a parent to give feedback to a school board is something other than the most representative sort of government that we have.

The First Amendment allows us to speak openly against our government, against our elected officials, and to express our opinions freely, and that is what my amendment is about.

There couldn't be any more constitutional amendment. There couldn't be any more freedom and democratic process. There couldn't be any more representative thing for your child than you.

I am empowering you as a woman, as a mother; me as a father--all of us. This isn't just for Democrats or Republicans. This is for every parent to be able to speak freely to their representative body of governance for their schools. That is what this amendment is about.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment No. 17 is a simple addition to H.R. 5 that states that parents have the right to be informed of any non-curriculum-based initiatives or events, and parents have the right to opt-in their child to such events, excluding birthday celebrations and Federal holidays.

Examples of these events that my amendment seeks to address include: National French Week, Firefighter Appreciation Day, Democracy Day, or any other politically motivated or controversial extracurricular activities.

Some of these activities are great. However, it is important that parents aren't simply aware of the activities their children are participating in, we also want to give parents the ability to be proactive in their child's education and especially their extracurricular activities. This is their right.

This amendment has nothing to do with technical careers or college prep. It only applies to initiatives and events outside of the curriculum.

The American Psychological Association has confirmed what common sense already tells us, which is that parental involvement in education is vital. Students with parents who are involved

have a higher chance to get better grades and test scores, have better school attendance, and even better social outcomes.

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

I think that is an excellent point. What do we require opt-in for right now?

Right now, for free and reduced lunch, you have to opt in. For a field trip, you have to opt in. For lots of activities you have to opt in. Things that are good for the children.

If the child wants to go, I guarantee, as a father of seven, they are going to come to me and say, Dad, I want to go to this, and I am going to opt in if it is something that I want them to participate in.

This is not unprecedented. This is something that gives you power, once again, control of what you want your children to be exposed to, that has nothing to do with academics. Nothing to do with academics.

This could be used in positive ways or negative ways, depending on you how view your children's education.

There are already plenty of measures to make the content and the curriculum accountable to parental oversight, but the non-curriculum- based events and initiatives don't have these measures.

Further, this amendment doesn't state how schools have to get consent from parents; one event at a time. The language is drafted so that the school can determine how to best inform and receive a parent's consent. It can be done for the entire year all at once. That is up to the school.

Once again, it empowers parents to have control of things that are outside of academics, which we already have a precedent for.

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

Mr. Chair, clearly, I am not talking about recess. Let's not get crazy about what kind of things we are claiming right now.

I am talking about--you're right, it could be anything from let me dress up as something vulgar, or let me--it could be anything controversial or noncontroversial. It doesn't really matter.

Once again, we get back to the content of something we already do. You are right, your kids might benefit greatly from going down to the power station for a field trip, but you already have to opt them in. You are doing that already.

I am talking about things that have nothing to do with academics. This has to do with empowering parents, just like they already are on several occasions, to have control of what their children are exposed to. That is what parental rights are all about. That is empowering each individual, as a parent, and each student, to be exposed to only what they think is pertinent to their education in a way that they want to be presented.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of parents who have the right to guide their child's education and to know what is being taught in the classroom.

This body will soon vote on a great piece of legislation, H.R. 5, the Parental Bill of Rights. This bill puts parents in the driver's seat and makes students the priority, not bureaucrats or administrators.

It is hard to imagine who would fight against parental rights and school choice, but just the other day, Democratic legislators in my home State of Georgia were trying to stop several successful bills that expand education options for families.

Shockingly, their reasoning was that low-income families are too uneducated and poor to have a say over their own children's schooling.

If you don't believe me, here are the exact words of Georgia's 67th House District Representative just last week: ``. . . they,'' meaning the parents, ``are already in the lower 25th percentile, meaning a lot of those parents did not finish high school, cannot direct, and could not finish their own education.''

She continues: ``I am extremely concerned that we would put money in their hands, that entire piece of life in the hands of parents who are not qualified to make those decisions.''

Well, I think that is nonsense. The vast majority of Americans--moms and dads and teachers and students--know that is nonsense.

History is littered by governments who thought they knew better, and that people and parents did not know better, much to the detriment of that culture and the ultimate failure of that government.

That is why I am offering two amendments to the Parental Bill of Rights. The first one establishes the right of parents to be informed about, and consent to, participation in any non-curriculum events or activities.

We already do this for things that government schools deem important like field trips, gifted programs, individual education plans, and free and reduced lunches. I believe that parents' rights do not end at the discretion of the administration.

Unfortunately, in recent years, some school systems have used the classroom as a bully pulpit to push social engineering instead of learning environments. This is not a partisan issue, and this has got to stop. The way it stops is keeping parents informed of what happens at school.

My other amendment guarantees parents the opportunity to address their school boards regarding any violation of their rights. As we have seen too often across the country, concerned moms and dads have been silenced, thrown out, or threatened when standing up for their children. This is unacceptable.

Families need accountability in their schools and a place to make their voices heard. Fortunately, from Georgia to Virginia, from Texas to Idaho, and yes, even from California to New York, we are beginning to put students over systems and the people over a government, just like the Constitution intended.

This revolution of school choice and parental rights will help millions of families across America, and we are just getting started.

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Robert D. Cornetti of Roswell, Georgia, ``Bob,'' to his friends.

Mr. Cornetti served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War, where he received the Good Conduct Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the Korean Service Medal with Three Bronze Stars, and the National Defense Service Medal.

On April 27, 2023, Mr. Cornetti celebrates his 90th birthday. I want to extend my congratulations, and the best wishes of Congress to Bob and his entire family for this special occasion.

May America and my great State of Georgia be forever blessed with patriots like Robert Cornetti, and may God give him many happy returns.

Madam Speaker, it is about time. It is good to see a bill actually shed some light on a disease process if we want to expose something, if we want to bring the truth. This should have been done a long time ago.

When we first started seeing this disease in the emergency department, I was there on the front lines seeing people with fevers for no reason, testing negative for flu, testing negative for strep, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections. We couldn't figure out why they were sick. We were sending them home, not really understanding what was wrong with them.

Then we had a hard time trying to figure out how to treat them. We went through a novel disease process, just like they did back in 1918 when we had the original flu pandemic where 26 million people died in about a year.

It should never come to a point where we become politically motivated. More to the point of why we have become so critical of people who should be trusted is when they have bias built into their argument to begin with, and that is what we are here to expose.

When we have transparency, when we have declassified information so we can actually make a good judgment based on public opinion when it is exposed to the truth, I think it will expose that people were politically motivated; that they are embarrassed by their choices, and that they made choices to politicize this, rather than get to the bottom of this.

We cannot stop a disease by misunderstanding where it came from. We cannot have an honest discussion and heal our Nation until we have accountability.

I think where the mistrust comes from is the fact that it was politicized to begin with. So I think it is fair criticism when you have emails that expose the fact that they were trying to spin it a certain way, rather than having an honest, scientific discussion. That is fair criticism, and people should be held accountable if we are going to get to the bottom of this.

As an ER doctor who served during the entire pandemic, since before I even knew what it was, watching people die in front of me, learning lessons--and those are honest lessons, where doctors made decisions and in good faith made mistakes, but it was in good faith--and we want to expose people who made decisions out of bad faith.

Mr. Chair, I missed rollcall 130 due to distraction. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 130.

Madam Speaker, the President is once again using the Department of Defense to advance the far-left agenda and pro-abortion policies.

The new policy to give servicemembers and their families paid administrative leave for up to 3 weeks and travel reimbursement to obtain out-of-state elective abortions is yet another extreme example.

The law is clear and vetted. No Federal funds are to be used for elective abortions. The military mission is equally clear: to be a lethal force to defend the innocents and to defeat those who would do them harm. This flies in the face of that mission.

I call on the President to reverse this policy, which is in violation of law and counter to the military mission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a fellow marine and a great American patriot, Mr. Donn J. Thompson of Spokane, Washington.

Donn was a student at the University of Washington when Pearl Harbor was attacked. But he left after his freshman year to join the Marines in 1943.

He took part in multiple assault landings, including the Battle of Okinawa, where he helped capture Sugar Loaf Hill with the 6th Marine Division in one of the bloodiest battles in the Pacific theater.

This month, Donn celebrates his 100th birthday. Last spring, Donn celebrated his 75th wedding anniversary

with his beloved wife and pen pal for life, Doodee.

Donn represents the very best of our history and the very best of America. I thank him for his service to our country. I congratulate him on a century of life and wisdom and a life truly well lived.

May Donn and Doodee receive every blessing and happiness under heaven.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the Freedom for Healthcare Workers Act that has been submitted and we will soon vote on.

As an ER physician who has treated thousands of patients, who has been exposed to COVID thousands of times, and watched nurses and midlevels and healthcare workers of all kinds complain about the government's involvement in healthcare, I wanted to address this topic.

I believe I am the only Congressman who has actually been an ER doctor in the pandemic. My last shift was December 28. I intubated a patient and saw three critical patients. Several of them had COVID. Nobody was admitted for COVID, though.

Back to the point, though. During this pandemic we started off with no vaccination. Meanwhile, most of us were exposed regardless of what PPE we had, and it was limited at times to people who had fevers, who had symptoms even before we knew what COVID was. A lot of us got sick and developed immunity naturally.

Then the government stepped in. Although well-meaning, a lot of times government officials think they have the answer to everything, including things they really don't know about. What they will do is cherry-pick the experts that agree with them to say this is what experts believe, and that is why all healthcare professionals should believe this also. That is not how we make progress in medicine. As a matter of fact, it stifles innovation and progress.

At one time we had a President, President Garfield, who was shot, and it was poor practice in medicine where doctors probed his wound and made him septic that caused him to die. There was a dissenting opinion by Dr. Lister--you may have heard of Listerine--who believed in antiseptic but he was scoffed at and belittled because he was the outlying person. Imagine where we would be if government stepped in and said: Our experts said you don't need to wash your hands before you probe wounds. We would still be in the Dark Ages of medicine.

I beg the government to stay out of the way of healthcare progress. To stay out of the debate of healthcare professionals because, quite frankly, very few people in Congress understand medicine the way healthcare professionals do. They haven't been to medical school, and even those who have, they haven't been in medicine for a long time. Quite frankly, the Doctors Caucus is seldom relied on for healthcare policy, which is a shame.

If you haven't been to medical school, if you haven't taken your boards, if you haven't been through a residency, if you haven't seen tens of thousands of patients, you shouldn't be telling doctors who have a dissenting opinion what to do.

There is no standard of care based on government. It is based on physicians having a good decision, trying different things, and finding out what works. That is how medicine has progressed in America; far beyond any limitations that we have in foreign counties.

We are the leaders of innovation and healthcare. We should consider our healthcare professionals when we make decisions and not consider government first when it comes to standard of care.

If you want to require healthcare professionals to have a vaccination, why do you think the government understands that requirement better than the very healthcare professional who not only treats this but was exposed to it, who has natural immunities, and who understands the side effects; not only of the disease but of the vaccination.

Once again, I submit to you that it is time to let healthcare professionals make their own decisions, especially when it comes to their own lives. They are the ones that put their lives on the line during the pandemic. They are the ones that treated the sick patients. They are the ones that know best whether a vaccination will benefit them or harm them, not a government.

I must also remind you that our Constitution is based on individual rights, not on a collective governance by politicians telling people what to do in things they don't know about.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we support the Freedom for Healthcare Workers Act.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 days, I have heard repeatedly the other side of the House say that Republicans want to cut Social Security or reduce spending on Social Security and reduce benefits from Social Security.

I will call that a lie. Just because you repeat it multiple times does not

make it a fact, Mr. Speaker. I actually asked around my entire delegation, my entire caucus: Does anyone want to reduce spending on Social Security? Not one person said yes. As a matter of fact, everybody said no.

As a caucus, we have discussed this multiple times, both on the floor and in conference, and we have all unanimously said that we are not going to reduce spending on Social Security.

As a matter of fact, I will challenge anybody who says differently to show me in writing where this secret document exists or where the secret statement exists because I haven't seen it.

I want to take this opportunity to express that just because you say it doesn't make it fact. The fact is that no Republican is talking about reducing spending on Social Security as a caucus.