James Comer

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, I wonder if our friends on the other side of the aisle would be so passionate if Washington, D.C., were 90 percent Republican as 90 percent Democrat. H.R. 51 goes against the Founding Fathers' intent. It is unconstitutional, impractical, and a blatant power grab. The Founding Fathers created the Federal city--this Federal city--to be separate and apart from the States which it would serve as the seat of government. They designed it this way so there would be no super State that could unduly influence Federal affairs and international relations. Now, I understand the people of the District's desire for representation in Congress. I think that is a legitimate concern, and it is not a new one. If Democrats truly wanted to grant the wishes of D.C. residents, then they would address the constitutional issues with H.R. 51 since it does not stand a chance in court. We all know that. This does not stand one chance in court. Additionally, Democrats could explore other options other than statehood, but they are not interested in any of them since they don't add two new progressive Senators to the U.S. Senate. Serious policy proposals like retrocession, allowing D.C. residents to vote in Maryland Federal elections, and most obviously, the passage of the constitutional amendment have been called for by many of my Republican colleagues. No State has required a constitutional amendment to be admitted to the Union; not one. But D.C. is unique. The 23rd Amendment guarantees the District three electoral college votes. There is no precedent for granting statehood to a territory with electoral college votes or such a special place in our Constitution. H.R. 51 is an unconstitutional bill. D.C. is also massively unprepared to assume the costs of the programs and benefits it receives by being the Federal seat of government. The new State will very likely levy a commuter tax to make up the funding gaps currently backed by the Federal taxpayers. H.R. 51 provides no guarantee to the American people that they will not be on the hook funding the new State for years, if not decades. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to ignore the constitutional process and gain an advantage in the U.S. Senate, all to advance a radical agenda that continues to come out of this House and stalls in the Senate. Democrats know a constitutional amendment granting D.C. statehood would be rejected, just as it has been in the past. H.R. 51 is intentionally designed to circumvent the Constitution and the will of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional and impractical legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), the Republican leader of the Government Operations Subcommittee.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, America's Federal Government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people. But with H.R. 51, America's government will become of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and for the Democrats. Let's be clear what H.R. 51 is all about. It is about Democrats adding two new progressive U.S. Senators to push a radical agenda championed by the squad to reshape America into the socialist utopia they always talk about. If you doubt me, just listen to what our colleague, Congressman Jamie Raskin, recently told The Washington Post. He said: There is a national political logic for D.C. statehood too, because the Senate has become the principal obstacle to social progress across a whole range of issues. So there we have it. H.R. 51 is not really about voting representation. It is about Democrats consolidating their power in Washington. There are numerous problems with H.R. 51. Mainly, it is flatly unconstitutional. Every Justice Department from President Kennedy's to President Obama's has been consistent that a constitutional amendment is needed to grant the District statehood. Robert F. Kennedy said that granting D.C. statehood without a constitutional amendment was inconceivable. He also said granting D.C. statehood, as attempted by H.R. 51, would produce an absurdity. This absurdity is the 23rd Amendment which acknowledges the existence of a Federal District warranting three electoral college votes. While H.R. 51 includes an expedited process for the 23rd Amendment's repeal in Congress, the problem is this would not happen until after D.C. becomes a State. This would create mass confusion as H.R. 51 is reviewed by the courts for years. The Constitution is the foundational document upon which all laws of our country rest, and Congress cannot simply dismiss it with sham legislation. But that is what H.R. 51 attempts to do. Democrats want to rewrite the Constitution without going through the proper process of doing so. During our committee's markup of H.R. 51, I offered an amendment that would assure the 23rd Amendment's repeal prior to statehood being granted, but Democrats opposed this amendment. Why are Democrats pushing such a problematic bill through the House? Why are they working so hard to advance D.C. statehood instead of pursuing a constitutional amendment that would engage the entire country through a process intended by our Founding Fathers? Because they know Americans have firmly rejected D.C. statehood. I urge my colleagues to vote with the vast majority of Americans and reject this unconstitutional and impractical bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon).

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, if this bill is about race, I wonder why your majority leader, Steny Hoyer, voted against this very bill in 1993. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bravery and sacrifice of the Parrish Brothers of Burkesville, Kentucky. Barney, Watson, and Taylor Parrish each honorably served their country during World War II, with Barney paying the ultimate sacrifice. The Parrish Brothers' service to our country did not end after World War II as Watson and Taylor continued defending America during the Korean War. During the war, Watson was seriously wounded and returned to duty less than a week later, where he also paid the ultimate sacrifice. After the Korean War, Taylor returned to Kentucky and continued serving others and raising a family in the First District of Kentucky. The family's sacrifice was awarded two purple hearts and a bronze star. The legacy of the Parrish family leads us all to reflect on the freedoms we hold dear and the sacrifices American heroes make to protect them. The service and sacrifices they bravely gave should not and will not be forgotten. I join their family in friends to celebrate their legacy and honor their noble service to our country.

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, as a young farmer, I knew of James R. Cash at an early age. He was a legend in the agriculture community and a household name in west Kentucky. His farm auctions were always the highest grossing sales anywhere and regularly attended by farmers from six States. As an aspiring politician, James R., Cindy, and Caroline took me in and were instrumental in the development of my organization in west Kentucky. James R. always put my campaign signs up all over my very large Congressional district--especially en route to Fancy Farm. He hosted events, donated money, offered advice, and always allowed me to stay in his guest house. James R. Cash was extremely successful in business and life. His great legacy will live on in his three children. I am extremely pleased to work in Washington with Caroline, who definitely inherited her father's intelligence, patience, and management skills. West Kentucky has lost a great entrepreneur, father, husband, and role model. James R. Cash will be deeply missed by everyone who ever knew him.

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Payne Carr of Union County on his decision to serve our country and attend the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. During his time at Union County High School, Mr. Carr excelled in the classroom and athletically. Among his many wrestling feats are winning the 2021 Kentucky State High School Athletic Association 152 Pound Wrestling Individual Championship, placing in three straight wrestling state tournaments, and leading the Union County High School Wrestling Team to its 6th consecutive state title this year. Mr. Carr's discipline, strong work ethic, and unwavering dedication will serve him well as he begins this next chapter of his life. I was honored to nominate him for this appointment to the Naval Academy and am confident that with his commitment to leadership, he will be successful in his military career. Once again, congratulations to Mr. Payne Carr for this incredible accomplishment. I look forward to seeing his many achievements at the United States Naval Academy and have no doubt he will continue to make Union County and the First Congressional District of Kentucky proud.

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my very good friend, Judge Jeff Burdette, from Mt. Vernon, Kentucky, in Rockcastle County, upon his retirement as circuit court judge after 30 years of distinguished service to the good people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Judge Burdette's circuit court district comprised Rockcastle, Lincoln, and Pulaski Counties. Judge Burdette was considered a constitutional scholar who was respected by everyone, not just on the bench and in the legal community, but everyone in the community in southern Kentucky. He was instrumental in launching the 28th Circuit Adult Drug Court and the rocket docket. Judge Burdette has been someone I have always looked up to, and I wish him the very best in his retirement. I thank him on behalf of the United States House of Representatives for his service to the good people of Kentucky.

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, my amendment protects the ability of employers to receive advice from an attorney or consultant regarding unionization without the attorney or consultant having to disclose the relationship to the Federal Government when the attorney or consultant will have no contact with the employer's employees. Congress has no business forcing attorneys to report on an attorney- client relationship when the attorney will not be speaking with employees. Even the left-leaning American Bar Association opposed the Obama persuader rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same by approving this amendment and protecting the First Amendment rights of employers.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong opposition to this bill, which would cripple American entrepreneurs and workers, just the opposite of what we should be doing to stimulate an economy. Workers already have the right to organize under Federal law, as they should, but the PRO Act takes the extreme step of forcing unionization onto workers who do not wish to be a part of a union. And just like the recent $2 trillion spending spree, Democrats are ramming this partisan bill through with no Republican input. We didn't even have a committee hearing to examine its harmful effects, including an estimated $47 billion on job creators. Unfortunately, one of my commonsense amendments--to preserve a longstanding ban on secondary boycotts--was blocked by the Democrat majority. Democrats would be wise to heed President Biden's message of unity and work with Republicans to help our economy. Instead, they are back this week with more partisan bills designed to appease left-wing special interest groups. American workers deserve better.

Mr. COMER

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about transparency in government spending. That is one of the main objectives of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. Not only do we ensure the prevention of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government, we also want and expect government transparency, just like the people who send us here to be their voice in Washington. There is no greater disgrace to the taxpayers than the nearly $28 trillion in debt we are facing as a nation. But instead of taking this burden we are leaving to our children and grandchildren seriously, Democrats are barreling through a partisan $2 trillion package through Congress, $2 trillion of deficit spending. Congress has already spent $4 trillion to fight the coronavirus in a bipartisan manner. And $1 trillion of that $4 trillion we have already appropriated is unspent. That is why I introduced a resolution with Budget Committee Ranking Member Jason Smith requiring President Biden to provide this body with information about the $1 trillion in unspent funds. Congress should have the information before we spend more taxpayer money. The American people must have transparency and accountability for how their money is spent. People find that hard to believe, that 25 percent of the last COVID relief bill hasn't been spent, and we don't have a full accounting of where that money is, where the unspent funds are, where it is going, why it hasn't been spent. But we are going to appropriate another $2 trillion? We are not. You all are. Two trillion dollars more of deficit spending. Transparency and responsibility weren't on the minds of the House last week when the Democrats passed in a partisan manner $2 trillion additional deficit spending. This is not responsible governing, especially in light of concerns from economists that the Democrats' massive spending bill most likely will cause an economic crash. It is definitely causing inflation. If you have gone to fill up gas, if you have gone to Lowe's or Home Depot or anywhere for home improvements, or if you tried to buy any commodities, you have gone to refinance your house, you are starting to see inflation. And with the $2 trillion in that fund, along with the $1 trillion that still hasn't been spent, you are going to create the kind of inflation that I studied about in the 1970s. This bill wasn't about relief for Americans. I have supported targeted relief, including the direct stimulus checks supported by President Trump. I voted for the $2,000. I was one of the few Republicans that voted for the $2,000 in direct stimulus to the individuals who qualified economically. That is called targeted relief. I also support funding to help with vaccine distribution and actually win the fight against COVID-19, but only 9 percent of Nancy Pelosi's and Joe Biden's so-called relief bill went toward fighting COVID, and less than 1 percent went towards vaccines. Instead, the focus was on satisfying the far left political agenda. This relief measure inserted unrelated pork projects in Nancy Pelosi's backyard and bailed out blue States, which chose lockdowns over recovery. In other words, that COVID bill rewarded the States that kept their economies locked down, the States that have the highest unemployment rate, and they got rewarded with this blue State bailout bill. The no-strings attached, $350 billion in State bailout money comes at a time when, collectively, State revenues have hardly budged. For example, California has a $15 billion budget surplus. We played a video in the House Oversight Committee where California Governor Gavin Newsom was bragging about his $10 billion budget surplus. But you want to send more money to California. My home State of Kentucky saw a higher tax revenue during the pandemic months of 2020 than they did during the same period of 2019. That is because we had a strong economy. If you take COVID away, it was the strongest economy in my lifetime. The biggest impediment to the economy over the past year has been mayors and governors who have locked their cities and States down. The truth is, Congress has already provided States with funding for COVID expenses through the CARES Act. Now we must look out for our taxpayers. This includes our senior citizens. Instead of helping our citizens who are most vulnerable to the virus, Biden's bailout bill smacks Kentucky seniors with a $6.4 billion Medicare cut over the next 10 years. That is not an America-first proposal. Before Democrats even attempt to spend another dime of taxpayer dollars, Congress needs to act to prevent government waste, fraud, and abuse; and we need to refocus our attention on actually helping the American people. I hope to see the United States Senate exercise the due diligence that taxpayers deserve, and that the House did not provide, in only passing funding that is targeted directly to the pandemic. Honoring Veteran Thomas Bruzan

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks with mentioning an issue that will be debated by my colleagues over the next few days. I want to make clear to the people I represent, not just in the First Congressional District but the entire State of Kentucky and America, for that matter, where I stand on this issue, and that is the issue of earmarks and whether or not to end the ban on congressional earmarks. I am opposed to that for many reasons. First of all, I have learned this over the 4 years I have served in Congress: Congress is not a democratic place, especially when it comes to money. We are going to have a debate--and it is going to be in the press--about whether or not to bring back earmarks. But, in fact, there have always been earmarks. This last COVID bill had earmarks in there for Speaker Pelosi. The CARES Act had earmarks for legislative leaders on both sides, Democrats and Republicans. Bringing back earmarks will only give certain people the ability to spend more money at the expense of a majority of Members, and I can't believe that Republicans would put a whole lot of consideration into supporting the bringing back of congressional earmarks. Another reason why I oppose earmarks is common sense. We have to get serious about deficit spending. We are $28 trillion in Federal debt. Congress has to set the example. And the example is standing up and saying that we are going to do more earmarks, bring earmarks back, bring back pork? More pork? That is a terrible example, and somebody has to stand up for the American taxpayer. Somebody has to stand up for the children and grandchildren who are going to inherit this $28 trillion in debt, and I want to stand up for those people and oppose earmarks. Lastly, as the top Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, one thing I have studied in oversight, not just in Congress, but in my time in the Kentucky General Assembly and in my study of history and American politics, is that there is always a direct correlation between earmarks and corruption. I said that to some Members, and they said: Oh, no, my earmarks won't be corrupt, they are going to go to building projects. The corruption is seldom with the municipalities. The corruption is with the contractors and the subcontractors in the pork projects. There is usually a direct correlation between earmarks and campaign contributions. At a time when we have got too many special interests with their paws in the pot in Washington, bringing back earmarks is a bad idea. I want everyone in Kentucky to know exactly where I stand on that issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about H.R. 1, which passed the House of Representatives last week. Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made clear what their top priority in this new Congress would be: a swamp takeover of America's elections. At its heart, this radical legislation is a massive Federal takeover that enables ballot harvesting, requires mass mail-in voting, and uses taxpayer money to fund political campaigns. This bill, mistakenly named the ``For the People Act,'' is targeted toward helping politicians, not the people. At a time when the American people are struggling, why is helping politicians, like herself, Speaker Pelosi's top priority? Whenever Washington gets involved, chaos and dysfunction follow closely behind. If somehow signed into law, H.R. 1 will follow in that familiar pattern. Mr. Speaker, 2020 brought to light serious concerns with our election system. We saw dramatic delays, uncertainty, and chaos from policies like universal mail-in voting and allowing votes to be counted for days after the election--and in the case of New York, weeks and months after the election. These concerns are real and present the need for fundamental reforms, but these reforms should be addressed by States, not Congress. And they should be the exact opposite of the disastrous H.R. 1. Mr. Speaker, this legislation sanctions the very practices that created chaos and uncertainty in the 2020 election and sowed widespread voter distrust. Banning voter ID laws and taking other actions to prevent States from promoting a safe and secure election is a massive Washington power grab. The legislation allows absentee ballots to come in up to 10 days--10 days--after the election date. Does anyone in this body think that is a good idea? Mr. Speaker, I would invite anyone in America to come to my home community of Monroe County, Kentucky, and come down on election night in 2022--the primary election because it is a pretty Republican county, 91 percent Republican, to be exact. I would invite anyone to come to my community on election day when all the people who voted in person, which would be about 95 percent of the voters, voted. Let's say a magistrate, a constable, or a jailer candidate gets the most votes on that primary election day. Then, 10 days later, a wad of absentees comes in the mail to the clerk, and lo and behold, that person loses. I would invite anyone in America to come tell that magistrate candidate, constable candidate, or jailer candidate, ``I am sorry. I know you won on election day, but 10 days later, these ballots came in and you lost.'' That is what H.R. 1 would do. It makes no sense. This bill is nothing but a Democrat attempt to consolidate power. It places Washington in control of elections and enables voter fraud. And like every other priority bill we have seen from this body, it is a disgrace for the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I proudly voted against H.R. 1, as did every Republican in this body. Let's hope, when that bill makes its way to the Senate, that there are some Senators with some common sense on the Democrat side, like Joe Manchin, who will stand up for not just the American taxpayer but the American citizen and reject H.R. 1. Honoring Paducah Community Kitchen

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor my good friend and a political powerhouse, Larry Piper, of Allen County, Kentucky, who recently retired after serving as Allen County jailer since 2007. At the end of January, Larry stepped aside after faithfully serving his community for years in this important role. During his time in public office, Larry was known for always performing his duties well, treating everyone with respect, and doing what was asked of him. These traits are the hallmark of a good and honest public servant and describe Larry to a tee. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend, Larry Piper, on a successful career, and I wish him and his wife, Patricia, the very best in a well- earned retirement. Election System Concerns

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Ocie Key of the First District of Kentucky, who is turning 100 years old on March 18. Mrs. Key was born in Burkesville, Kentucky, and continues to reside in Cumberland County. In 1939, Mrs. Key married Paul, and together they have three daughters, six grandchildren, and five great-grandchildren. She is a lover of quilting, sewing, and basket-making, and enjoys spending time with family and friends. Mrs. Key is a woman of faith and a member of the Christian Chapel Church of Christ in Burkesville, Kentucky. She is also the queen of the Cumberland County Red Hat Society and has been a member of the Cumberland County Homemakers for over 50 years. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent Mrs. Ocie Key, and I join with everyone in Cumberland County and throughout the Commonwealth in wishing her a very happy 100th birthday. Need for Transparency in Spending

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and legacy of Thomas Bruzan, who passed away in December at his home in Cadiz, Kentucky, at the age of 71, after a lifetime of service to his country. Tom was a decorated Marine Corps veteran, who received a Purple Heart for his service in Operation Meade during the Vietnam war. After his military service, Tom assisted combat veterans as a volunteer at Pennyroyal Veterans Center in Christian County. Tom was also a member of the American Legion and a charitable giver to Nonnie's Place, a nonprofit in Lyon County, Kentucky, which supports women and mothers going through hard times. Mr. Speaker, I join Tom's family, friends, and all impacted by his sacrifice, in celebrating his life of devoted service to our country and the First Congressional District of Kentucky. Tom was a true American patriot, and his bravery and kindness will not be forgotten. Earmarks

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, in the weeks since President Biden took office, we have seen a dramatic reversal from the America First policies that we saw under President Trump. Mr. Speaker, after 4 years of policies that empowered middle-class Americans to prosper, the working class is now getting the shaft under Joe Biden. And it is all happening through heavy-handed executive orders, not through legislation that reflects the voice of the people's representatives. On day one, he acted recklessly to cancel the Keystone Pipeline, which provided thousands of good-paying energy jobs to the American people. From there, it was only worse. Rejoining the Paris climate agreement, reentering the communist- compromised World Health Organization, and reducing security on our southern border were all executive actions that will make America less safe and prosperous. The President's radical proposal to grant amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants, while 11 million Americans are unemployed, is the definition of putting Americans last. As it relates to immigration, this administration's reckless policies know no bounds. Due to President Biden's loosening of security on our southern border, we are sending a message to the world that our immigration laws can be violated without consequence. Stopping construction of the wall and weakening enforcement, especially during a pandemic, is a huge national security and health risk to the American people. The Biden administration, specifically the Department of Homeland Security, must answer questions the Committee on Oversight and Reform has asked about how they plan to keep the American people safe as they incentivize illegal immigration. Rather than focus on the unity outlined in his inaugural speech, President Biden has issued divisive executive orders and hurt the safety of the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this President to work in a bipartisan way to take his duties seriously and enforce our immigration laws. It is also long past time to reopen schools and get Americans back to work. These are the things the American people expect us to be working on, not engaging in excessive partisanship. If we continue to see an approach to governing focused on pandering to our far-left base rather than putting America first, American jobs, national security, and energy independence will suffer greatly. Congratulating Graves County High School JROTC