Thomas Garrett

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, so we then arrive at the point where the good work of Mr. Engel and Chairman Royce is needed today, and that is what we do. It is with a glad heart that I note the bipartisan nature of these agreements.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Chamber took up H.R. 36, a bill dealing with pain-capable unborn children; and a bill that, in its result, would cause the United States to join the vast bulk of nations in the world wherein the termination of lives of children who are not only capable of feeling pain, but under what we understand to be the best science may, in fact, feel more pain because of the density of the nerve tissue, as they are in this roughly fifth month of development. I guess four times in the brief time that I have been in this building, we have seen the Chamber erupt into applause, oftentimes over partisan-perceived victories. The first time the Chamber erupted into applause is when my colleagues across the aisle were giddy with joy when a bill that would have ensured that the Department of Defense didn't spend money to perform transgender procedures on soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines failed in the form of an amendment. Another had to do with healthcare. Another had to do with the return of Majority Whip Steve Scalise. That was indeed a bipartisan eruption in applause. Then there was an eruption from this side of the Chamber when H.R. 36 passed, as there was a recognition that late-term abortion is barbaric and counter to the ideas put forth to the world when, in the Declaration of Independence, it was written that we hold certain truths to be self-evident, and among those was life. Too many people have failed to grasp the nature of what late-term abortion is, yet to grapple with the problem will require to understand what exactly that problem is. So to look at the other six nations in the world that allow the termination of life after 5 months, we see nations like Vietnam, North Korea, China, and the United States. Then to listen to the doctors who have performed these procedures describe in what was literally excruciating detail how the procedure is performed, that an instrument is inserted into the uterus, and probing is done until something is found, and the instrument is latched on, and then there is pulling, and out comes an arm or a leg or a piece of a head or a torso. Then, in fact, that unborn child, who science tells us can feel pain, dies by virtue of bleeding to death inside its very host. That is the nature of these procedures. Estimates tell us that if the United States joined the fast bulk of the nations on the planet in outlawing late-term abortions, somewhere between 14,000 and 20,000 children every year wouldn't experience an unspeakable demise of literally being ripped from their host limb by limb and bleeding to death, all whilst, in the best estimates of scientists, feeling the pain of that death. To put that in terms of Virginia's Fifth District, that is the population of Cumberland County twice every year, roughly. So there was applause from the Members who saw that the United States would join the ranks of the civilized nations in the world who put appropriate value on life, Mr. Speaker, and disappointment from some on the other side of the aisle, other than a few brave individuals to be distinguished by departing from the herd and recognizing the value and sanctity of life thereto, and immediate news stories about how H.R. 36 was dead on arrival in the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that the American people will not let that be the case. I often speak of the history of the Fifth District of Virginia that gave us great Americans like Booker T. Washington and Barbara Johns, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Madison, James Monroe, and Patrick Henry. As I thought about how to best address the need for action in the other Chamber, Mr. Speaker, I determined that there were no better words than those delivered by Patrick Henry from Virginia, slightly amended, on March 23, 1775, in St. John's Cathedral as he addressed the second Virginia Assembly in Richmond, Virginia. So with all credit to the author, whom I paraphrase, I would read: Mr. Speaker, no man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism and abilities of the very worthy people who have served and do serve in this Senate. But different people often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be a thought disrespectful to those Senators if entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite of many of theirs, I shall speak forth of my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the Senate is one of an awful consequence to this country. For my part, I consider it nothing less than a question of life or death, and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to our creator and country. Should I keep back my opinions at such times through a fear of giving offense or political loss? I should consider myself guilty of treason and of cowardice, an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of our creator, who I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. Speaker, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against painful truth and listen to the song of the siren until she transforms us into beasts. Is this the role of wise people engaged in a great and arduous struggle for life? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience, of history. I have no way of judging the future but by the past. In judging the past, I wish to know for what has been the conduct of the abortion industry for the last 44 years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen are pleased to solace themselves. The Senate, is that insidious smile which our petition has been received lately? Trust it not, sir. It will prove a snare at your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with the promise of later action. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these nearly 60 million lives lost in this country alone, which cover our waters and darken our lands. Is taking an unborn life a work of love and reconciliation? Is subjecting to pain a 5-month-old child as no other nation save six on the Earth allowed to happen? Let us not deceive ourselves. These are the implements of death and destruction. I ask what means this perpetual delay of voting? What is its purpose? What is the force of inaction? Can gentlemen assign another possible motive for it than to ensure that it never occurs? Destruction? No, sir, destruction. They are set to send and perpetuate this loss of life, and have so long supported this loss of life, and now an opportunity presents itself to vote, and what do we have to oppose inaction? Mr. Speaker, we have our voices. Shall we try again and again? Shall we bring this bill back next year? We have been trying that for 40 years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held this subject in every light of which it is capable. It has all been, to this date, in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and supplication? What terms shall we find that have not already been exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, Mr. Speaker, deceive ourselves. We have done everything that we could do to avert this death that has claimed nearly 60 million lives and 14 to 20 million unborn lives after the age of 5 months in utero every single year. We have petitioned, we have remonstrated, we have supplicated, we have prostrated ourselves and have implored its inner position to arrest the tyrannical hands of the abortion industry and its champions in Washington, and our petitions have been slighted. Our remonstrations produce additional death and insult. Our supplications have been disregarded, and we have been spurned with contempt from the floor of the Chamber of the opposing body. In vain these things we may indulge the fond hope of life and justice. If we support life, if we mean to preserve and violate this fundamental right for which we have been so long arguing, if we mean not basely to abandon this noble struggle which we have been so long engaged in, in which we have pledged ourselves to never abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must hope the American people demand the Senate hold a vote. We must hope the American people demand the Senate hold a vote. An appeal to democracy and to the Lord of hosts is all that is left to us. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a promise of later action. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with the nearly 60 million lives ended. We can be heard in numbers across the fruited plain. A vote should be held for or against life. Let us have it. Let us have it. In this vein, sir, to extenuate the matter, gentlemen may cry: Later; later; next year. But there is no later. The killing has continued for over 40 years. The next gale that sweeps to the North will bring to our ears cries of the yet born. The House has voted. Why is the Senate idle? What is it that they wish? What would they have? Is political victory so dear or a title so sweet as to be purchased at the price of human life? Forbid it, Almighty God. Mr. Speaker, I know not what course others may take, but as for me, my hope is that there is a vote. My hope is that we stand for life. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 546.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my colleague.

Mr. GARRETT. Much has been said recently about the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and specifically how in this land of the free we have the prerogative to do as we choose in matters that manifest themselves, as communication that we can speak freely even when that speech is objectionable to some. And many people who have been fortunate enough to be amongst the 1 in 1,300 high school football seniors to take the field on a Sunday at an NFL stadium have availed themselves of this right that was given to them by people greater than themselves, perhaps who shed their very lifeblood that they might make a decision not to stand for the anthem that embodies the gratitude for that sacrifice. Brian Tracy once said: ``Develop an attitude of gratitude and give thanks for everything that happens to you, knowing that every step forward is a step towards achieving something bigger and better. . . .'' More recently, an individual said: ``If you were successful somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.'' Later in that speech, President Obama said, ``So if you have a business, you didn't build that,'' someone did it for you. And he was roundly excoriated, but at some level he acknowledged the sacrifice of so many that compels me to stand here today to ask that when the national anthem of the United States of America is played, that you demonstrate some semblance of gratitude for the sacrifice that has been given by untold millions before you that allows you the prerogative not to stand. And so should you choose not to stand, I support that right. I believe that right is fundamental to what makes us Americans, but I implore you to learn the history of our Nation that allows you the right not to stand, for, to be certain, there are places in the world, North Korea, where choosing not to stand when the anthem is played might lead to a horrible demise. Gilbert Chesterton once said: ``One sees great things from the valley; only small things from the peak.'' And the French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville said: ``The greatness of America lies not in her being more enlightened than any other Nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.'' And so when a slaveowner named Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he talked about how all people were created equal, despite his inherent flaw or flaws, and when the preamble to the Constitution was hammered out, the Founders suggested that we should strive not to be a perfect union but a more perfect union by acknowledging that, in fact, where there are humans in charge, we will never achieve perfection. Tonight, I ask your indulgence, if you tuned in at home completely by accident, for a moment to learn about how lucky we are, regardless of the circumstance of our birth, compared to our peers across the globe, to have the opportunity to live in this, the greatest Nation in the history of mankind, and how standing for an anthem that honors an imperfect nation that continually strives for perfection is not only the right thing to do, it is the only thing to do if you understand the scope of the sacrifice of those who came before us. Imperfect people like Thomas Jefferson gave us near perfect documents. And so tonight, as my vehicle to discuss why we should stand for our anthem, I will choose the district that I am honored to have the opportunity to serve, Virginia's Fifth District. I will say, in all humility, that while I am ordinary, the district is great; that the Fifth District of Virginia is, in my humble opinion, without hyperbole, the greatest congressional district in the country. And I will give you ten reasons why I hope the next time the anthem is played you will stand and think with reverence upon those who made sacrifices that gave us the opportunity to live in the greatest land humanity has ever seen. In 1743, born in the Fifth District of Virginia was this very man, Thomas Jefferson. An imperfect man who had a thirst for knowledge and said, ``I cannot live without books,'' and continually sought to understand what might be perfected as it related to government amongst men, and in the Declaration created a document which was the first message that a fledging nation held out to the world to say: This is who we are. And he said, in that document, that all people were created equal; a concept that this Nation did not arrive at in reality by virtue of slavery and things like the failure to grant women suffrage for some 150 years, nearly, later. However, a charge to work towards a more perfect union, that was contained in the document, the Constitution, overseen by James Madison also of the Fifth District of Virginia. And so while we were imperfect, we were given the greatest and most noble of goals, and that is to strive to be more perfect. So the vision of Jefferson outlined in the Declaration and expanded upon James Madison in the Constitution, and later articulated in this town, Washington, D.C., by Dr. King when he said that we should judge individuals based not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character, it was borne in the hearts and minds of imperfect people from the Fifth District of Virginia who gave us near perfect documents. In 1819, another of Mr. Jefferson's visions came to fruition with the foundation of the University of Virginia, a leading public research university and the source of incredible scholarship on things like human rights and individual liberty and natural law and the freedoms that individuals are bestowed by virtue of the Nation in which we live, again, in the Fifth District of Virginia. Fast forward to 1865, the end of the bloodiest era in our Nation's history internally, a conflict as we moved towards a more perfect union, in which if you count disease and dysentery and starvation, along with combat deaths, over a million Americans gave their lives as we worked to become a more perfect union. And we know but a small fraction of a percentage of those people's names. And we know that Abraham Lincoln took a bullet by someone who was not willing to accept that progress meant acknowledging that Jefferson's words were true, as they were later manifest by Dr. King, once again, 53 years ago in August in this city. Fast forward to 1933 and the 21st Amendment repealing prohibition, Franklin County, Virginia, dubbed the wettest county in America. And as we watched as jobs left the Fifth District of Virginia and opportunity seemingly left with them, we saw a wellspring of opportunity and economic development in the form, ironically, of wineries and distilleries and breweries. So when Burlington and Broyhill and Bassett and Lane and Dan River Mills left, distilleries and breweries and wineries crept in. It started in Franklin County, Virginia. Fast forward to 1944, Bedford, Virginia, June 6. The Allied invasion at Normandy, D-day. The Town of Bedford lost more of her sons per capita than any other town in the United States--19 in one day, more than decimating an entire graduating class and removing the best and brightest from that small Virginia locality. Notably, three other young men from Bedford died later in the Normandy campaign, bringing the total Bedford KIA during Normandy to 22. And ironically, these men died serving in the Blue-Gray 29th Infantry Division, so named because it honored the fact that it brought soldiers from both sides of the Mason-Dixon line together to fight and bleed and die to free foreign women and men whom they had never met. Fast forward to 1951, Prince Edward County, Virginia, the hamlet of Farmville. Barbara Johns, a high school student, had an uncle who was a scholar, who discussed with her and her family over the dinner table the ideas expanded upon by Jefferson and the Declaration, and suggested that, indeed, all people were created equal. And this manifests itself through Barbara Johns in action. This teenage girl looked at the school that she attended, the Moton High School, and looked across the county to the all-White new high school and understood that if all people were, indeed, created equal, as her uncle had suggested as was written by Jefferson, then it was unfair that court cases like Plessy v. Ferguson that any law that said that separate but equal was anything close to a possible theoretical reality must be struck down. Now, I have passed by other residents of the Fifth District of Virginia. Patrick Henry, for example. John Marshall, for example. But back to Henry. Henry stood before the American Revolution and said: ``I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.'' And from the back of the room someone shouted: Treason. And Patrick Henry responded, ``If this be treason, make the most of it,'' acknowledging that to do something great that he believed in he might need to die. Barbara Johns did that very same thing on April 23, 1951, when she led a walkout of Moton High School demanding an end to separate but equal segregation in Virginia, thus sparking the civil rights movement in Virginia that also can look to its forbearers and see Booker T. Washington, a civil rights leader amongst the last generation of African-American leaders born into slavery. His vision began to culminate when Johns led the student walkout in Prince Edward County that led to desegregation at the very risk of her life. Now, I like to liken Johns to Patrick Henry, both of whom are heroes of mine, as two people who were willing to stand up and do what they thought was right regardless of the fact that it, quite literally, might cost them their lives. They might die. But I tell people when I speak to them, the difference between Patrick Henry and Barbara Johns is Patrick Henry was a 37-year-old attorney trained to speak in front of people, and Barbara Johns was a teenage girl, and this happened in America as we worked to become a more perfect union. Fast forward to Pittsylvania County, where Deborah Coles, another hero of mine, was born one of eight children to a tobacco sharecropper. Growing up in a Virginia where racism was far too evident and common, Deborah Coles bucked the odds, learned a work ethic from her mother and father, became the first in her family to attend college, attending Virginia State University, and later going on into public education where she was and is an educator and an administrator in the small town where I went to high school and where she had undoubtedly touched the lives of innumerable thousands of students over the decades--finding ways to say yes, finding means to encourage thought, finding ways to stimulate young minds. And she did this despite the ridiculous challenges faced by her forbearers, and she did it here as we worked to become a more perfect union in America. Fast forward to the 21st century. Servicemembers, not unlike their brethren from Bedford who fell on June 6 at D-day, just a handful of the sacrifice from the Fifth District of VA, 1-435th of our Nation. Humayun Khan, a graduate of the aforementioned University of Virginia, who, at risk to himself, moved his soldiers away and sought to determine whether or not a vehicle approaching the point where he was working was a threat, and ultimately, in protecting those with whom he served, gave his life wearing the uniform of a nation to which his parents had immigrated. Sergeant Andrew Crabtree, a Special Forces soldier who served multiple tours defending America in the global war on terror and recently passed to the next life from a cancer deemed to have been service-related. And Seaman Dakota Rigsby, the son of working class folks from Fluvanna County, Virginia, in the Fifth District, who tragically perished while wearing the uniform of this Nation, defending that which is worth defending, aboard the USS Fitzgerald. Then, moving to today, and reason number 10, although, to be fair, Booker T. Washington, Patrick Henry, and John Marshall could make this 13 if I counted them separately, and that is the families of Pastor Hassan and Abdumawla, Christians from the Republic of Sudan, who, after about 9 months of work on our part and about 18 months of imprisonment on the part of the two gentlemen I named, have now moved to Buckingham County, Virginia, where they have an opportunity to experience a land where they are free to stand or sit when the anthem is played, where they are free to worship or not worship as they feel compelled, and where no dream is too big. I would wager that, having lived in a foreign land and not having been amongst those 1 in 25 or 26, roughly, fortunate enough to have been born here in this imperfect land perpetually seeking to be a more perfect Union, I would wager that, when our national anthem is played, these newest residents of Virginia's Fifth Congressional District will choose to stand. I hope, when you think of the sacrifices made by millions who came before us, that you will, too. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend Floor votes due to the expected birth of my child. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 480.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend Floor votes due to the expected birth of my child. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Rollcall No. 441.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend Floor votes due to the expected birth of my child. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 439, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 440.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended to but I'll begin my remarks by addressing his remarks. And I'll do something that I rarely do and that is to quote a French historian, political scientist, and diplomat, and that is Alexis de Tocqueville, who stated, ``The American Republic will endure until the day that Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's own money. The previous administration was led by an individual who on the campaign trail said that 7 trillion dollars in debt was ``unpatriotic.'' Now we sit at the precipice of 20 trillion dollars in debt after two terms and I would submit that perhaps that's unpatriotic multiplied by three, or nearly that, and echo the sentiments of Mr. Schweikert that it is absolutely, positively unsustainable. Now there are ways that we could certainly deal with runaway debt. One way would be to completely devalue the currency. If you really want to step away from the hyperbolic barbs that are thrown by my colleagues across the aisle as it relates to the motives for the legislation that we carry and find out who would really be harming seniors and children, it would be those who would continue to spend until the only way to cover the tab was to deflate the value of the very monies set aside to care far those least able to care for themselves. And so I thank Congressman Schweikert, not only for his wise remarks but also for reminding me just how much I miss being a member of the state house in the Commonweaith of Virginia where there is actual back and forth debate on the merits of issues, wherein those small percentage of individuals who choose to inform themselves might shape their opinion based on a discourse rather than people standing at this microphone unchecked. Which leads me to my next point, which is also not on the subject that I originally intended to address and that is, the statement of my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, who spoke on this floor about 45 minutes ago on a subject that's important not just to him, and not just to me, but to America, and that is on the subject of asset forfeiture. His comments were indicative of the tone that this body has devolved into. One of the many Democrats who I admire, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who Vanity Fair described as a fervent Democrat who saw the value of working with Republicans (where is he today?), once said, ``You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled your own facts.'' Mr. Raskin said the Trump Administration was burdening Americans by virtue of an asset forfeiture policy and he cited the case of a Chinese restaurant and an entrepreneur who he said had amassed 25,000 dollars so that he could buy a building, but he was going over the speed limit so he was pulled over by police so without cause they took his money and it took 7 years according to my colleague to recoup his money and the opportunity was lost and that's what's wrong with Mr. Trump's policy. Wow. And he implored listeners to please look up this case, so I did. In fact there was a man who had saved money to open up a Chinese restaurant who was going 10 miles an hour over the speed limit who was pulled over by law enforcement who had not 25 but 75,000 dollars forfeited and it took him not 7 years but 10 months to get it back and it happened in 2014 and I'm not terribly sure who was president then and I'm not terribly sure who was president then but I don't think it was Donald Trump! So I will join my colleague in suggesting that we need asset forfeiture review and refer in this country, but please, you're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts. Now why am I hear tonight? Golly ned why am I hear at all? Who are we as a nation? I tell my children if you want to know what's the right thing to do in life when you're confronted with challenges, when you have a dilemma, ask yourself who do I want to be, not who am I, but who do I want to be, because I hope I never reach my aspirational goals, but I keep trying as long as I am here. I don't think that if you reach all your goals for who you want to be that you've aimed high enough. And if you ask yourself who I want to when you face that ethical or moral dilemma you will always then come up with the right answer when you answer what the person you want to be, would do. And so I grew up with a father who actually had a name for the belt that he wore around his waist, it was the enforcer. I had a mother who thought I could do anything I wanted to do and a father who would kick my tail if I didn't give it my best effort. I spent nearly ten years as a prosecutor and I can't tell you how many times I looked down the dais at the criminal defendant and thought, I wonder but there for the grace of God, go I. But for the fact that I was blessed with amazing parents who encouraged me who loved me and disciplined me and told me the things I could do, unlike so many in political office today who garner votes and support by telling people what they can't do, what they need done for them. By gosh this country was built on a government dependent upon people, not a people dependent upon government. And that's who we are. Now, who are we going to be? Where are we going? A wiser person than I once said, ``If you want to know where you're going, you should look where you've been.'' It's a relatively humbling thing to do representing the fifth district of Virginia, because the fifth district of Virginia was first represented by in this institution by James Madison. I tell people those are some very small, big shoes to fill. Very small, big shoes to fill. James Madison won the congressional seat when he ran in an election against a pillar of American foreign policy named Monroe. They were so collegial during the campaign that they often traveled together and when Madison was elected to Congress, prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, he went to the Virginia Assembly, the longest serving, democratically elected, legislative body on the planet Earth, and suggested that James Monroe should be the Senator, and indeed he was made the Senator. So we have Madison, we have Monroe. The drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, lived in Virginia's fifth district. The arbiter of the power of the Article Ill branch of government, the Supreme Court, John Marshall, retired in Virginia's fifth district. Patrick Henry retired in Virginia's fifth district. Lee and Grant sat at a table at Appomattox Courthouse at the end of the American Civil War in the fifth district of Virginia. And a young woman named Barbara Johns stood up in the face of possible injury or death to start the Virginia Civil Rights movement in the fifth district. So it's pretty humbling and it gives me a good lesson in who we are. So many on my side of the aisle criticized President Obama when he said, you know if you have a business, you didn't do that, somebody else did that for you. I'll defend him, I'll defend him. You did it, with blood and sweat and tears and hardwork and persistence and willingness to stand up time and again after failing. You did it because you stood on the shoulders of giants who gave you the opportunity to do it. That imperfect people, Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, who gave us near perfect documents, James Madison, documents that have been revised, oh I don't know 27 times in hundreds of years. That we constantly should strive to be a more perfect union. That we will never achieve that status of a perfect union, so long as institutions on Earth are governed by mere mortal men, but that we have a duty in this nation to try to continue to. So that's why I'm here. I'm not here to perpetuate my own power. I understand that the most indispensable person is the person who recognizes that they are not indispensable. Folks drive past the graveyard and look at the headstones because I can promise you there's piles of folks buried there that thought the world just couldn't go on without them. And the band played on. The fifth district of Virginia was here before I got here and it'll be here when I leave. I'm not here to perpetuate my own name or my own legacy or any sort of power. I'm here to make sure that everything I do is pointed towards giving the posterity that will follow us, my children, Schweikert's children, and your children, every bit as good, if not better opportunities than those which we had. I believe there are two fundamental entitlements to birth of Americanism. First, you are entitled to opportunity. We should always strive to make that opportunity equal opportunity. But in a world where if your last name is Clinton or Trump or Obama or Bush, you probably have a better chance of getting into Harvard, we're not there yet. But everyone, everyone is entitled to an opportunity. And everyone within the Jeffersonian Construct of Liberty, that is my freedom extends to the point where yours starts, so long that you don't harm another, you should be free to make decisions for yourself. Everyone is entitled to an opportunity and everyone within the Jeffersonian construct of liberty that is my freedom extends to the point where yours starts, so long as you don't harm another you should be free to make decisions for yourself has an entitlement to define success for themselves. If you wanna be the world's best bee keeper, go be the world's best bee keeper. If you wanna be a great stay at home dad, by golly be a great stay at home dad. If you'd like to work to cure cancer, please do. If you wanna be a member of this body and try to perpetuate opportunity for our posterity, please do. If you wanna be a member of This body and try to perpetuate your own power or your own legacy, please don't. And so this brings me to the point of why I stand here today, I've been here 6 months not terribly long. Thank god, I've been unable to shake my citizen world view in favor a legislator world view. So as I walk into this chamber as I stand next to these women and men on both sides of the aisle I'm a little humbled. When I walk down the staircase on the edge of the original house chamber that's been worn by time by the footsteps of the likes on Kennedy, and Madison, and Monroe, and Eisenhower and Lincoln, I'm humbled. But I would revert back to the words that elitists observed over 150 years ago, and that is we will thrive until we attempt to begin to bribe the tax payers with their own money. And at some point things become unsustainable and at some point we need to recognize that we are about freedom of individuals to venture and fail and venture and gain and that we are a nation whose government should depend upon people, and not whose people should depend upon government. An hour and a half ago I stood on this very floor and I dropped at the clerks desk, HRS 458, house resolution 458 is a vehicle that would move to discharge past the normal process and procedures house resolution 1436, HR 1436 is a bill that was voted for by every republican member of this body in 2015 which would provide for a repeal of the broken promises that are the affordable care act. Just yesterday, in conference they showed us polling and it showed that the American people trusted republicans more on national defense, border security, jobs in the economy, but were kinda sketchy on healthcare, right? We can read a poll but I came here to do what I think is right I came here to do what I said I would do, and this plan that I think could reasonably be called the managed healthcare bailout program, the health insurance industry profit enhancement act has failed working Americans and that paradigm under which we have debated it has failed to be an honest one. But if I'm here not to enhance myself, or my legacy and if I'm here to do what I think is right, what I said I would do when I ran for office, then I need to stand up and do what I said I was gonna do when I ran for office, and that was to ensure that the decisions of Americans were left to Americans that we minimize the interference In individuals lives by the government, and that we recognize and ill paraphrase the Mr. Jefferson who was correct when he said the fruits of the working class are safest when the legislators not in session. Hm, I believe it was Roy Rogers who said that the only certain thing in life are death and taxes but death doesn't get worse every time congress meets. We hear about a CBO score that says x million people will lose coverage. Hm. Well the last time I looked this thing was called the affordable care act not the affordable coverage act and even if it was called the affordable coverage act it would be a misnomer because it's not affordable. A story published about 3 months ago indicated that two thirds of Americans couldn't find a 1000 dollars in case of a financial crisis. But deductibles have gone from 1000 to 2000 to 3000 to 4000 to 5000 dollars for the average family of four, and I ask you if your deductible is 5000 dollars in times of crisis do you have healthcare? You have coverage, you have coverage but you don't have healthcare, you're still indigent and it's a broken promise but don't worry there were lots more if you like your plan you can keep your plan turns out that wasn't true. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, turns out that wasn't true. We should see an average decrease of about 2500 dollars per year per policy turns out that wasn't true don't worry these insurers who have supported the plan remember the insurance industry endorsed the affordable care act there doing this out of benevolence folks. I have an article from the New York post that says there's a cost spiral that associated with Obama care with the insurance industry but the cost spiral is upward if you'd have bought 100 dollars worth of united health care the day the ACA passed and sold it the last time I looked you'd have 580 dollars, that's a heck of an investment. The only people making out on this are the big insurers, meanwhile all Americans are perpetually lied to by folks who say those guys don't care, actually we do, we're just not trying to perpetuate our own power by taking from one group and giving to another while bankrupting our nation and robbing our children blind. And so, I've only been here for 6 months and I went to some people very early on and said so how about discharging this bill, and frustrated hm and they said well its not time for that and I said okay I wanna be a team player. I'm frustrated and we get to this point, the president's frustrated, the senate's frustrated, I don't give a hoot and hack about the president or the senate or this body, I care about the American people who I serve and they're frustrated. And nobody on the other side of the aisle will talk about a plan that the namesake of a plan President Barack Obama said, and I quote has serious problems. That Minnesota democrat governor Mark Dayton said bankrupting a state and is unsustainable that President Bill Clinton said is the craziest thing, we have zero suggestions for help, because by gosh we can score political points. Shame on ya, on both sides of the aisle if you're doing this to score political points. We aughta be doing this to make sure that the fundamental birth right of Americanism, opportunity is perpetuated for perpetuity and that it doesn't die in the hands of a group of political class who said well this will get me points at home. People told me not to do that it might not help you, your districts not that safe, I don't rightly care, I'm gonna do the right thing I've never had a job in my life that I wasn't willing to lose if it meant doing the right thing. So what are the goals of this? Rather, rash, they're humble I want the leadership of this chamber to understand that the ranking file members support them, that we got their backs, that we thank them for their best efforts and that we don't wanna quit this fight. Thank you for what you do. Let's keep going and keep that darn promise I got a feelin that if you keep you promise if you're worried about elections, your reward will come when people realize there's somebody in this town that has some integrity so I wanna support leadership, I wanna send a message to the other chamber that were willing to act if they're willing to act and maybe embolden them. I wanna let the president know that we haven't quit on him but most importantly I wanna send a message to the American people that some people in D.C. mean what they say. Woah. There have been dozens of votes for repeal by members who knew that the repeal would never happen because it had to cross the desk of the person for whom the bill was named. Right? It was a theoretical abstract, sure, I support it. Were playing with live ammunition folks lets see who meant what they said come to this desk and if you're watching this at home, contact your member and tell them to come to this desk and sign on to the discharge position HRS 458. Or maybe you didn't mean it, or you did or who knows but let us know. Hm. Dozen of votes for repeal and let me be clear about this too, I'm not sitting here trying to pull the rug out from under people, and the bill that would be discharged by this solution would not immediately end Obamacare, and instead it would give us a two year window, a two year window, and I'll bet you that if we repealed and had a two year window to bait a replacement that we might get some input from people. I know to a metaphysical certainty that no side has a monopoly on good ideas. I would love to have some input, there will certainly be members who say ``well I don't believe the federal government should have a large role.'' There will be other members that say we should have single payer. Well, right now we are stuck in a broken system because of political gamesmanship. And it burned me when I was on the outside and it burns me on the inside. What are the facts? What are the real facts? The average individual premium according to E Health in May 3rd, 2017 has gone up 39% in the last two years. The average family plan has gone up 49%. That means if you are an individual and your premium was a $1000 a month its now $1330 or there roughly a month. I'm doing math on the fly in my head. If you are a family and you are paying $500 a month than its $740ish a month. That's in two years. The average individual plan is up 147% from 2008. The average family plan is up 177%. Folks, Americans income hasn't increased at that rate. The average is up 25% in the last year and that is according to the Department of Health and Human Services report of October of 2016. That means if you were paying $2000 a year ago, you are paying $2500 now. 25% in 1 year. And candidly all the disingenuous arguments on the other side about how many people will die, if we move to a system that allows individuals choices, is not only hollow and disingenuous and beneath the dignity of this body by virtue of their disinginuity but also false. Folks, for the first time in nearly a generation mortality rate rose in 2015. U.S. life expectancy dropped from 2014 to 2015 for the first time since the 1990s. And ironically it dropped more in states that expanded Medicaid. So, I'm not only disgusted with and sick of such harsh rhetoric, but I think it's not been proven demonstrably false. We talk about who will be kicked off their plan. According to the CBO, 10 million people have lost their employer plans. Those are the plans that if they like they can keep. And roughly 15 million of the people who are now insured, by virtue of an individual mandate, that we have forcefully compelled American citizens to purchase a good or service at the risk of forfeiture of their money or their freedom. We live in a country where you can choose in many places to buy marijuana, you can choose to bungee jump, you can choose to sky dive. Heck, in some places you can choose to visit a prostitute. But you can't choose a healthcare plan that doesn't carry coverage for mental health or for maternity. You can't do that. That's against the law. This is about choice. I served in the United States Army as a fire support officer. And when I left the army, I made the egregious error of law school, just kidding. And when I did that, I chose not to have healthcare because as I looked at what I was able to do on a limited amount of money that my family had, and did a cost benefit analysis, and the fact that I was in relatively good shape and young, I determined that my best interests were served by not spending the money. It was a crazy, brazen risk that I think paid off, but it should certainly be in the prevue of decisions Americans are allowed to make. And right now, it's not. I'm frustrated, but I'm fighting. A lot of people are frustrated, but they are fighting. I want to see our leadership succeed. I want to see this nation be, unequivocally, the greatest experiment in freedom that the earth has ever known. But, if we continue to try and parlay largesse and failed programs into political power, we won't, we won't. And the time to measure things based not on intentions, but results is nigh. In Oregon, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create a website for the Obamacare exchange that failed to enroll a single individual--and nobody was fired and nobody went to prison. I was a prosecutor for a long time. And I'll tell you that if you waste or defraud people of one hundred or two hundred or three hundred million dollars, you usually either lose your job or go to prison. But, if you're in politics in Oregon, you're rewarded because by gosh you had great intentions. Let's judge these things not by their intentions but by their outcomes. Let's not argue about who has coverage but who has access to affordable care. Let's support revision that drives down premiums and down deductibles. And let's trumpet our victories based on who we actually helped, not who we intended to help. In stand untied with the bulk of my colleagues. I know there are some who said we'd do one thing and now do another. This is an avenue by which we might find out who they are. But I don't for a moment question the individual motives of members. I think they have an opportunity to distinguish themselves by virtue of signing on to this resolution. I ask you again if your watching at home to contact your member if you agree with what we said. And ask them if they'll come to this bar, when we're in session, and sign their name to House Resolution 458 and demonstrate their willing to do the exact same thing now, when it counts, that they did dozens and dozens of times under the previous administration when they knew that they're actions would be met with a veto pen. And I don't do this to score political points. And I don't do this to make my name bigger. I don't do this to because it feels good. I do this because we owe it to the giants who's shoulders we stand upon, to Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln and Barbara Johns and John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, the people who gave us the opportunity to be as successful and great as we are. Don't piddle it away. Don't piddle it away. Be responsible. Be willing to say no when no is the appropriate answer. And do what's right. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back my time and I'd ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of this special order.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments to this important piece of legislation that we bring forward. I want to thank the chairman of the committee for allowing us the opportunity to be heard and participate in this process. The first is an amendment that ensures that there is a strategic plan to reduce senior executive positions as it relates to the TSA. Right now, we have more tail of the dragon than teeth of the dragon. We need to make sure that we are focusing our assets efficiently and with responsibility to the taxpayers who give us the money to protect the homeland. This will save over $7 million in salary alone. The second ensures that there is an oversight of the Homeland Security Grant Program, which is intended to protect the homeland, so we demonstrate that we are being good stewards of the public's dollars, while ensuring the safest possible Nation that we can.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague, Congressman Schweikert from Arizona. I hadn't intended to, but I will begin my remarks by addressing his remarks, and I will do something that I rarely do, and that is to quote a French historian, political scientist, and diplomat, Alexis de Tocqueville, who stated: ``The American Republic will endure until the day that Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's own money.'' The previous administration was led by an individual who, on the campaign trail, said that $7 trillion in debt was unpatriotic. Now we sit at the precipice of $20 trillion after two terms, and I would submit that perhaps that is unpatriotic multiplied by three, or nearly that, and echo the sentiments of Mr. Schweikert that it is absolutely, positively unsustainable. Now, there are ways that we could certainly deal with runaway debt. One way would be to completely devalue the currency. If you really want to step away from the hyperbolic barbs that are thrown by my colleagues across the aisle as relate to the motives for the legislation that we carry and find out who would be really harming seniors and children, it would be those who would continue to spend until the only way to cover the tab was to deflate the value of the very moneys set aside to care for those least able to care for themselves. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Schweikert not only for his wise remarks, but also for reminding me just how much I miss being a member of the statehouse in the Commonwealth of Virginia where there is actual back-and-forth debate on the merits of issues, wherein that small percentage of individuals who choose to inform themselves might shape their opinions based on a discourse rather than people standing at this microphone unchecked. That leads me to my next point, which is also not on the subject that I originally intended to address, and that is the statement of my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, who spoke on this floor about 45 minutes ago on a subject that is important not just to him and not just to me, but to America, and that is on the subject of asset forfeiture. His comments were indicative of the tone that this body has devolved into. One of the many Democrats whom I admire, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom Vanity Fair described as a fervent Democrat who saw the value in working with Republicans--where is he today?--he once said: You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Mr. Raskin said that the Trump administration was burdening Americans by virtue of an asset forfeiture policy, and he cited the case of a Chinese restaurant, an entrepreneur who he said had amassed $25,000 so that he could buy a building. But he was going over the speed limit so he was pulled over by police. So without cause, they took his money, and it took him 7 years, according to my colleague, to recoup his money and the opportunity was lost, and that is what is wrong with Mr. Trump's policy. Wow. And he implored listeners to please look up this case, so I did. In fact, there was a man who had saved money to purchase a Chinese restaurant who was going 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. He was pulled over by law enforcement, and he had not $25,000, but $75,000 forfeited. It took him not 7 years, but 10 months to get it back, and it happened in 2014. I am not terribly sure who was President then, but I don't think it was Donald Trump. So I will join my colleague in suggesting that we need asset forfeiture review and reform in this country. But, please, you are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts. Now, why am I here tonight? Golly, Ned, why am I here at all? Who are we as a nation? I tell my children, if you want to know what is the right thing to do in life when you are confronted with tough challenges, when you have a dilemma, ask yourself, ``Who do I want to be?'' Not ``Who am I?'' ``Who do I want to be?'' Because I hope I never reach my aspirational goals, but I keep trying as long as I am here. I don't think if you reach all of your goals for who you want to be that you have aimed high enough. If you ask yourself, ``Who do I want to be when I face that ethical or moral dilemma?'' you will always then come up with the right answer when you answer what the person you want to be would do. I grew up with a father who actually had a name for the belt that he wore around his waist. It was ``The Enforcer.'' I had a mother who thought I could do anything I wanted to do and a father who would kick my tail if I didn't give it my best effort. I spent nearly 10 years as a prosecutor, and I can't tell you how many times I looked down the dais at the criminal defendant and thought, ``I wonder, but there for the grace of God go I''--but for the fact that I was blessed with amazing parents who encouraged me and loved me and disciplined me and told me the things I could do, unlike so many in political office today who garner votes and support by telling people what they can't do, what they need done for them. By gosh, this country was built on a government dependent upon people, not a people dependent upon government. And that is who we are. Now, who are we going to be? Where are we going? A wiser person than I once said, if you want to know where you are going, you should look where you have been. It is a relatively humbling thing to do representing the Fifth District of Virginia, because the Fifth District of Virginia was first represented in this institution by James Madison. I tell people those are some very small, big shoes to fill--very small, big shoes to fill. James Madison won the congressional seat when he ran in an election against a pillar of American foreign policy named Monroe. They were so collegial during their campaign that they often traveled together. When Madison was elected to Congress prior to the 17th Amendment, he went to the Virginia General Assembly--the longest serving democratically elected legislative body on the planet Earth--and suggested that James Monroe should be the Senator; and, indeed, he was made the Senator. So we have Madison. We have Monroe. The drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, lived in Virginia's Fifth District. The power of the Article III branch of government, the Supreme Court, John Marshall retired in Virginia's Fifth District. Patrick Henry retired in Virginia's Fifth District. Lee and Grant sat at a table at Appomattox Court House and ended the American Civil War in the Fifth District of Virginia, and a young woman named Barbara Johns stood up in the face of possible injury or death to start the Virginia civil rights movement in the Fifth District. So it is pretty humbling, but it gives me a good lesson in who we are. So many on my side of the aisle criticized President Obama when he said: If you have a business, you didn't do that. Somebody else did that for you. I will defend him. I will defend him. You did it with blood and sweat and tears and hard work and persistence and the willingness to stand up time and again after failing. You did it, but you did it because you stood on the shoulders of giants who gave you the opportunity to do it, those imperfect people: Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, who gave us near-perfect documents; James Madison, documents that have been revised, oh, I don't know, 27 times in hundreds of years, that we constantly should strive to be a more perfect Union, that we will never achieve that status of a perfect Union so long as institutions on Earth are governed by mere mortal men, but that we have a duty in this Nation to try to continue to. So that is why I am here. I am not here to perpetuate my own power. I understand that the most indispensable person is the person who recognizes that they are not indispensable. Folks, drive past the graveyard and look at the headstones, because I can promise you, there are piles of folks buried there who thought the world just couldn't go on without them. And the band played on. The Fifth District of Virginia was here before I got here. It will be here after I leave. I am not here to perpetuate my own name or my own legacy or any sort of power. I am here to make sure that everything I do is pointed towards giving the posterity that will follow us--to my children, Schweikert's children, and your children--every bit as good, if not better, opportunities than those which we had. I believe there are two fundamental entitlements to birth of Americanism. First, you are entitled to an opportunity. We should always strive to make that opportunity more of an equal opportunity. But in a world where if your last name is Clinton, Trump, Obama, or Bush, you probably have a better chance of getting into Harvard. We are not there yet. But everyone is entitled to an opportunity. Everyone within the Jeffersonian construct of liberty that is ``my freedom extends to the point where yours starts so long as you don't harm another,'' should be free to make decisions for yourself and has an entitlement to define success for themselves. If you want to be the world's best beekeeper, go be the world's best beekeeper. If you want to be a great stay-at-home dad, by golly, be a great stay-at-home dad. If you would like to work to cure cancer, please do. If you want to be a Member of this body and try to perpetuate opportunity for our posterity, please do. If you want to be a Member of this body and try to perpetuate your own power or your own legacy, please don't. So this brings me to the point where I stand here today. I have been here 6 months--not terribly long. Thank God I have been unable to shake my citizen world view in favor of a legislator world view. So as I walk into this Chamber and as I stand next to these women and men on both sides of the aisle, I am a little humbled. When I walk down the staircase on the edge of the original House Chamber that has been worn through time by the footfalls of the likes of Kennedy, Madison, Monroe, Eisenhower, and Lincoln, I am humbled. But I would revert back to the words that Alexis de Tocqueville observed over 150 years ago, and that is we will thrive until we begin to attempt to bribe the taxpayers with their own money. At some point things become unsustainable. At some point we need to recognize that we are about freedom of individuals to venture and fail and venture and gain, that we are a nation whose government should depend upon people, not whose people should depend upon government. An hour and a half ago I stood on this very floor, and I dropped at the Clerk's desk H. Res. 458. H. Res. 458 is a vehicle that would move to discharge past the normal process of procedures. H.R. 1436 is a bill that was voted for by every Republican Member of this body in 2015, which would provide for a repeal of the broken promises that are the Affordable Care Act. Just yesterday, in conference, they showed us polling, and it showed that the American people trust the Republicans more on national defense, border security, jobs, and the economy, but we were kind of sketchy on healthcare. I can read a poll, but I came here to do what I think is right. I came here to do what I said I would do. This plan that I think could reasonably be called the Managed Healthcare Bailout Program or the Health Insurance Industry Profit Enhancement Act has failed working Americans, and the paradigm under which we have debated it has failed to be an honest one. So if I am here not to enhance myself or my legacy, if I am here to do what I think is right or what I said I would do when I ran for office, then I need to stand up and do what I said I was going to do when I ran for office, and that was to ensure that the decisions of Americans were left to Americans, that we minimize the interference in individuals' lives by the government, and that we recognize--and I will paraphrase-- that Mr. Jefferson was correct when he said that the fruits of the working class are safest when the legislature is not in session. I believe it was Will Rogers who said: They say the only certain things in life are death and taxes, only death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets. We hear about a CBO score that says X million people will lose coverage. The last time I looked, this thing was called the Affordable Care Act, not the Affordable Coverage Act. Even if it were called the Affordable Coverage Act, it would be a misnomer because it is not affordable. A story published about 3 months ago indicated that two-thirds of Americans couldn't find $1,000 in case of a financial crisis. But deductibles have gone from $1,000 to 2,000, to 3,000, to 4,000, to $5,000 for the average family of four. I ask you: If your deductible is $5,000 and you can't find $1,000 in times of crisis, do you have healthcare? You have coverage. You have coverage, but you don't have healthcare. You are still indigent, and it is a broken promise. But don't worry, there were lots more: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. It turns out that wasn't true. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. It turns out that wasn't true. We should see an average decrease of about $2,500 a year per policy. It turns out that wasn't true. Don't worry, these insurers who supported the plan--remember the insurance industry endorsed the Affordable Care Act--they are doing this out of benevolence, folks. I have an article from the New York Post that says there is a cost spiral associated with ObamaCare and with the insurance industry, but the cost spiral is upward. If you had bought $100 worth of UnitedHealthcare the day the ACA passed and sold it, the last time I looked, you would have $580. That is a heck of an investment. The only people making out on this are the big insurers. Meanwhile, rank and file Americans are perpetually lied to by folks who say: Those guys don't care. Actually, we do. We are just not trying to perpetuate our own power by taking from one group and giving to another while bankrupting our Nation and robbing our children blind. So I have only been here for 6 months. I went to some people very early on and I said: How about discharging this bill? I am frustrated. They said: Well, it is not time for that. I said: Okay. I want to be a team player. I am frustrated, and we get to this point. The President is frustrated. The Senate is frustrated. I don't give a hootin' heck about the President or the Senate or this body. I care about the American people whom I serve. They are frustrated. And nobody on the other side of the aisle will talk about a plan that the namesake of the plan, President Barack Obama, said has serious problems, that Minnesota Democratic Governor Mark Dayton said is bankrupting his State and is unsustainable, and that President Bill Clinton said is the craziest thing. We have zero suggestions for help because, by gosh, we can score political points. Shame on both sides of the aisle if you are doing this to score political points. We ought to be doing this to make sure that the fundamental birthright of Americanism, opportunity, is perpetuated for perpetuity and that it doesn't die in the hands of a group of the political class who say: Well, this will get me points at home. People told me not to do this. It might not help you. Your district is not that safe. I don't rightly care. I am going to do the right thing. I have never had a job in my life that I wasn't willing to lose if it meant doing the right thing. So what are the goals of this? This is rather brash. They are humble. I want the leadership of this Chamber to understand that the rank and file Members support them, that we got their backs, that we thank them for their best efforts, and we don't want to quit this fight. We thank you for what you do. Let's keep going and keep that darn promise. I got a feeling that if you keep your promise, if you are worried about elections, then your reward will come when people realize there is somebody in this town who has some integrity. So I want to support leadership. I want to send a message to the other Chamber that we are willing to act if they are willing to act, and maybe embolden them. I want to let the President know that we haven't quit on him. But, most importantly, I want to send a message to the American people that some people in D.C. mean what they say. There have been dozens of votes for repeal by Members who knew that the repeal would never happen because it had to cross the desk of the person for whom the bill was named. It was a theoretical abstract: Sure, I support it. We are playing with live ammunition, folks. Let's see who meant what they said. Come to this desk--and if you are watching at home, contact your Member and tell him to come to this desk--and sign onto the discharge petition, H. Res. 458. Or maybe you didn't mean it or you did. Who knows? But let us know. Shoot straight with folks. Dozens of votes for repeal. Let me be clear about this, too. I am not sitting here trying to pull the rug out from under people. The bill that would be discharged by this resolution would not immediately end ObamaCare. Instead, it would give us a 2-year window. And I will bet you that if we repealed and had a 2-year window to debate a replacement, that we might get some input from people on both sides of the aisle. I know to a metaphysical certainty that no side has the monopoly on good ideas. I would love to have some input. There will certainly be Members who say: I don't believe the Federal Government should have a large role. There will be other Members who say: We should have single payer. Right now, we are stuck in a broken system because of political gamesmanship. It burned me when I was on the outside, and it burns me on the inside. What are the facts? What are the real facts? The average individual premium, according to eHealth, May 3, 2017, has gone up 39 percent in the last 2 years. The average family plan has gone up 49 percent. That means if you were an individual and your premium was $1,000 a month, it is now $1,330 roughly a month. I am doing math on the fly in my head. If you are a family and you were paying $500 a month, then it is $740-ish a month. That is in 2 years. The average individual plan is up 147 percent from 2008. The average family plan is up 177 percent. Folks, Americans' income hasn't increased at that rate. The average is up 25 percent in the last year, and that is according to the Department of Health and Human Services' report of October of 2016. That means if you were paying $2,000 a year ago, you are paying $2,500 now--25 percent in 1 year. Candidly, all the disingenuous arguments on the other side about how many will die if we move to a system that allows individuals choices are not only hollow, disingenuous, and beneath the dignity of this body by virtue of their disingenuousness, but they are also false. Folks, for the first time in nearly a generation, the mortality rate rose in 2015. U.S. life expectancy dropped from 2014 to 2015 for the first time since the 1990s. Ironically, it dropped more in States that expanded Medicaid. So I am not only disgusted with and sick of such harsh rhetoric, but I think it has now been proven demonstrably false. We talk about who will be kicked off their plan. According to the CBO, 10 million people lost their employer plans. Those are the plans that, if they liked, they could keep. Roughly 15 million of the people who are now insured are insured by virtue of an individual mandate. That means that we have forcefully compelled American citizens to purchase a good or service at the risk of forfeiture of their money or their freedom. We live in a country where you can choose in many places to buy marijuana. You can choose to bungee jump. You can choose to skydive. Heck, in some places, you can choose to visit a prostitute. But you can't choose a healthcare plan that doesn't carry coverage for mental health or for maternity. You can't do that. That is against the law. This is about choice. I served in the United States Army as a fire support officer, and when I left the Army, I made the egregious error of attending law school--just kidding. When I did that, I chose not to have healthcare because as I looked at what I was able to do on the limited amount of money that my family had and did a cost-benefit analysis and the fact I was in relatively good shape and young, I determined that our family's best interests were served by not spending that money. It was a crazy, brazen risk that I think paid off, but it certainly should be within the purview of decisions that Americans are allowed to make, and right now it is not. I am frustrated, but I am fighting. A lot of people are frustrated, but they are fighting. I want to see our leadership succeed. I want to see this Nation continue to be unequivocally the greatest experiment in freedom that the Earth has ever known. But if we continue to try to parlay largesse in failed programs into political power, we won't. We won't. The time to measure things based not on intentions, but results is nigh. In Oregon, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create a website for the ObamaCare exchange that failed to enroll a single individual, and nobody was fired and nobody went to prison. I was a prosecutor for a long time, and I will tell you, if you waste or defraud people of 100, 200, $300 million, you usually either lose your job or go to prison. But if you are in politics in Oregon, you are rewarded because, by gosh, you had great intentions. Let's judge these things not by their intentions, but by their outcomes. Let's not argue about who has coverage, but about who has access to affordable care. Let's support revision that drives down premiums and deductibles, and let's trumpet our victories based on whom we actually help, not whom we intended to help. I stand united with the bulk of my colleagues. I know there are some who might have said one thing and now do another. This is an avenue by which we might find out who they are. I don't, for a moment, question the individual motives of Members. I think they have an opportunity to distinguish themselves by virtue of signing onto this resolution. I ask you again, if you are watching at home, to contact your Member if you agree with what I said and ask them if they will come to this bar when we are in session and sign their name to H. Res. 458 and demonstrate that they are willing to do the exact same thing now, when it counts, that they did dozens and dozens of times under the previous administration when they knew that their actions would be met with a veto pen. I don't do this to score political points, I don't do this to make my name bigger, and I don't do this because it feels good. I do this because we owe it to the giants whose shoulders we stand upon--Patrick Henry; Thomas Jefferson; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Abraham Lincoln; Barbara Johns; John F. Kennedy; and Ronald Reagan--the people who gave us the opportunity to be as successful and great as we are. Don't piddle it away. Be responsible. Be willing to say no when no is the appropriate answer, and do what is right. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1282) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish Acquisition Review Boards in the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore my colleagues to join in supporting our bill, H.R. 1282, the DHS Acquisition Review Board Act of 2017. This legislation provides commonsense reform and saves the taxpayers' dollars. The Government Accountability Office and the DHS Office of Inspector General have reported the longstanding challenges the Department of Homeland Security faces in managing its major acquisition programs. These programs are those costing more than $300 million, which cost the Department about $7 billion in 2016 alone. Since the Department's creation, the GAO has placed DHS management functions, including acquisition management, on its high-risk list of programs that are highly susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse. Mismanagement is present or in need of transformation, and the DHS still struggles to ensure that major acquisition programs stay on budget, are delivered on schedule, and provide capabilities as originally intended. Homeland Security is a unique committee insofar as it affords the opportunity for folks on both sides of the aisle to work in a bipartisan manner for things that we can all concede are in the best interest of our Nation. A recent GAO report found that 9 of 26 major acquisition programs experienced cost growth or schedule slips. The amount of cost overruns totaled nearly $1 billion and are scheduled to slip by an average of 6 months per program. The GAO also found that half of the major acquisition programs it reviewed deployed capabilities before meeting all key performance parameters, which are the most important requirements a system must meet in order to do the jobs that they are intended to do. It is unacceptable for waste and dysfunction to continue, and it is imperative that the DHS take acquisition management seriously. This bill makes that the case. We must provide strong accountability mechanisms to ensure major acquisition programs with challenges are caught up, found early, and that solutions are quickly implemented. This bill ensures that DHS provides that accountability and consistency needed to manage major components, acquisition programs, et cetera, by authorizing the Secretary to establish an Acquisition Review Board. The Acquisition Review Board would then strengthen the accountability and uniformity in DHS' acquisition process, review major programs, and evaluate the use of best practices. This bill essentially codifies the already existing Acquisition Review Board to ensure that that board continues and has the oversight authority it needs under law to make sure that the dollars that we take from the taxpayers are sufficiently and adequately managed and not wasted. The Acquisition Review Board would be chaired by the Under Secretary for Management and would require at least two component heads or their designees to be permanent members. This would ensure participation from all DHS components. The Board would be required to meet regularly and would be responsible to determine if a proposed acquisition has met planning requirements needed to proceed to production and deployment, oversee major acquisitions as a business strategy, and review programs in a cost benefit analysis format to determine performance objectives and ensure that our dollars are well spent. Mr. Speaker, a recent news story pointed out that nine individuals on the planet Earth control as much wealth as 50 percent of the population of the planet Earth. That means that these nine people control as much wealth as 3.5 billion people. And yet, Mr. Speaker, if you were to take the amalgamated wealth of those nine individuals and add it to those 3.5 billion and apply it to the United States' national debt, we could pay off a mere 9.4 percent. Given that our national debt is almost $20 trillion dollars and rising, it is imperative that we take this bipartisan step to ensure that our homeland is secured but that the dollars spent doing so are spent effectively, efficiently, and with good stewardship. This legislation helps to ensure that tax dollars are safeguarded, but it also helps to ensure that DHS personnel receive the tools they need to keep us safe. Mr. Speaker, I implore and urge my colleagues on each side of the aisle to join in this bipartisan legislation to ensure that our tax dollars are well shepherded but that our Nation is as secure as can be possible. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt thanks to my distinguished colleague from California. While we might not agree on all that is appropriate within the purview of the Department, we do agree on being effective stewards of tax dollars, and I am grateful for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I, once again, wish to extend my thanks to my colleague from California. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to support this commonsense, bipartisan measure, H.R. 1282, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 276.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, during this National Police Week, I wish to, on behalf of myself and the fine citizens of the Fifth District of Virginia, extend our thank-you. Since 1791, greater than 22,000 law enforcement professionals have given their lives in the line of duty--over 70 in a single day in 2001, including 37 from the NYPD and 23 from the Port Authority Police--an average of over 140 a year. And yet these men and women who look like us--every race, every color, every gender--are the best of us because every day they get up and go to work again. Mr. Speaker, when I served in the military, I became familiar with Isaiah 6:8, and I cite that verse in thanking our law enforcement professionals: And then the voice of the Lord spoke to us and said, ``Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?'' And I said, ``Here am I. Send me.'' Mr. Speaker, take that as a thank-you from myself and the citizens of the Fifth District of Virginia to those professional men and women who serve us every day.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, over the past days we have heard a great deal of rhetoric as it relates to health care and what the best policy for the United States is. In fact, as we address the Affordable Care Act, which the Democratic Governor of Minnesota referred to as unsustainable and former President Clinton referred to as the craziest thing, we understand that the words ``Affordable Care Act'' do not, in fact, apply. The paradigm, Mr. Speaker, needs to be this. It need not be whether or not Americans have coverage. In a time when Americans, two-thirds of whom cannot afford $1,000 in a time of financial crisis, as we see premiums and deductibles soar--$4,000, $6,000, $10,000--the paradigm should be: Do they have access to care? Because, in a world where you can't pay your deductible, a premium or catastrophe creates an unaffordable outcome, and then coverage is a piece of paper that does not grant you access to what is truly important, and that is care. That should be the paradigm in this debate going forward.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me today as we remember the lives of Jaiden Bartee and Tori Perez, ages 5 and 6 years old, who, as they stood with their mothers waiting for the schoolbus on the morning of March 30, were struck down and taken from this world far too soon by a passing truck. Mr. Speaker, Members, there is no Scripture, no words, no thought poignant enough to address the loss of these mothers, of the Buckingham County, Virginia, community, of humanity of these two lives; but in what is the best effort that I can make, I ask that all of my colleagues and these Members of the Virginia delegation who join me to join in a moment of silence to recognize these two young people.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, in 1947, Senator Arthur Vandenberg famously stated that politics stop at the water's edge. What that meant was that partisan fighting and attacks should cease when they compromise America's role in missions abroad and, indeed, when they compromise the safety and security of Americans abroad as well. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I sat in the Homeland Security Committee and heard over two dozen references from my esteemed colleagues across the aisle to a Muslim ban. When President Obama expanded its own screening for refugees for majority Muslim nations, he said it was because of ``the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters,'' and nary a peep was heard. Our colleagues across the aisle said this Muslim ban will endanger Americans and serve as a recruiting tool to ISIS. Mr. Speaker, I agree, except there is no Muslim ban. Talk of a Muslim ban makes Americans less safe at home, true; it makes Americans less safe abroad, true; and if politics stop at the water's edge and there is no Muslim ban, then why use partisan politics to perpetrate falsehoods that do just those very things. Let's look at the facts: Of the 2.3 billion Muslims on the planet Earth, 11 percent live in the countries named in Mr. Trump's executive order. Nine-tenths of 1 percent live in Syria, a single nation pulled out for heightened scrutiny. The duration of the heightened scrutiny held to the Syrian refugee population is one-half that of the same action taken by Mr. Trump's predecessor, President Obama, as it related to Iraqis in 2011 when nary a peep was heard because politics are supposed to stop at the water's edge. We hear questions: Does the President have a constitutional right to do this? I say, no, he has a constitutional duty to do this. We look at Article II and see the clear and present danger clause. We hear the language of the Obama administration speaking of growing terrorist threats from abroad. We see in Article II and in the oath that the President takes that it is his duty to protect Americans from all threats, all enemies, foreign and domestic. So what we know is that the executive order affects a scant 7 of well over 50 majority-Muslim nations. There is no religious test because it also affects millions of Christians living in these nations. It affects about 11 percent of the global Muslim population. There are exceptions granted. We know that ISIS is using the refugee system to infiltrate Western nations. We know that first- or second-generation radical Islamists have killed over 70 Americans since Boston and wounded over 300 on U.S. soil. We know that, just over a month ago, a dozen innocent individuals at a Christmas market in Berlin were murdered and 50 more were injured by a refugee. We know that the fallacious concept of a Muslim ban inflames and enrages our enemies and serves as a recruiting tool. So the question then becomes: Why do some Members of this esteemed body continue to perpetuate what is willful ignorance at best and a falsehood at worst? Why say there is a Muslim ban when there is not? Mr. Speaker, if politics stop at the water's edge, then Members won't play loose with the facts to score political points. Members won't advance a false narrative that endangers Americans. Members will support this President, as they did the last President, as he seeks to discharge his duty to defend the United States, its citizens, and our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Mr. GARRETT

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the President's selection of Neil Gorsuch as nominee to the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincerest hope that the Members of this body and our body down at the other end of the building will recognize just what a wonderful selection Mr. Trump has made. In fact, candidly, Mr. Speaker, were it my selection, I probably would not pick someone who had clerked for liberal jurist Byron ``Whizzer'' White or the split vote on the Court, Anthony Kennedy. In fact, I wonder if the habits of the individuals in the Senate--who might have the opportunity to confirm--to resist every single thing that comes across their desks these days might not, in fact, lead to a more conservative nominee should Judge Gorsuch not be nominated. I would again commend Mr. Trump for this middle-of-the-road selection. I think he will maintain the balance on the Court that Mr. Kennedy has here today. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are wise enough to understand just what a benevolent and middle-of-the-road selection Mr. Gorsuch is.