Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2922, the Elder Abuse Protection Act.

As we have seen through the recent pandemic, American seniors are among the most vulnerable population. As a former State senator, I dealt with many issues our elderly Hoosiers are facing in their lives.

The Trump administration made great strides in achieving justice for elderly Americans victimized by fraud and abuse. By standing up the Elder Justice Initiative, the administration charged nearly 1,000 defendants with fraud totaling over $2.2 billion.

The Elder Abuse Protection Act makes permanent this initiative, which will continue its important work under this bill to ensure criminals are held accountable.

This legislation is a very important step in the right direction to protect and take care of the people who used to care for us.

I thank my colleague, Representative Sylvia Garcia, for leading this critical effort, and I urge my colleagues to support this good legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of National Police Week to recognize the members of law enforcement who bravely serve to protect our communities across the Nation.

I would also like to give a special recognition to Detective Stacy Hinshaw from the Lawrence Police Department for being named detective of the year. During the year 2020, Detective Hinshaw worked over 119 cases, the vast majority involving complex child abuse and sexual assaults. Detective Hinshaw has developed an extensive network of support resources for victims in partnership with many community organizations and has been recognized by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office for her work.

Congratulations to Detective Stacy Hinshaw, and I would like to extend my deepest gratitude for all law enforcement officers.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor eight Hoosier lives lost at the FedEx facility in Indianapolis. I joined my fellow Indiana delegation members in leading our colleagues in a moment of silence on the house floor in their honor on April 21, 2021.

Of the eight lives lost, four of those individuals belonged to the Sikh community in central Indiana. This community is small and tight knit. They are friends and colleagues who work together and worship together. The loss this community is feeling in the wake of this tragedy is unimaginable. I stand with the Sikh community and all those affected by this senseless act of violence.

My deepest condolences are with all the families and friends who are experiencing unimaginable pain and loss. Our state and Nation mourn with them.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a dedicated public servant and constituent, Steve Jacob. Steve passed away peacefully on Wednesday, March 17, 2021, surrounded by his family.

Steve Jacob was born on March 16, 1947, to parents William and Marietta. He grew up on the family farm in Jasonville, Indiana, going on to attend Purdue University. Upon graduation, Steve began his career at Indiana Bell, working his way to the role of vice president of Ameritech. Through his knowledge and experience, Steve served as a Congressional Fellow here in Washington, D.C., working for the telecom industry.

Though Steve had many commendable experiences in his career, he is perhaps best known in my district for his 20-plus years in public service. Steve served on the Boone County Council and at the time of his passing was the president of the council. His work on numerous boards and committees is to be commended. I am confident that the impact he made in public office will be felt for many years to come.

I extend my deepest condolences to his wife, Janet; his children Jeff, Jill, and Chris; and to the rest of his family and friends.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that Congress cannot have a serious conversation about immigration because we do actually have a real problem. We have a real crisis at the border. It is a humanitarian crisis, the Wild West. We are a country of laws.

We have a problem with illegal immigration. It needs to be streamlined to better serve our national interests. We have problems with visa processes, and we can do better.

But, unfortunately, we are passing a lot of bills that probably will not see the light of day in the Senate, that are not going to become legislation. We do grandstanding drama and constant rhetoric, and it is very unfortunate for me because the American people are tired of our institution not doing its work, because we are policymakers and we are legislators and we have to work on policy, not on political drama.

So as a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, I encourage my colleagues to actually start working in committees on legislation, not sending legislation from the Speaker's office to the floor, but actually have reforms and work at it because our people deserve it and our people deserve to have a branch that works for the people, not having the executive and judicial branches doing our functions.

So I hope we will have some very constructive and serious conversation on immigration, and I would be happy to help with it, but these piecemeal approaches are not going to work and are not good for our country.

Madam Speaker, I think it is a good discussion to have, but I would suggest to my colleagues from the other side, if they do believe this issue is still valid and necessary, to actually restart this process from the beginning, because we are wasting our time right here. A 1972 amendment cannot be ratified, it doesn't exist. It has expired. It is unconstitutional. A lot of things have changed.

We can debate if it is necessary or not, but if we want to have a real debate, we need to restart this from the beginning and not waste time debating something that doesn't exist. So I would ask not to support this amendment, and it is unconstitutional.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor heroic actions taken by two police offices in my district, Officer Tiffany Bledsoe and Officer David Lindenschmidt of the Noblesville Police Department. Both Officers Bledsoe and Lindenschmidt were able to save lives in the early morning hours of February 27, 2021.

Officer Bledsoe was dispatched to a hotel with reports of an overdose. As the first officer on scene, Officer Bledsoe began chest compressions and rescue breaths before administering Narcan to the patient who then regained consciousness and began breathing again. About 20 hours later, a similar call came in, prompting Officer Lindenschmidt to respond to a report of an overdose. Officer Lindenschmidt also administered Narcan to the patient playing a vital role in avoiding an opioid overdose death.

The quick actions of Officers Bledsoe and Lindenschmidt saved lives that day. These two officers are examples of how our policemen and women serve and protect us every day. I am honored to commend their actions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mitchell Lee Russell who passed away at the age of 67 on February 23, 2021. Mitch was the embodiment of a model public servant, striving to serve the citizens of Hamilton County. He protected his fellow citizens for over 30 years before retiring in 2006.

Mitch started his career following in the footsteps of his older brother, Richard, who was also a police officer. Mitch began his service in Arcadia, Indiana as a Deputy Marshal. He then went on to serve in the Hamilton County Sherriff's Department where he spent 29 years, rising to the rank of Lieutenant before retiring. His service to his community did not end with retirement as he was appointed Marshal of the Arcadia Police Department. In 2012, his service continued when he took a job as director of Security for Riverview Health in Noblesville, where he served until his passing.

His public service also extended beyond law enforcement. Mitch served as President of the Arcadia Town Council, a member of the Kiwanis Club, a board member of the Arcadia baseball and softball board, and as a coach for his children and grandchildren. The town of Arcadia has always been very close to his heart.

On behalf of the 5th District, I offer my deepest sympathies to Mitch's wife of 37 years, Melanie Anne, the Russell family, and the community of Arcadia.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the heroic actions of Anderson Police Officer Joe Todd, who is being credited with saving a life on January 31, 2021. Officer Todd, like so many of our great police officers, put himself in harm's way to serve and protect a citizen.

Officer Todd observed a house fire in progress around 9:00 p.m. that evening. He approached the scene and noticed a woman standing on the front porch with the door open as the flames engulfed the house. Officer Todd ran to the distraught homeowner and asked if there was anyone else inside. The woman then ran back inside the house, visibly shaken by what was occurring. Officer Todd ran after the woman into the burning house and carried her to the front yard to safety.

Our police officers put their lives on the line everyday to serve and protect their fellow citizens. Officer Joe Todd is an example of the selfless work these men and women do every day. On behalf of Indiana's 5th District, it is my honor to commend these brave actions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8. A major reason our Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment is to have a check and balance for the people against the tyranny of government. It is the Second Amendment for a reason, not the Ninth or the Tenth. You must have the Second to protect the First.

The first action by history's dictators--and we know all of them--was to take guns from law-abiding citizens. We must remember that there is no law that stops criminals from getting guns and committing crimes. We would have empty prisons otherwise.

As someone who grew up under a tyrannical government, I value these rights tremendously, and I encourage my colleagues to be vigilant and protect these rights for all law-abiding citizens.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 842.

Like many other bills in this Congress, the majority has rushed this bill to the floor with no deliberation in committee.

To be clear, I have never opposed union rights to organize. In fact, I have worked with them on some valid issues. However, this bill, among its many concerning provisions, denies States' rights.

As a former State senator, I believe it is unconstitutional to deny my State of Indiana and our constituents the ability to decide for themselves whether to join a union.

In short, the PRO Act is an antibusiness, antiworker, and antifree enterprise socialist agenda. I urge my colleagues to vote against this radical bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

I am not going to talk much about the underlying bill since it will not

change anyone's vote at this point. I would just summarize it as advancing a socialist agenda by putting temporary bandages on old problems without fixing them, at the expense of the middle class and the future of our children.

Madam Speaker, I mainly just wanted to express my strong disappointment with how broken our legislative process is and how dysfunctional Congress is. If we do not fix it soon and have some common sense, we are going to destroy our great Republic. We should be embarrassed to call ourselves policymakers.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1 on account of several major issues with the bill. First, this bill did not go through committees and proper deliberations. Second, this bill takes drastic steps to federalize our elections and infringe on States' rights. Third, this bill increases opportunities for fraud without proper guardrails or internal controls. To mitigate some fraud risks, I proposed an amendment dealing with election audits, which was rejected by Democrats on the House Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1319. This $1.9 trillion spending package is being considered without meaningful debate and without Republican input. While more than 200 Republican amendments were proposed, Democrats only accepted two.

I personally authored five commonsense amendments to improve government transparency and accountability, assist juvenile justice and foster care systems, and address concerns with standardized testing. All of them were unanimously rejected by Democrats.

We must take action to address the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, but this bill does not address the concerns of everyday Americans. It addresses the desires of the Majority. It also does not address small business struggles. Instead, it adds more regulations on businesses already suffering from the pandemic.

Less than nine percent of the $1.9 trillion authorized in this bill goes to defeating COVID-19. Under this package, taxpayers will have to finance the wish list of the Majority passed under the guise of relief.

Democrats' partisanship stands in the way of meaningful discussions about how to best

serve our constituents. The American people need Congressional action to crush COVID-19. While there are portions of this bill I could support, I cannot support it in its current form.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the so-called Equality Act.

Unfortunately, this is another bill which did not go through the committee process or real debate.

The Judiciary Committee should have had an opportunity to consider H.R. 5 in a legislative hearing. Sadly, this is the first time we are debating, just hours before it is set to receive a vote, with no ability to propose any amendments. I am not sure why we even bother to have committees if we

are passing significant legislation without them.

I would just like to highlight three major concerns.

Concern number one: Broad scope. And I agree with the gentleman from New York, there are some protections that already exist. Last year, the issue of possible employment discrimination of gay and transgender individuals was addressed by the Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch. But this bill has very sweeping changes with potential major adverse implications for religious freedoms and women's rights and safety.

Concern number two: Broad and ambiguous definition of gender identity. This language can have unintended consequences and be taken advantage of by criminals or sexual predators. Also, the safety of women in prisons, juvenile detention facilities, and domestic violence shelters could be put at risk, which would force them to share traditionally women-only spaces with biological men, even if a biological male fraudulently gains access.

Concern number three: Opportunities and safety for female athletes. The science is clear, men are biologically stronger than women.

According to a 2019 Duke University study that involved dozens of specialists in sports science and medicine: ``Biological males and biological females are materially different with respect to main physical attributes that contribute to elite athletic performance.''

The Women's Sports Policy Working Group--a group of champion female athletes and academics--has stated that even when height, size, and weight are equal, males are incrementally stronger and generate more explosive force so that if males and females are forced to compete against each other, the physical safety of females is differently at risk.

The reality has already shown itself to be harmful to the opportunities and safety of female athletes. For example, a female track athlete in Connecticut lost potential scholarships after being pushed out of qualifying for regional track meet spots by two transgender athletes. A transgender MMA fighter caused significant damage to a female athlete's skull.

These examples demonstrate the far-reaching consequences this bill can have on women and girls, should it become law.

American women have worked very hard to secure our rights for many years, and just last year we celebrated 100 years of women's suffrage. But this is a giant step back. Perhaps if this body had actually deliberated over this bill and engaged the proper legislative process, these concerns could have been addressed.

A vote for the Equality Act in its current form is a vote against religious freedom, against women, against female athletes, against incarcerated women, and against science and safety. A vote ``yes'' on this bill is a vote against our daughters.