Bob Good

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the right to organize is appropriately protected in America, the right to organize fairly, honestly, and transparently. My amendment would provide greater fairness and transparency by prohibiting so-called neutrality agreements. These prevent an employer from saying anything negative about the union and ensure that workers only hear one side, the union boss's side. Neutrality agreements often include card check in lieu of a secret ballot, permit unions access to company property for organizational efforts, and give private employee contact information to the unions. The company, which was inevitably threatened with retaliatory consequences if they didn't agree to the neutrality agreement, will often provide the unions with a captive audience on company time to present the prounion argument. Neutrality agreements are grounded in the same leftist view that companies are trying to take advantage of their employees. Neutrality agreements should be prohibited. Employees should be permitted to hear both sides, pro and con, regarding organizing, and then permitted to make informed decisions by secret ballot. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the PRO Act and to these amendments. The PRO Act will ban right-to-work laws in 27 States. It will give unions millions more dollars to funnel to Democrats by requiring all workers to pay dues via payroll deduction, even if they don't support the union. From 2010 to 2018, unions sent $1.6 billion from employee dues to leftwing groups, such as Planned Parenthood and the Clinton Foundation. The PRO Act will require companies to provide union organizers their private, personal contact information of employees so they can be pressured, harassed, and intimidated into supporting the union. It will eliminate secret ballots and replace those with card check, where union bosses can simply collect authorization cards supposedly from employees agreeing to organize. If the Union doesn't win the election, it puts the burden on employees to prove they didn't engage in unfair labor practices to influence the outcome. The PRO Act destroys the franchise model, independent contractor status, subcontractors, and gig workers by implementing a one-size- fits-all new employee classification. It repeals the ban on secondary boycotts and subjects suppliers and affiliates to union pressure, harassment, and intimidation tactics just because they do business with the company that is under attack. It prohibits the replacement of striking workers, giving unions and employers risk-free leverage, unless the company closes; and eliminates the employer's ability to serve customers and operate during a strike. It massively increases fines and other penalties for employers. The PRO Act will cost American businesses $47 billion annually, and I urge its rejection.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is this rule would advance unconstitutional legislation that undermines the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens. It is amazing that lawful gun ownership has been so politicized by the left that it is now common to ask someone their position on the Second Amendment, as if our constitutional rights are subject to opinion. The question before us is not: Do we believe in gun rights? It is rather: Do we believe in the Constitution? Currently, any firearm purchase from a federally licensed dealer is subject to a background check. But this legislation would expand this system--along with the fees and bureaucracy that comes with it--to private transfers. For what other constitutional rights will we now assign a fee or a tax? Our First Amendment rights? Our Fifth Amendment rights? This bill creates a de facto gun registry by involving the Federal Government in every gun transfer, including private transfers and gifts. How else would we enforce these requirements? For my Democrat friends who suggest that Conservatives and gun owners are paranoid about a national registry, Madam Speaker, you bet we are. We know our history, and we know what has happened in other countries. Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule and all three of these bills.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, which represents the worst of Washington: defunding police in a surprise vote in the middle of the night. This bill advances the far-left Democrat platform, and would defund the police through unfunded mandates that cost State and local departments millions of dollars. If this weren't bad enough, the bill advances an antipolice agenda with Washington-knows-best regulations, and puts a target on the backs of everyday officers by creating a national database of complaints that have not been adjudicated. Madam Speaker, I oppose the bill. I stand with law enforcement, and I am grateful for those who serve on the thin blue line.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this so-called Equality Act is the culmination of a 50-year effort by the radical left to attack our values, our families, our children, and our religious freedoms. I ran for office as a Biblical and constitutional Conservative because I believe in our Nation's founding Judeo-Christian principles and the importance of faith and family to this unique American form of government. John Adams confirmed that this was the intent of the Founders when he stated: ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'' I don't think he could have envisioned we would be here today defending the right to life for the unborn, what our children are taught in school regarding their own gender, the protection for people to practice their faith without fear of government, and the importance of the traditional family. This bill is one of the most dangerous and consequential bills that we will ever consider. It will have a terribly negative impact on every area of our lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in their continued relentless assault on religious freedoms, Democrats are trying today, with this terrible bill, to make wholesale and damaging changes to our Nation's civil rights laws with little to no debate or even discussion on how this legislation will affect the daily lives of Americans and the institutions we hold dear. While the Equality Act purports to be an inclusive piece of legislation, it is actually exclusive of those with a different viewpoint. It would ultimately put civil rights laws at odds with longstanding religious beliefs pertaining to sex, sexuality, and other moral issues. The result would be that faith-based nonprofits, such as a Christian shelter for women or an adoption agency or other religiously affiliated providers of social services, could not minister in good conscience without suffering consequences under Federal law. We have past history as a precedent, an ominous precedent, as we saw the Obama-Biden administration seek to close down the Little Sisters of the Poor and Catholic nuns who care for the dying simply because they would not pay for their employees' contraception or drugs inducing abortion. A vote for the Equality Act would solidify the Biden-Harris administration's efforts to enforce the same radical religious and moral litmus tests that leave no room for faith-based ministries and organizations to operate without subscribing to the dogma of the left. The Equality Act essentially weaponizes civil rights laws against Americans' fundamental liberties, and we must reject this assault on our most precious of freedoms. I oppose this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the National Apprenticeship Act. Republicans and Democrats agree that apprenticeships are important for workforce development. Unfortunately, House Democrats think that Federal bureaucrats, who rely on an almost century-old system, should manage all apprenticeship programs, not businesses and job creators. This legislation represents a classic Democrat one-size-fits-all approach, as it would make the existing Registered Apprenticeship Program the only option for businesses. Registered programs are only a small fraction of total apprenticeships, representing only about 20 percent of apprenticeships in 2019. Instead of reducing options and increasing bureaucracy, Republicans support policies that maximize flexibility and innovation, like President Trump's landmark and highly successful Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program. It is tragic that during a time of historic unemployment, the House of Representatives is taking up a bill that stifles employment and workforce development opportunities when we need it least. I stand in opposition to H.R. 447.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have taken my oath on that Bible, which I do follow and try to live my life after. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to the left's pattern of teaming up with the mainstream media to try to stifle the voices of conservatives. First, it was 4 years of trying to remove President Trump. Today, it is trying to strip my friend, Marjorie Taylor Greene, of her committee assignments. It is only a matter of time until they start coming after everyday Americans. We travel down a dangerous road today when the majority party is threatening to make committee assignments for the minority. Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle, as we have seen and as we have just heard from one, certainly have no shortage of members who have expressed very offensive opinions after they were elected to this body. Democrats are not looking to lower the temperature or deliver results for the American people. Their goal is to cause chaos and divide our country so they can continue to expand their radical left agenda until they have silenced all opposing viewpoints. Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House. If they wanted to deliver results to the American people, they could do it. But their agenda is clear: they don't want to govern. They want to rule and clamp down on any dissent to their radical agenda.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. We have to stop spending our citizens' financial future. Instead, we have to empower them to chart their own economic destiny. To paraphrase the words of a famous young environmentalist: How dare you? And how dare we?

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 11, the House Democrat budget for fiscal year 2021. Mr. Speaker, in response to a previous speaker, it is always time to talk about the deficit. Our national debt has already climbed to $28 trillion, representing about $85,000 per American citizen. This is over $200,000 per American family or household. How can we ever hope to repay that? The spending on our interest payments alone on this debt, even with the current artificially low interest rates, amounts to about 8 percent of our annual budget as recently as fiscal year '19. It is projected to rise to 26 percent of our budget over the next 30 years or by fiscal year `50. This path of fiscal insanity is simply not sustainable. Without our currently artificial rates, we simply couldn't even afford to pay our existing debt right now. Our national debt and current fiscal situation truly represents one of the greatest threats to our country. The science, as we like to say, or more specifically the math, confirms this reality because a day of reckoning is coming. We are the first generation to ever leave a legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren. The Greatest Generation, the World War II generation, who also faced down the Great Depression crisis, didn't even do this to us. So where do we find ourselves today? We are contemplating a $2 trillion spending package that will cost every American citizen an average of about $6,000 apiece, or $15,000 per family. For what? What will they be getting for their share of this new debt? Some will get a $1,400 check in return for their $6,000 share of the debt. That is not a very good deal. This proposal comes from the same folks who continue to unjustifiably clamp down on our freedoms, economically and otherwise. In fact, in my own home State of Virginia, 25 percent of businesses have permanently closed since the lockdowns began. There is simply no substitute for the American economy, and no relief or spending package will ever be sufficient. When has government spending ever truly fixed a problem or not made it worse? We have to turn the American worker, the American businessperson, and the American economy loose. We have to stop spending our citizens' futures.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I stand today in support of President Trump and against this sham impeachment proceeding with literally 1 week--7 days--remaining in his term. This is merely the culmination of a 4-year effort to overturn the will of the people and the results for the 2016 election. This is simply a political action intended to tarnish the legacy of a highly successful President who led us to an incredible economy, energy independence, reduction of taxes for millions, regulatory relief for businesses, renewed peace in the Middle East, and stronger border security. This action will only serve to further offend the 75 million people who voted for President Trump, and further deepen the division within our Nation as we try to move forward with the peaceful transition of power. However, the Democrat majority has determined he is already guilty and there is no need of a trial; and they, therefore, move forward quickly with this phony impeachment charge. Today, I join my Republican colleagues in standing against this further effort to divide our Nation.

Mr. GOOD of Virginia

Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the incredible men and women serving as U.S. Capitol Police for their dedicated efforts to keep everyone safe and to secure our Capitol. On January 3rd I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The lawlessness that broke down our Capitol doors today is a reminder of just how sacred our duty is to uphold the rule of law. I want to extend my thanks to my colleagues who join me in continuing the constitutional duties of Congress and having this debate tonight with civility and without fear. Tonight is about more than the 2020 presidential election; it is about all future elections, and Congress doing its constitutional duty to ensure election integrity, and not accept electoral votes from states with sufficient evidence of fraud that has not been fully investigated, and whose state legislators did not ensure the law was followed or ensure the integrity of their elections. This challenge is not uncharted territory or a new exercise, as Democrats have objected on this floor to every recent presidential victory by Republicans, most recently challenging the electoral votes for 10 states following the 2016 presidential election, with their primary justification being the phony Russian collusion charges. What is unprecedented about this presidential election is first, the number of people who believe the election was stolen, second, the amount of evidence that indicates fraud and other violations of election law that has not been investigated, and third, the number of members who are objecting to some of the electoral votes, a number not seen since 1876--or 144 years. The 2005 bipartisan commission headed by Jimmy Carter and James Baker warned of this type of widespread voter fraud through illegal aliens voting, not requiring identification verification, and mass voting by mail. These three issues clearly facilitate the compromise of election integrity. Yet, there have not been any evidentiary hearings to even consider these allegations of voter fraud. Georgia is one of the most egregious examples of violations of legal election procedures to the degree that it almost certainly determined the outcome of the election allegedly decided by a mere 12,000 votes. The legislators in Georgia failed to protect and ensure the integrity of their election. We, the Congress, are the forum for the voices of the American people. It is our responsibility to evaluate the validity of these electoral votes and to either accept them as legitimately cast or reject them as questionable or unreliable. It is my judgment that the electoral votes submitted by the state of Georgia are unreliable and therefore should not be accepted.