[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.
____________________