[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 29, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H1272-H1279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE PEOPLE'S NIGHT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
General Leave
Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
introduce extraneous material into the Record on the topic of this
Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, tonight is a reminder of exactly whose
House this belongs to. We hear much in the political circles as far as
who makes the call and who gets to speak when. Today, customarily, is a
very unique and special day had our President not been disinvited.
Well, tonight we will have a few Members speaking on the importance
of hearing from the Members that Americans have elected to talk about
the issues of the past 2 years, and some of the things that we need to
accomplish over the next couple of years.
We have some wonderful speakers this afternoon and this evening, to
be able to share some of the topics that are important to our
constituents as well as to all Americans.
The first speaker I would like to introduce to you is Mr. Mike
Johnson, who represents the Fourth District of Louisiana, and is
currently leading the largest caucus in all of Congress as chairman of
the Republican Study Committee.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. 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
[[Page H1273]]
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.
{time} 1545
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.
Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his wonderful
words of wisdom and inspiration.
A lot of times in the House, we hear politicians say, even throughout
our State, that we are doing things for the people. And I guess, to
some degree, some of that is okay. But for us to be successful, I think
we have to get back to the place that we are doing things with the
people. No one embodies that more in the House than past chairman and
ranking member of Ways and Means, Mr. Kevin Brady.
In taking a moment of personal privilege here, I get a chance to meet
lots of figures: lots of politicians, lots of Presidents, kings, and
queens throughout this country--and throughout this world, actually--
but few people I have ever met who carried the servant spirit and the
servant heart more than our top Republican on Ways and Means.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady),
proudly representing Texas' Eighth District.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon, first, to thank the
gentleman, my friend from the Sixth District of North Carolina,
Congressman Mark Walker, for his leadership in our Republican House
Conference, for his leadership in helping improve the lives of not just
North Carolinians, but every American, and, tonight, for organizing
today's Special Order, ``The People's Night,'' #witthepeople, on a
night we had hoped our President would be here, as tradition requires,
to give the State of the Union.
I want to thank those who are here tonight. We heard from Mr. Johnson
and my colleagues who are speaking tonight on the issues that are so
important to the American people. Whether it is jobs, better wages, a
stronger economy, more affordable and accessible healthcare, supporting
resources for our troops and veterans, securing our border, standing
with Israel,
[[Page H1274]]
or, as Mr. Johnson pointed out, protecting the lives of the innocent
unborn, I am proud to join you in this fight.
Let's talk about the economy and jobs. We have seen such dramatic
difference the last 2 years. Remember, before that, the economy had
struggled for more than a decade. Every expert in Washington was
telling the American people: Just get used to that. Get used to your
paychecks being flat. Get used to jobs moving overseas. Get used to
your kids coming out of school with fair to low opportunities. That is
the new normal.
Well, Republicans and President Trump believed there was a better
future, a brighter future for America, so we went to work. As a result,
because of our commitment to lifting red tape off of our local small
businesses and delivering the first overhaul of our Tax Code in more
than 30 years, America is back, and the American people are doing
better because of it: wages are rising the fastest in a decade;
America's economy is growing the fastest in more than a decade; and
unemployment is at one of the lowest levels in decades.
We did this by working with President Trump to lift more than $33
billion in red tape off our local businesses so they can hire again, so
they can grow again.
Then we tackled this terrible Tax Code that had been placed, and put
in place one that lowers taxes for all Americans, that helps small
businesses grow and invest, that doubles the child tax credit, that
doubles the standard deductions and changes the dynamics so that jobs
investment comes back to America rather than just being stranded
overseas. And, boy, what a difference it is making.
Due to the Republican pro-growth policies and President Trump's tax
cuts, our economy exceeded 3 percent growth over the past year. That
never happened under our previous President. So much for that new
normal of slow growth.
More than 5 million jobs have been created since President Trump was
elected, including more than 2.5 million since the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act was signed into law. Last week, our unemployment jobless claims
were at a 50-year low. That is a 50-year best for that.
The unemployment rate for African Americans fell to the lowest rate
ever on record. For Asian and Hispanic Americans, their unemployment
rates are the best we have seen in decades.
For those who are disabled, for those coming out of prison, for those
without high school educations, for those who are teenagers, the job
opportunities are the best they have seen in decades. The unemployment
rate, in some cases, is the best since we have started recording it.
And the group I watched the most, sort of the underdogs in every
community, are those who didn't even get a chance to finish high school
or get a GED, that are always the first to be laid off, always the last
to be rehired. Well, under this new economy, the unemployment for those
without a high school degree is the best since America started
recording it.
So our brothers and sisters in our communities and neighborhoods have
more job opportunities than they have seen in a long time, and their
paychecks are going up as well, the fastest in more than a decade.
It had been stuck flat for so many Americans for so long, it just was
hard for families to make ends meet. But now, with higher paychecks and
a tax cut for over 90 percent of American workers, families now have a
budget that goes a little farther each week, where they can invest in
themselves and their American Dream rather than in Washington's dream.
Consumer confidence has soared. American manufacturing is back. In
fact, the National Association of Manufacturers, their index has the
highest annual growth in jobs in history, over the past year. In fact,
last year, manufacturing in America added almost 290,000 new jobs.
Finally, small business optimism is through the roof. They are
investing and hiring and growing again on Main Streets all across
America.
This didn't happen by accident. Republicans working closely with
President Trump decided there was a brighter future for America. We
could get out of the doldrums. We could give people opportunities. We
could boost their paycheck, and we could bring jobs back from overseas.
That is the difference the last 2 years has made for America.
And when the State of the Union is held, President Trump, from the
dais behind me, can talk about the huge difference he has made in the
American economy and what it means for working families and small
businesses along Main Street.
Madam Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Walker) for his leadership and for organizing the People's Night, and I
am proud to be part of it.
Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking Republican on our Ways
and Means Committee, Kevin Brady, for the wonderful service that he
continues to display not just to the good people of the Lone Star
State, but to all Americans.
We had a lot of retirements this past election, but not all the
adults left the building. We have a wonderful veteran and former Korean
veteran--actually, OB/GYN doctor, who delivered nearly 5,000 babies--
the ranking member, past chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I
ask Phil Roe from Tennessee to share a few things on his heart; because
there are few people who have had his experience level, and I believe
it would behoove us all to listen to the words of wisdom from Mr. Phil
Roe.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P.
Roe).
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Walker) for the work he has done as our past
chairman of the Republican Study Committee and now in leadership and
our Conference, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight.
I remember, about 2 years ago, I was up late at night watching the
election returns, and then-President-elect Trump announced his
acceptance speech. He was not 3 minutes into his speech when he said
that he wanted to help our Nation's veterans.
It was very near and dear to my heart because I am a generation of
veterans. That was during the Vietnam war, and we were not so much
appreciated and treated rather shabbily by our country.
So I knew what was in President Trump's heart, and I wish he were
here tonight to be able to express that. Because every time I have been
in the room with him, he has appreciated the service of our Nation's 21
million living veterans.
Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, we had an opportunity to do something
about it, and, in a bipartisan way--and I do want to give thanks to
both sides of the aisle. This would not have happened without their
help. We started on a mission to really reform the way the VA provides
healthcare.
For those out there who don't know about our VA system, there are
over 150 VA medical centers, over 800 outpatient clinics that we have.
The VA is divided into, actually, three parts: It is healthcare, and
it is benefits, and it is cemeteries.
If you haven't visited a VA cemetery, you should, because it will
really make your heart feel good to see how we treat our Nation's
heroes.
We started, 2 years ago, with the idea that not all employees at work
at the VA are good employees and should be there. When I got to
Congress in 2010--I have been here, now, 10 years--there were 250,000
employees at the VA.
Now, the VA employs almost 370,000 people. But there were some
egregious acts that some of these folks had carried out, and they could
not be fired.
We passed a bill in a bipartisan way that allows us to terminate
poorly performing employees while maintaining the rights of those
employees who are there, 99.9 percent of whom are doing a great job for
our Nation's heroes.
The second thing most of us Congressmen hear about is disability
claims. When I got to Congress in 2009, there were a million backlogged
disability claims, veterans sometimes waiting until they died to get
their disability claim adjudicated. That number now is down to around
350,000--far too many.
We passed a bill at that point, about 18 months ago, the appeals
reform bill, and it has been piloted--called the RAMP program--which
has sped up.
Last Friday, I was in Nashville, Tennessee, going to our regional
office to
[[Page H1275]]
see how they were doing, and I ran into a gentleman who was using the
VA--just happened to be there, a veteran, about my age. He said: ``I
have been trying for 7 years to get my claim adjudicated, get taken
care of.'' In 90 days, with the new RAMP program--he had waited 7
years. In 90 days, it was solved.
That program goes live next month. The Secretary has approved it,
and, hopefully, now we can speed the claims and appeals process up.
A third bill that we passed, that I used in 1975 when I got out of
the Army and came back stateside from the Southeast Asia, is called the
GI bill. For those out there, it is an education bill, and it was
written, initially, by a World War II vet Harry G. Colmery. Mr. Colmery
wrote a bill and thought that we could really change our Nation by
educating veterans who were getting out of the military; and we did
just that, and it changed our Nation.
I am still appreciative, to this day, of the $300 a month that my
country invested in me when I had a young family, when I went back to
finish my education at the University of Tennessee, College of
Medicine. I was able to use that money to help me finish my training
and my education. But that terminated at 10 years. If I didn't use it
within 10 years, it went away.
Today, we passed a bill, fully paid for, that allows a veteran to use
their GI bill the rest of their life. And we know if someone is 23 when
they get out, when they are 40, maybe they might need retraining. Well,
now, they can get that.
The second thing we did in that bill--again, very personal to me--is
some veterans hadn't served long enough. If they earned a Purple Heart,
they didn't get the full benefit because they hadn't served enough
time. Now, if you shed blood for this Nation, you get the full GI bill,
and it should be that.
We also improved payment for our Gold Star families and others, and
we have added time for technical training. We know those courses
sometimes take longer.
We also funded, what is called the Veterans Choice Program three
times during the last Congress, and that is how veterans get care
outside the VA. We know that most VA hospitals can't provide everything
to everybody, and many veterans have to travel long, long distances to
see a doctor, to see a specialist.
{time} 1600
I was visiting Oregon a couple years ago and found out that one
congressional district in Oregon had more square miles than the State
of Tennessee did. We had to develop a bill that allowed veterans in
rural areas to see a doctor and veterans in urban areas to do so.
We passed the VA MISSION Act, which was signed into law,
appropriately, on June the 6th of 2018, 74 years after D-day.
What this bill will do is the following. It will revise how veterans
get their care outside the VA. It has a second very important part
called the VA caregiver bill. Catastrophically injured, post-9/11 GIs
who were injured in battle now can have a caregiver given a stipend to
stay home so that they can stay out of the hospital.
But that did not apply to pre-9/11 veterans, Vietnam-era veterans
like I am, Korea, and World War II. We now provide that benefit for
those veterans.
Thirdly, we are looking at what is called an asset review of the VA.
This is something that really surprised me when I looked at the data.
The actual number of patients in hospital beds peaked in 1981. The
population has grown 40 percent, and we actually have 10 percent fewer
people in hospital beds than we did almost 40 years ago.
So medicine is changing, and the VA needs to change. It needs to go
through a self-evaluation, get right-sized, and get the VA healthcare
out where the patients live, where the veterans are.
We know that patients are moving, veterans are moving, from the
Northeast to the South and West, so we need to put those assets there.
That is what the VA bill will do.
There are a few other small things, Madam Speaker, that we did that
might not be big to some people but were huge to me, because my
Scoutmaster was killed in 1965 in Vietnam. His name was Thomas E.
Thayer. He was a first sergeant in the 101st Airborne Division, a great
man with four children.
When we have Gold Star families that sign a lease, let's say--and we
had this happen where they signed a lease. One was in North Carolina,
and the person would not release that woman from her lease, and she had
to pay that.
Now, if you lose your husband or your wife in combat, you can get out
of those. We also did the same thing for cable TV, for internet, and
for cell phones. If you are deployed, you can't use those things, so
you can get out of those long-term contracts.
The Veterans' Affairs Committee passed over 80 bills. Almost 50 of
them were signed into law to help our Nation's veterans.
We did have one very disappointing failure to me, and I have already
dropped a bill this term. It is called the blue water Navy bill. Just
to let our audience out there, the folks viewing this, know what it is,
there are veterans who served on surface ships in the territorial
waters just off Vietnam, off the coast. Actually, Agent Orange was used
in Korea, where I was. If you put your boots on the ground, then you
are given the presumption for certain diseases for disability benefits.
That does not occur for those men and women who served on surface
ships.
We passed it 382-0 in the House and could not get it moved in the
Senate. We are going to give them an opportunity to do the right thing
this next Congress.
Madam Speaker, it has been a privilege for me to serve for 10 years
on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and we are committed in that
committee to continuing to serve our Nation's heroes and to give them
the benefits they have earned that allow us to be free.
I thank Mr. Walker for allowing me a few minutes to come down and
share these few things we did for our Nation's heroes.
Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Phil Roe for sharing. The
gentleman is one of the heroes around here. He not only talks the talk,
but he walks the walk.
Speaking of somebody who walks the walk, that is Dan Crenshaw from
Texas' Second District, a 10-year Navy veteran, a lieutenant commander.
He is one bad dude. I would probably use a different expression, but my
mother may be watching at this particular time.
``Saturday Night Live'' made him famous, but his work already has put
him out as one of our leaders. It is my privilege to introduce and to
hear from the former lieutenant commander.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Dan
Crenshaw.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for setting this
up and for having me speak here today.
I rise today to address the urgent issue of border security. There
are two elements to the border debate. One is political, and one is
policy.
The political element consists of the circumstances regarding the
shutdown, the negotiations or lack thereof, and the points of
compromise from either side.
The policy side is simply the question of whether or not we need a
wall as part of comprehensive border security.
Let me begin with the political gamesmanship.
Democratic leadership has been running a victory lap this week
because they ``won'' the shutdown. I keep wondering, what exactly did
they win?
If you think winning means a porous border with 400,000 people
apprehended every year, then your definition of winning is different
than mine. If you think winning means standing strong against any sort
of negotiation or compromise that would have allowed Federal workers
finally to be paid, then your definition of winning is different than
mine.
The President didn't cave to Democrats. The President gave compassion
to Federal workers who needed it. If that is your idea of losing, then
you and I have different definitions of what it means to lose.
The truth is that the President has compromised time after time
because, for us, this is not about who wins or loses the political
game; it is about securing the border.
First, the President agreed that a 2,000-mile, sea-to-shining-sea
wall
[[Page H1276]]
would be a logistical difficulty, so he agreed to 234 miles of fencing,
a mere tenth of his original campaign promise.
Then the President agreed to $5.7 billion in border wall funding
instead of the originally requested $25 billion, a fifth of the
original request.
Democrats then said that they could discuss border security only if
the government was open, so the President opened the government.
At every turn, the President has reached out and compromised in order
to get a deal done. And at every turn, Democrats scoffed at compromise.
This brings us to the second element of this great debate, the policy
element. Democrats have laughed at a wall. They call it medieval and
ineffective, and they dismiss it without any rationale or reasoning.
The reality is that walls do work, as every rational security expert
acknowledges. Border agents overwhelmingly attest to this. After all,
the President's plan came from the experts at the Department of
Homeland Security.
An integral part of this multifaceted plan is a 234-mile border wall.
Everywhere we put walls, illegal crossings drop. Look at San Diego, El
Centro, Tucson, and El Paso. The drop in illegal immigration and
apprehensions after constructing a wall is enormous and immediate, yet
Democrats pretend these facts don't exist.
They point to common myths about how walls function. They like to
claim people will just climb over or tunnel under them. Oh, yeah? Just
like that?
Well, I am a Navy SEAL, and I know better than most what it takes to
infiltrate hardened areas. I would much rather be infiltrating a place
with no barriers than one with a giant, 20-plus-foot wall. The planning
considerations, training, and equipment necessary are considerable.
And, yes, it takes a lot more than a tall ladder, especially when
discussing huge groups of migrants like the ones we are seeing.
The obvious truth is that walls make a difference and clearly
mitigate movement, and we actually all used to agree on this.
Democrats claim they are for security but would prefer a virtual wall
with sensors, drones, cameras, et cetera. That is fine, and that is
exactly why that technology is included in our plan, but to say we need
only that technology is effectively asking our Border Patrol to chase
migrants endlessly across large swaths of territory.
It is one thing for a sensor to go off when we see a group of
migrants go by. But guess what? When we see that go off, they keep
going unimpeded. Asking our border agents to simply chase them down
when there are literally hundreds crossing each day is complete
insanity.
This dishonest, so-called debate must end. We must start having
serious discussions and secure our border because that is what the
American people want. That is what it means to be with the people.
Mr. WALKER. What a privilege it is for me to serve with Lieutenant
Commander Dan Crenshaw, two Bronze Stars a Purple Heart. He has
sacrificed much for this country and serves with honor and integrity.
Speaking of service, somebody who serves next door to my district in
North Carolina is the past chairwoman and top Republican on our
Education and Labor Committee. If there is anyone who works any harder
among the 434, 435 Members, I have not met that person yet. It is my
privilege to honor and to acknowledge her.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms.
Virginia Foxx.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the vice chairman
of our conference for his very, very kind words. We are neighbors in
North Carolina, friends, and colleagues here who are concerned about
the very same issues that face our country.
We are worried about many, many, many things. We worry about the
absence of a wall. We worry about the need for more national security.
I know that we also worry and share the concern with what has happened
in this Chamber in the last few weeks when we have heard a few loud
voices whose rhetoric has completely departed from the bipartisan
consensus on policy toward Israel.
Just last May, for the 70th anniversary of Israel's independence, the
House passed, by unanimous consent, a resolution that I introduced with
two of my Democrat colleagues supporting robust, bilateral relations
with Israel globally and fairness in its treatment in multilateral
fora.
The House of Representatives unanimously sent a message to the U.N.
and the world that respect for Israel's national sovereignty and broad
recognition of its statehood is a priority for U.S. national security
and achieving peace in the Middle East.
Over the past couple weeks, though, some new Members of this body
have cast a cloud over this Chamber's long-time priority of the U.S.-
Israel relationship. I has been suggested that support for Israel
represents a betrayal of one's patriotism and that Israel has no right
to exist.
I reject that position. The simple truth is that, throughout history,
Israel has made numerous concessions in the pursuit of peace while
seeking only the right to exist. Opponents of the Jewish state don't
seem to understand that supporting our ally is a matter of national
security.
On that basis, anti-Israel bias runs counter to advancing our
national interests in the Middle East. Perpetuating the false
narratives that there is an occupied Palestinian territory and that the
Jewish people do not have any connection to the land only undermine the
efforts to bring peace and stability to the region.
Other statements that Israel has ``hypnotized'' the world harken back
to an age of extreme insensitivity to Israel at best and a new
acceptance of anti-Semitic norms at worst.
By our own State Department's definition, applying double standards
that require Israel behave in a manner that is not expected or demanded
of any other democratic nation and denying the Jewish people their
right to self-determination are anti-Semitic beliefs.
We must reject this rhetoric and continue to support Israel as the
major strategic partner that this body has long enshrined in our laws,
our policy priorities, and our hearts and minds. With that, we are also
improving our national security.
Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Foxx for sharing
her heart and our continued pro-Israel stance.
There are few who would be able to speak more to that issue than one
of our two Jewish Members in the House, the co-chair of the House
Republican Israeli Caucus and an Iraqi war veteran. Some would say he
has three beautiful daughters, but I think he just married well and has
two children. He serves on our Foreign Affairs Committee and is a
classmate of mine from the 114th Congress. It is my privilege to
introduce and to hear from him.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Lee
Zeldin.
{time} 1615
Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Walker for his leadership in
our conference and his great representation of his district. It is an
honor to be joining the gentleman tonight for this important time on
the House floor.
I come here to appeal to all my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, Republicans and Democrats, to reject the anti-Israel and anti-
Semitic hatred that we are starting to see infiltrate American politics
and even the Halls of Congress.
It is important that we all come together, that we work together to
not empower, not embrace, not associate with individuals and rhetoric
and policy that promotes this anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatred, but
that we reject it.
It was just a couple weeks ago that this Chamber came together nearly
unanimously to reject white supremacy. What is taking so long for House
Democratic leadership to schedule a vote on H. Res. 72 that I
introduced with Congressman Budd, Congresswoman Stefanik, Congressman
Walker as a cosponsor, and others as well? Why can't we come together
as forcefully and urgently to reject that anti-Semitism and that anti-
Israel hatred?
We have House Democrats who have associated with, taken pictures
with, embraced Louis Farrakhan. He said: ``So when they talk about
Farrakhan, call me a hater, you do what they do, call me an anti-
Semite. Stop it, I'm anti-termite.'' Louis Farrakhan said that last
year.
[[Page H1277]]
He also said: ``Satanic Jews have infected the whole world with
poison and deceit.''
This is offensive to me, as someone who is Jewish. But I am talking
to colleagues who aren't Jewish, and they are offended as well by
Farrakhan and the fact that there are Members of this Chamber who
associate with this person.
In 1984, Farrakhan said about Adolph Hitler: ``He was a very great
man.''
Activist Tamika Mallory called Louis Farrakhan ``the greatest of all
time.'' Her fellow organizer, Linda Sarsour, said: ``Only Jews . . .
are ones that condone violence against Arabs and are cool with mosques
being attacked.''
I have no problem standing here in the well of this Chamber rejecting
it. I don't know what is taking so long for House Democratic leadership
to schedule a vote on H. Res. 72, so they can join us in condemning it
as well.
There is a freshman Representative from Michigan, Representative
Rashida Tlaib, who supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
movement. She invited Abbas Hamideh to attend her swearing-in events
this month. Abbas said, in 2016: ``Israel does not have a right to
exist. The terrorist entity is illegal and has no basis to exist, other
than a delusional, ISIS-like ideology.''
Also this month, that person said: ``I'm willing to go back to my
country Palestine, if the Zionist terrorists go back to Poland. Deal?
Let's get that ball rolling ASAP. Get off Twitter, and let's make that
happen.''
This same Representative said of those who support Israel: ``They
forgot what country they represent.''
Well, as someone who has been in the United States Army for over 15
years, has deployed into combat in defense of this country, a former
Army paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division, never once in my life
have I forgotten what country I represent.
It is kind of ironic that someone who, on their victory night, wraps
themselves in the Palestinian flag is trying to lecture us, especially
for supporting our Nation's greatest ally in Israel.
The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is one that is founded
by someone named Omar Barghouti, who said: ``We are witnessing the
rapid demise of Zionism, and nothing can be done save it, for Zionism
is intent on killing itself. I, for one, support euthanasia.''
He also said: ``Many of the methods of collective and individual
`punishment' meted out to Palestinian civilians at the hands of young,
racist, often sadistic and every impervious Israeli soldiers . . . are
reminiscent of common Nazi practices against the Jews.''
So when you are embracing BDS, know that this is what the founder of
BDS says. This goes beyond anti-Israeli hatred. It is anti-Semitic
hatred.
What is taking so long? This Chamber that had no problem rushing to
this well and nearly unanimously rejecting white supremacy has a
problem rejecting this?
Meanwhile, our students, in the name of the BDS movement, on college
campuses all across this entire country, are being subjected to blatant
anti-Semitism.
For example, at New York University, the student government passed a
resolution supporting BDS. The Bronfman Center for Jewish Life was
temporarily closed in response to threatening Twitter posts by a
student who expressed ``a desire for Zionists to die.''
Other college campuses include a University of Michigan professor who
refused to write a letter of recommendation for a qualified student to
study abroad solely because she was seeking to study abroad in Israel.
A Students for Justice in Palestine cofounder and University of
California, Berkeley, professor spoke at a national conference and
shared an anti-Semitic meme of an Orthodox Jewish person in his
presentation.
At Warren Wilson College, an invited speaker said: ``Jews are doing
the same thing to the Palestinians as the Nazis did to the Jews.''
The examples go on, whether it was Charlottesville, where the
leadership said that Jews must die, that he wanted all Jews to die, or
whether it was the shooting that took place in Pittsburgh.
We are motivated, my colleagues and I, to this Chamber to stand
against anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatred. Everyone in this Chamber
should join us.
I went kindergarten through 12th grade, college, law school, 4 years
of Active Duty, and I never once experienced anti-Semitism. It has no
business infiltrating American politics; it has no business
infiltrating the campuses of United States universities and colleges;
and it has no business infiltrating the Halls of Congress.
I encourage an immediate vote on H. Res. 72.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, you can see why Representative Lee Zeldin is
thought so highly of in the United States House of Congress. I
appreciate his remarks and, even more, his passion.
When we talk about going through some tough things in life, I don't
believe there is anyone that I know who can relate to the journey that
our whip, Representative Steve Scalise, has been through.
I will never forget getting word that Thursday, and we did not know
for sure whether Representative Scalise would actually make it through
the day, but somehow he did. The thing that I remembered most is his
gift with policy. There are lots of things that he does well. The thing
that I will always remember is how he let his faith shine through all
of this darkness.
I yield to Louisiana's finest and our whip, Representative Steve
Scalise.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina
for yielding and for bringing attention to what we are here to talk
about tonight.
This would have been the State of the Union that the President was
initially invited by the Speaker to deliver back on January 3. I am
glad, Mr. Speaker, that, ultimately, we got a new date that the Speaker
has invited the President to come to this Chamber, the people's House,
on February 5, when President Trump finally will have the opportunity
to address the people of this country on the state of Union, as the
Constitution prescribes.
We have seen, over time, it has been done in many different ways.
George Washington started the tradition in 1790 by actually addressing
a joint session of Congress, as opposed to just sending a letter. It
has been done different ways over time.
But over the last 50 years, it has been done here in this House
Chamber every single year, and I am glad that we will finally have that
opportunity to see the tradition continue.
Mr. Speaker, when you talk about the state of the Union and some of
the things that President Trump has been fighting for, the main things
he has been fighting for are to deliver to the American people on
getting the economy back on track and keeping America safe.
Part of keeping America safe, Mr. Speaker, means securing America's
border. That is really what was at the heart of the fight over the last
month of this government shutdown.
A lot of people in Washington are so focused, Mr. Speaker, on who is
to blame or who won the week, who is the winner or who is the loser.
You hear everybody saying that, okay, well, Nancy Pelosi was able to
hold the State of the Union hostage and somehow that is a victory for
the American people that she denied the President the ability to come
here to the people's House to share his message.
I wouldn't be bragging about that as a victory if I were Speaker
Pelosi, because, ultimately, what that means is that she is afraid of
having the American people hear the message that President Trump had to
say.
That message will be distributed next week, but part of that message
involves why we need to secure the border. That is really at the heart
of this debate.
Why do we need to secure America's border? There are some people
questioning whether or not we need to secure America's border. The good
news, Mr. Speaker, is that there are not many people in this country
that wonder whether or not we should secure the border. The bad news is
that of the few people who are in that category, one of them is the
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
We are going to continue to have this debate. On February 5, when you
hear President Trump give this message, I am sure some of the things we
are
[[Page H1278]]
going to hear are the horror stories that we have had because we don't
have a secure border.
I have experienced something, and I have heard firsthand from
constituents in my district about what is at stake. I had the
opportunity to get a call from the mother of a fire chief in south
Louisiana, Spencer Chauvin.
Spencer Chauvin was responding to a call, like he did. He was a
public servant, a fire chief in St. John the Baptist Parish. As he was
responding to that call, Mr. Speaker, he was killed by someone who is
in this country illegally.
He never got to go home that night to his 6-year-old and 8-year-old.
He doesn't get to talk to his mother anymore.
But after his mother and I talked, she mailed me this just last week,
Mr. Speaker, and it is a coin. It is a coin in tribute to Spencer
Chauvin. I keep this coin with me as a reminder of what is at stake in
human terms, because we could talk about who won the day or who won the
week, but is it really victory when the result of Speaker Pelosi's
victory is that there may be more victims like Spencer Chauvin across
this country because we haven't secured our border?
President Trump didn't campaign saying he needed $5.7 billion to
build a wall. President Trump talked about building a wall to secure
our border. When he became President, the experts who risk their lives,
men and women who are not partisans, men and women who wake up every
day, whether it was Barack Obama President or whether it is Donald
Trump President, they just go to the border and risk their lives to
keep the bad people out.
There is a way for good people to come in. If you want to come in
legally like a million people every single year who we let in our
country legally, there is a legal way to do it. If you are seeking
asylum from around the world, Mr. Speaker, there is a legal way to do
it.
In fact, this caravan that you saw coming into America, they stormed
through Mexico's border on the southern border of Mexico. They stormed
through that border. They wanted to storm through our border because we
don't have a physical barrier. They were offered asylum by Mexico, and
they were offered work permits by Mexico, and they turned that down.
Are you really an asylum seeker if you turn down asylum along the way
here? It is not about asylum. It is about whether or not we are going
to get back to rule of law and secure our border.
The experts who risk their lives say it is going to cost $5.7 billion
to secure our border, to give them the tools they need, and that
includes a physical barrier.
Now that we are seeing a growing list of Democrats, including the
majority leader, Steny Hoyer, say physical barriers ought to be part of
the solution, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what I would say, when we
open back the people's House to the President on February 5, is let's
heed the call of Republicans and Democrats alike who recognize we need
to secure our southern border so that we can get back to rule of law
and prevent more Spencer Chauvins from becoming victims to an open
border.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Whip, Representative Steve
Scalise, for his example and courage in standing up for what is right
and true.
Many Members whom I have run across in this House are studious in
their work, but I don't know of any more than Representative Gary
Palmer.
In this town, there is probably a dinner every night somewhere. Mr.
Palmer chooses to take his time going back to his office, preparing for
the next day, constantly reading and staying informed.
I was born in the State that he represents. I lived there only 6
months. We have a mutual love for the Crimson Tide. It is my privilege
to acknowledge and yield to Representative Gary Palmer from Alabama.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman just
acknowledged that I have no social life, but that is fine.
I want to talk a little bit about healthcare. Here is a fact that my
Democratic colleagues were desperately trying to keep from the public.
Not only do the Republicans support providing health insurance coverage
for those with preexisting conditions, but we actually passed
legislation that did just that with the American Health Care Act of
2017.
It included an amendment that Representative David Schweikert of
Arizona and I introduced that ensured that anyone with a preexisting
condition could purchase health insurance. The Palmer-Schweikert
amendment established a risk-sharing plan that would allow any
individual with a preexisting condition to purchase insurance at the
same price as a healthy individual.
It was actually modeled after a successful State-based program in the
State of Maine. Instead of billions of dollars being paid out by the
Federal Government in bailouts for health insurance companies, our
plan, funded by having the majority of the premiums paid for those with
preexisting conditions, transferred into a fund, a risk-sharing fund.
This represents an alternative approach to ObamaCare's guaranteed
issue provision, which priced everyone as sick, resulting in far higher
premiums. As a matter of fact, the premiums got so high that insurance
companies literally began pulling out of whole States.
What our amendment did was, if someone had a preexisting condition,
they would come to an insurance company, fill out a health survey, mark
down if they had had a heart attack or cancer. The insurance company
would sell them insurance at the same price as anybody else. But when
they paid their premiums, 90 percent of the premiums would go into this
risk-sharing agreement.
{time} 1630
The insurance company would only keep 10 percent. Now, if the person,
the individual became very sick, if it became very expensive, the
insurance company would pay the first $7,500 and then 10 percent of the
next $25,000, so the most that they were out was $10,000. The risk-
sharing plan would pick up the balance and reimburse the providers at
the same rate as Medicare.
The way this worked was not only did the premiums go into the risk-
sharing plan, 90 percent of the premiums, but the rest of us would pay
anywhere from $5 to $10 a month on our premiums. That would go into the
risk-sharing plan, and our amendment was backed up with $38 billion.
What this allowed us to do was create a situation where the actuaries
could actually be more predictive in what the cost would be; and, as a
result, it lowered premiums for everyone. So not only did it cover
people with preexisting conditions, but everyone else's premiums came
down.
As a matter of fact, in that 20- to 30-year-old age group, it came
down 41 percent; 30 to 40 years old came down 33 percent; 40 to 50, 25
percent; 50 to 60, 11.6 percent; and that pre-Medicare 60 to 65 came
down 5.9 percent. So what we were doing was trying to repair the
American healthcare system, doing it in a way that made sense for
people.
Not only that, we have other options that we want to present. For
instance, one of the biggest uninsured populations is young people. It
doesn't make sense to spend the amount of money you have to spend to
pay your premiums when a lot of those folks are earning lower wages.
So we want to set up a plan where you could buy short-term insurance,
buy what you need, what you can afford for that time in your life, and
it would be for 1 year. Depending on what you bought, your premiums
could come down 85 percent. If you needed to extend it, you could
extend it for another 3 years. That is transition insurance.
In addition to that, the vast majority of people in America who have
a job work for a small business, and small businesses aren't part of a
larger group. So we wanted to set up association group plans so that if
you are a small business and your city set up an association group
plan, you could be in that. Or if you are a farmer, you could be a
member of an association group plan that the Farm Bureau established,
and premiums there are projected to come down by as much as 50 percent.
The Republicans have the best ideas for repairing our healthcare
system, making it affordable, and keeping our promise, a promise that
was broken repeatedly: If you like your doctor, you
[[Page H1279]]
can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your
doctor.
It is not just about the cost. It is about improving outcomes and
helping people live better and healthier.
Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, as I enter my fifth year serving in these
hallowed Halls, I am still in awe of the sacred duty we have been
given. We are truly the people's House. However, I believe that the
people's House should give a voice to every single American, including
the unborn.
This past Congress, we were able to pass, in the House, two major
bills protecting life. The Born-Alive Protection Act and the Pain-
Capable Child Protection Act both affirmed the humanity of the unborn
and our firm belief that they are worthy of protection. Sadly, these
bills were not taken up in the Senate, and with the new Democratic-led
House, their future is uncertain.
But each January gives us hope. It is a critical time to talk about
the importance of life and what it means to all Americans. Not only
does the beginning of the year bring new goals and ambitions, but it
contains important events that celebrate life, justice, and human
potential.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose life we recently celebrated, knew
this potential. He said that any person cannot succeed if he or she is
willing to ``sacrifice the future of his children for immediate
personal comfort.'' He also professed the value and hope of every
single human life.
We also witnessed tens of thousands of marchers just recently
arriving from all across America to march and boldly speak for those
who can't speak for themselves.
Last week, we saw what my friend Benjamin Watson says is a ``sad and
evil day.'' Throughout history, there are pivotal moments that sober us
up to the point of engagement. Such a moment happened 1 week ago as we
watched the New York State Assembly celebrate expanding the path for
late-term abortions in their State.
Mr. Watson said this: ``It is a sad and evil day when the murder of
our most innocent and vulnerable is celebrated with such overwhelming
exuberance.''
This law allows for abortion up to birth, practically without limits.
It authorizes the legal murder of a fully viable human baby. This is
what was being celebrated. This is why the Freedom Tower was lit bright
pink on a cold winter's night.
That celebration is now seared into our Nation's conscience, and many
are now realizing, more than ever, that we should not, that we must
not, that we cannot look the other way. Even our sleeping churches are
beginning to awaken to this just and righteous cause.
New York already faces a cataclysm. In New York City, more than 500
abortions are performed for every 1,000 births. These numbers are more
staggering for African American babies, more of whom are now aborted
than actually born.
The Governor of New York has even suggested that those who are pro-
life are not--and get this--welcome in his State.
I support federalism and the idea that New York can make its own laws
for New York. My question is not a legal one, but a moral one. How long
will our American society allow this injustice? Can we expect the new
House Democratic majority to continue down this path? Will there be
consequences?
As my friend Kay Cole James likes to say: ``The right to life is the
most fundamental of all civil rights.''
To revive the American Dream, we must reclaim America's soul. That
means standing with the majority of the American people who reject the
Federal funding abortions; that means putting the life and health of
women and babies ahead of the desires of abortion giants like Planned
Parenthood.
But in many cases, we must also regain our credibility in valuing the
birth at all stages of life. Do we care--tough question. Do we care, 20
weeks after the baby is born, as much as we value the baby 20 weeks
before birth?
In closing, Mark Twain said this: The two most important days are
when you are born and when you find out why. How many babies, how many
children will never get to discover either?
Please continue to stand for those who have no voice. In the name
that is everything just, never stop raising yours.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________