[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 191 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8865-H8867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2021, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Roy) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from as Arizona being 
down here, as always, enlightening the American people and using the 
floor time in the honor of our soon-to-be-leaving-the-House friend, 
Louie Gohmert, and making sure that we use the time here to inform our 
constituents back home.
  As usual, the American people understand I am speaking to a mostly 
empty Chamber, with the exception of the Speaker and my friends who are 
now leaving who were just here. This is pretty much what we get in 
terms of debate here in the House Chamber.
  Earlier today we had a little bit of back and forth on a couple of 
bills, but they are pre-programmed, like 30 minutes a side, pre-
designed, all designed to get right off the floor; and I want to talk 
about that. That is why I am coming down here today.
  Today, we took up two bills on the floor of the people's House. We 
took up a bill that is ostensibly focused on marriage and allowing 
recognition of same-sex marriages from one State to another.
  But in that bill is something that is pretty significant for the 
American people to understand, regardless of your views about how the 
bill is being sold, about it being about recognition of same-sex 
marriage. Actually, they say it is about codifying Obergefell and same-
sex marriage. It does no such thing. It only deals with recognition 
across State lines.
  But even if you think that is good policy, even if you voted for it--
and I didn't think it was good policy. I would have voted against it on 
the merits--in the bill is a sword, a private right of action, a 
private right of action able to be used and creating the ability of the 
Attorney General of the United States to go after individuals for 
actions they carry out, their closely held religious beliefs.
  People in this Chamber voted for it, knowing full well that the 
language in that bill will allow lawyers and organizations to come sue 
Americans and force them into court; and their response is that, oh, 
don't worry, you have the Constitution of the United States and the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  Well, no kidding. I know the Constitution exists. And the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act dates back to, I don't know, '93 or '94, 
sometime in the 1990s.

                              {time}  1545

  But now, if you dare, as an organization, a religious school, for 
example, say: ``Wait a minute. It is against our tenets of faith to 
hire a same-sex couple, or an individual who is part of a same-sex 
couple, as a teacher in our school,'' or maybe another organization 
makes a choice along those lines, now you are in court.
  Now you are having to go defend yourself. Now you are having to go 
take this up to the Fifth Circuit and up to the United States Supreme 
Court, trying to figure out how they are going to interpret all of 
this, whether this law is even constitutional in the first place, all 
because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted not to 
just provide for recognition across States--again, a proposition with 
which I do not agree. But not just that. They wanted to make sure that 
there was a sword to go after you if you disagree.
  Earlier this summer, a member of Parliament in Finland was prosecuted 
for a pamphlet she distributed 20 years ago in defense of traditional 
marriage and in opposition to same-sex marriage.
  Again, whatever your views are on the issue, let me be perfectly 
clear: What is happening today, what was decided today on the floor of 
the House, and all those Members on that side of the aisle and the 39 
on this side of the aisle who voted for that legislation, voted for a 
sword to go after individual Americans, private citizens, and private 
organizations for daring to carry out their closely held, private 
religious beliefs.
  We will be back here talking about that. We will be back here trying 
to pass legislation to make sure we can protect them.
  I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules to try to get a vote 
on the floor of the House, and I was denied even the ability to offer 
the amendment. We couldn't even offer the amendment. Lord knows, I 
don't have the power to offer an amendment on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Again, I want everybody out there in America to understand that not 
since May 2016 has an individual of the so-called people's House been 
able to walk into the well of the House and offer an amendment on a 
piece of legislation, this time as consequential as marriage and 
religious liberty.
  Again, let me reiterate, whatever your views are on the issue--and I 
have mine--shouldn't we be able to debate marriage? Shouldn't we be 
able to debate religious liberty and the ability to protect your views 
and your closely held religious beliefs?
  No, no, no. I was punted out of the Committee on Rules for 
supposedly, irony of ironies, on a day in which we just authorized $860 
billion in a 4,400-page bill I got 40 hours before I voted on it, 
because it would score over half a million dollars--yeah, $500,000--
over 10 years.
  That wasn't even actually what the CBO said. They said it could 
because it might create some revenues and some expenditures and, those 
expenditures, those outlays, would be what? Damages if you went to 
court and you succeeded.

[[Page H8866]]

  I want you to be able to understand that my Democratic colleagues 
used a point of order to shut down an amendment to protect religious 
liberty if it would be successful to protect your rights. That is 
assuredly and 100 percent what happened, yet it was just blown over, 
disregarded here in the House Chamber, including by 39 members of my 
own party, because that is the way this town works.
  The bill was dubbed a gay marriage codification of Obergefell bill. 
You had 39 members of my party go: Oh, well, I have to be for that 
because we have to be for our Libertarian-type principles. Never mind 
that you are trampling on the ability of States and communities to be 
able to decide how they want to live, how they want to set up their 
communities, trampling on millennia, thousands of years, of traditional 
marriage, which is designed very specifically for families and 
children. There is tons of evidence and research on this.
  But, no. We have to do that. We have to ignore the sword and the 
attack on religious liberty. It was voted on today without debate and 
without an amendment. It is extraordinary.
  What else did we do today in this august body, so much debate and 
interaction and discussion among the 435 Members here on the floor? 
What else was done today? I will tell you what was done today. On the 
desk on the floor of the House of Representatives was a stack of papers 
up on the second level, 4,400 pages stacked up right there, which I got 
at 9 p.m. on Tuesday night.
  We have a rule in the House of Representatives that you are not 
supposed to vote on legislation if you don't have at least 72 hours to 
read it. Why might you have that rule? I don't know. Color me crazy. 
Maybe I should read what is in a 4,400-page bill. I know that is a 
radical position. I know that puts me over in the insane camp. Oh, 
there is crazy Chip ranting on the floor of the House because, oh, my 
God, he wants 72 hours to read a bill.
  Whenever I say this, how many people go: You know what is in the 
bill. What is wrong? How long does it take you to read a bill?
  How many Members do you think read all 4,400 pages?
  Oh, but, Chip, they have staff for that. You have all the committee 
staff. The committee staff does that.
  We hold the election certificate. How many of your staff do you think 
read the 4,400 pages? I know my staff was poring over it late night on 
Tuesday night and all day yesterday just to see what was in it.
  Surprise, surprise. What do you find in it? 4,400 pages, $860 billion 
authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act. I had less 
than 40 hours before I was voting on it, in plain violation of the 72-
hour rule, because we waive the rules all the time. We set up rules and 
waive them. Nobody seems to care. They just go: Oh, my God, I have a 
steak dinner to go to. I have a Christmas party to go to.
  I was down here last night debating the rule on marriage. I was solo. 
I was one, even on my side of the aisle.
  When I finished, the House Chamber closed. We were done. I rolled 
down the street and went to a Christmas party. There were a lot of 
Members there. There were a lot of Members all over this town rolling 
out down to their Christmas parties. They sure as hell weren't here 
debating marriage and religious liberty.

  What do we get in getting this NDAA passed? We got a vaccine mandate 
repeal. Or did we? I think we got a really important step forward to 
say that the members of the military shouldn't be fired if they dare 
question whether they must take a needle in their arm for a vaccine 
that has not been proven to be actually effective in halting 
transmission and certainly not necessary for those who are young and 
healthy, by virtually any account by any doctor that we have had 
testify on this. So you reject the needle and you get fired from the 
United States military.
  For 2 years, we have been calling to get rid of the vaccine mandates. 
Finally, in December 2022, right on the way out, Democrats say: Whoa, 
okay, in order to get this 4,400-page monstrosity across the finish 
line, we will accept that we will, in 30 days, undo the memo at the 
Department of Defense.
  That memo could be reissued. In fact, the Democrat chair of the 
Committee on Armed Services effectively said that.
  Are we going to get anybody reinstated? Are we going to get everybody 
honorably discharged? Are we going to be able to say maybe you 
shouldn't be harassed? Because that is what happens.
  You didn't take a needle; you are not getting that job. You didn't 
take a needle; you are not necessarily getting that promotion. 
Retaliation, again, for a vaccine that doctors and the CDC today 
acknowledge does nothing for transmission, that is unnecessary for 
people who are healthy and young.
  Here we are. We passed an NDAA in order to get--oh, man we finally 
got that vaccine mandate repeal language.
  Look, I am glad to get it. We have been fighting for it. We didn't 
get half a loaf. We got the crumbs of one piece of bread. But it was so 
important so we could stop the next person from getting fired. We sure 
as hell didn't help the guy who got fired last week.
  It is $860 billion, $45 billion above the President's request, 9 
percent over 2022 levels.
  I am for more money for lethality. I am for more money for a 
Department of Defense fully capable of killing people and blowing stuff 
up because that is what you want your Department of Defense to be 
capable of doing when called upon to do it. I am not for a social 
engineering experiment wrapped in a uniform. Unfortunately, that is 
what we are turning the Department of Defense into.
  Authorizing a Department of Defense center for excellence in 
environmental security on how and why environmental stresses to human 
safety and water and energy will cascade to economic, social, 
political, or national security events; renewing the DOD's annual 
environment and energy reports; establishing a joint working group on 
prioritization for energy systems, which ``may reduce conventional air 
pollution''; creating a pilot program for electric vehicle charging 
stations; having zero emissions by 2035 for nontactical vehicles.
  Meanwhile, China is just pumping out aircraft carriers and boats, 
building their military, building coal-fired power plants. We ain't 
building any coal-fired power plants. We are barely building any gas-
fired power plants. They are out building their military, and we are 
focused on the coral reef, which appeared 286 times in the text of the 
NDAA.
  Well, what else do we do? We establish a commission on reform and 
modernization of the State Department to offer recommendations to the 
President and Congress related to personnel-related matters, to 
strengthen diversity and inclusion, to ensure that the Department's 
workforce represents all of America.
  Well, I am sure China is shuddering. We order the DOD to submit a 
report on its efforts to increase marketing and advertising to 
adequately reach racial and minority communities. We require the Coast 
Guard to implement a recommendation by the RAND Corporation to increase 
representation of women and racial and ethnic minorities. We require 
the Coast Guard Commandant to develop a 10-year strategy to enhance 
diversity.
  We talked about the coral reef before. We got the Global Food 
Security Reauthorization Act. We have a program for projects to combat 
coastal erosion in Alaska. What we don't have is a repeal of the 2002 
Authorization for Use of Military Force. It has been there for 20 
years, and we are not even using it.
  Why do we leave these in place indefinitely? What do we have in 
there? A provision that undermines Second Amendment rights, creates a 
pilot program on the safe storage of personally owned firearms for 
members of the Armed Forces. It is on a voluntary basis, but here is 
the problem: It establishes a structure for the DOD to be providing 
storage devices for members of the military.
  We know what the next step is: another grant program, another funding 
program through the Department of Justice, another program through 
another agency to be telling you that you must take or you can 
volunteer to take--you take these but you must put the gun in whatever 
storage device the government gives you. That is where this is headed.
  We all know this. They act like it is minimal, doesn't matter, but 
that is

[[Page H8867]]

what happens. Then we embrace it, and that program never goes away. It 
just gets bigger. No little pilot programs try something and then get 
out of the way. When did the government ever start something and not 
make it bigger?
  We are sitting here with $32 trillion of debt, and all we are doing 
is talking about how much money we are going to spend.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: Why don't you 
increase taxes? I tell you what, why don't we have that debate? You 
can't tax enough to spend all the money we are spending. You literally 
can't. Run the numbers. Put up a spreadsheet. If we ever actually 
debated and came down here and had a serious conversation, we could 
have that debate. I would love to have that debate, but we just keep 
writing checks we can't cash.

                              {time}  1600

  What else are we doing? Authorizing and extending security support to 
Ukraine at $800 million without inspector general oversight.
  Amendments were offered in the Foreign Affairs Committee just the 
other day, saying: Well, shouldn't we have more oversight with Ukraine 
money?
  Democratic colleagues said: Well, we are for oversight, but not right 
now. Why in the hell would we want to have oversight right now over the 
money we are now spending in Ukraine and how it is being used?
  No, let's just figure it out later because then what will we do? 
Nothing. We will do the same thing we always do: Spend more money that 
we don't have.
  Not one Member of this body can come down here and refute that 
because every Member of this body knows it is true.
  I will throw that out there, a challenge. I would love any Member of 
this body, any of my 434 colleagues, to come on down. Let's debate the 
proposition that we are going to do anything other than spend more 
money that we don't have.
  I will wait for the takers because the fact is it is true, and it is 
both sides of the aisle.
  Here is what will happen: Next year, Republicans will be in control. 
Next year, there will be all sorts of debate about appropriations 
bills. We will go through all the motions. Maybe we will pass some 
really good appropriations bill that holds spending in check to 
inflation or frozen at 2022 levels or whatever. Come up with something, 
anything that any normal budget, family, business would do.
  Our guys will come down and do all that, be all proud, pat ourselves 
on the back, ``Oh, yes, look at us. We just passed something that is 
fiscally responsible.'' Even if it is not, we will say it is.
  Then what? We will barrel forward. The Senate won't accept it. 
Sometime in August or September, right before a big government shutdown 
threat, Senators will say, ``We are not taking that.''
  A whole bunch of people will say, ``Oh, no. Defense, they need their 
appropriations.'' A whole bunch of people will say, ``We need 
nondefense discretionary.''
  Hey, I have an idea, why don't we just spend it all? Let's just do 
that. Let's just say, yes, we will get a 10 percent increase for 
nondefense discretionary and a 10 percent increase for defense, and we 
will just call it a day and say, ``Well done us.'' We just spent our 
children's inheritance so we can go give a speech saying how we helped 
our military; we wrote a whole bunch more checks for a whole bunch more 
government bureaucrats and agencies because we have more grants and 
more programs to promise you more stuff at the United States house of 
free stuff. We are just going to dole that out without regard to any 
responsibility whatsoever.
  Not one Member of this body can refute what I just said other than 
the maybe hyperbolic examples, although I don't know that they are that 
hyperbolic. I will wait and see next September where we are on the 
numbers.
  ``Inflation is high. Don't you understand, Chip? So why don't we just 
spend at inflation levels?'' Oh, good. Let's just increase the entire 
budget of the United States by 8, 9, 10 percent when we are $32 
trillion in debt and when mandatory spending is on autopilot to 
continue to blow through the roof.
  What about those interest rate payments? Those have gotten a little 
crazy, huh? Sitting here with now 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 percent interest. We 
didn't see that one coming, did we? Except that we did, but we didn't 
care because both sides will retreat to their postures, and then they 
will just kind of throw their hands up and say: ``Chip, it just is what 
it is. Biden is President. You need 60 in the Senate. We have a thin 
majority, so, man, what are we going to do?'' And here we sit.
  I will give this speech again in January, and I will give it again in 
March, and I will give it again in May, and then we will be here in 
September, and I hope someone can prove me wrong, but I will take the 
bet. There will either be a CR because we can't come to an agreement, 
which means we are spending at this year's levels, which is I guess 
somewhat fiscally better, but bad for defense and bad for how you do 
things, or there will be a massive bunch of spending. That is it. Those 
are your choices.
  There will not be a reasonable sit-down to do the job that we are 
supposed to do.
  I believe I am going to get in trouble, but I need to go do a radio 
interview, so I am going to have to walk off the floor now.
  Here is the thing: I am just asking any one of the Members of either 
side of the aisle to say we are going to stop doing that. At some 
point, we are going to stop doing that, stop spending money we don't 
have, stop cooking all these bills up in back rooms and dropping them 
on the floor like happened just today with a 4,400-page, $860 billion 
National Defense Authorization Act, airdropped onto the floor, take it 
or leave it.
  So, I left it, and I had to vote against defense, which is not 
exactly where I want to be, but I am sure as heck not going to continue 
to go down this road and look at my kids and grandkids one day and say: 
Well, too bad. Your country is bankrupt.
  I hope my colleagues will wake up tomorrow and say they want to avoid 
having to say the same thing to their kids or grandkids.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________