Jody Hice

Mr. HICE of Georgia

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, due to a recommendation by the Attending Physician to quarantine due to an interaction with a person having a confirmed COVID-19 infection diagnosis, I was unable to be present during House votes. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 168; NAY on Roll Call No. 169; YEA on Roll Call No. 170; NAY on Roll Call No. 171; NAY on Roll Call No. 172; NAY on Roll Call No. 173; NAY on Roll Call No. 174; NAY on Roll Call No. 175; YEA on Roll Call No. 176; YEA on Roll Call No. 177; and NAY on Roll Call No. 178.

Mr. HICE of Georgia

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), my good friend, for yielding to me. There is no question that all of us who have served with John Lewis mourn the passing of this towering figure who devoted his life to fighting for freedom and equality. An interesting perspective of his life, as a son of Alabama sharecroppers, John Lewis demonstrated that, in America, a single individual, even one coming from the most humble of backgrounds, can have an enormous impact in this country. We all know that he rose to be a powerful leader in the civil rights movement; worked very closely with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and so many other great heroes who sacrificed their lives to ensure that Americans of all races live in liberty in this country. But he did so peacefully. He once wrote this, and this has a great, powerful meaning. He said: ``Release the need to hate, to harbor division, and the enticement of revenge. Release all bitterness. Hold only love, only peace in your heart, knowing that the battle of good to overcome evil is already won.'' John Lewis knew that it was necessary to fight the sins of this country; but he understood also to fight those in a nonviolent way. I just have the deepest respect for John Lewis, and I am honored to have considered him a dear friend. I just want to thank all my colleagues this evening for joining in this time to honor such a great man and an icon, obviously, particularly in the civil rights movement. My wife, Dee Dee, and I continue to pray for the Lewis family. Again, I thank all my colleagues for joining tonight.

Mr. HICE of Georgia

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Tammy Shepherd, who is retiring from the Columbia County Chamber of Commerce, a thriving organization serving a notable community in the Tenth Congressional District, which I have the honor of representing. Twelve years ago, Tammy Shepherd joined the organization as the Director of Programs and soon after received a promotion to Vice President of Business Development. In 2010, she earned the position of President and CEO, and over the past decade, she has established the Chamber as a leading business organization representing companies of all sizes throughout the region. Under her faithful watch, the Chamber has grown to nearly 1,000 members, has twice earned the highest distinction of 5-Star Accreditation through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has formed the Columbia County Chamber Foundation, as well as a holding company and a Political Action Committee, and most recently, has opened a second location in the heart of Columbia County's growth. Madam Speaker, in addition to all this, Tammy has served on the Board of Directors for the SRS Community Reuse Organization, Georgia Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives, Alliance for Fort Gordon, and Georgia Southern Athletic Foundation. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Tammy Shepherd for her outstanding leadership in a community that continues to experience tremendous growth and to wish her and her husband, Stan, joy and continued success in the years to come.

Mr. HICE of Georgia

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the postal provisions in H.R. 2 and have offered an amendment to strike them from the bill. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Government Operations of the Oversight and Reform Committee, I was very much disappointed that we were not consulted on these provisions. My colleagues from the Oversight and Reform Committee and I have been closely following the financial health of the Postal Service, and we receive, in fact, weekly updates on mail volume, revenue, and cash on hand. The numbers are very clear, what we have received. The $25 billion postal bailout provided in H.R. 2 is just simply premature. We don't need to go there at this point. A few weeks ago, I asked the Postmaster General to revise the initial estimates for the direct impact from the pandemic, which included this $25 billion for modernization. The reality is that, over the last several months, the revenue trends no longer support the Postal Service's multibillion-dollar bailout request. This is because there are much better numbers and performance that has been driven by package volume. Let me give you some examples. During the first 11 weeks of the pandemic, the Postal Service earned $330 million more in revenue than this same time last year. The Postal Service also improved its amount of cash on hand by at least $600 million. And as of June 4, they had $13.2 billion in cash. In addition, while negotiations with the Treasury Department are still ongoing, the Postal Service has yet to even tap into the $10 billion in lending that was authorized by Congress in the CARES Act. A long-term plan to turn the Postal Service around is also being developed. My colleagues from the Oversight and Reform Committee and I have called for a 10-year business plan to improve the Postal Service's business model. And given the start of the new Postmaster General's term, we are hopeful that an updated plan that outlines specific reforms to put the Postal Service on firm financial footing is going to happen. But absent revised estimates and a business plan, it is unclear what the true needs of the Postal Service are. I will just say that the USPS was designed to be self-sufficient, a self-sufficient entity. The only way of dealing with that issue is by long-term legislative reform, not a bailout. That is the only way to do it. So we cannot continue throwing taxpayer money away and particularly adding green new deals. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HICE of Georgia

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will just remind my good friend, listen, we share the concern if people are upset, if it is not working. But the reality is, if it is not working, we have a system in this government, in our system, to deal with it. And in this case, it is called a constitutional amendment. Why the Democrats are not presenting a constitutional amendment to deal with the problem is beyond me, but it is what it is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), my good friend.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I feel like the arguments on the other side of the aisle are so weak that they respond by yelling louder. We have just heard a great, passionate speech about something that is totally irrelevant. In fact, the point was highlighted that the condition for statehood is not population; otherwise, we would not have States like Wyoming or Alaska or other States that were ever admitted. That is not the issue. The issue was that Washington, D.C., was set apart as a seat of government not to be the same as the federation of States that our Constitution grants us.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), who is my good friend and a great leader.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Despite the passionate arguments that we have heard today regarding H.R. 51, the plain truth is that Washington, D.C.'s status as the Capital of the United States is exactly as our Founders intended. To be clear, Washington, D.C., is a vibrant and special city holding a unique position in our Nation's Federal system. Our Nation's Capital does not exist within one State, and therefore, it is free from the influence of any State. That is exactly the intention of our Constitution and our Founders. But not only is the Constitution proposal going to be a violation of our Constitution, but practically speaking, D.C. is not prepared financially and otherwise as a microstate. Currently, Washington, D.C., only raises about half of its annual budget through local taxes, despite the fact that they have some of the highest taxes in the Nation. This shows a lack of financial readiness for the responsibility of statehood. Congress has already dealt with this in the past, and D.C.'s financial situation, we bailed it out in the 1990s after 20 years of troubled self-rule. The majority's bill does not take into account how these budgetary shortfalls would be remedied or how the taxpayers would be relieved. Statehood first, the details later, that is the majority's proposal. In seeking to gain an extra two seats in the Senate, Democrats would strip this great historic city of its special status and make it a shell state. The Democrat's statehood proposal leaves us with a State in name only, and a tiny remnant of a Federal district. This is far from the intent of our Founding Fathers. We live in a federation, a federation of States. I would say there is no one who is a greater supporter of States' rights than I am, but because I believe in States' rights, I cannot support this city becoming a State. D.C. is simply not equipped to shoulder the burden of statehood. If Democrats were serious about granting representation to the citizens of D.C., they would consider retroceding the land back to Maryland, as has been proposed, but that has been rejected over and over. If D.C.'s citizens rejoin Maryland, they would gain the Senate and House representation that supposedly is what this bill is after. But this statehood proposal is about politics all dressed up in noble arguments about disenfranchising and taxation without representation. It is just a big sham. The Constitution is clear. A new State can be formed from Federal territories or from existing States with their permission. But the current Federal district is not an existing State, nor is it a territory. It is unique, and our Framers specifically crafted the Constitution with a maximum size for the District, so as to prevent it from becoming a State. We have been over this time and again, but H.R. 51 changes the clear intentions of our Founders. By making the District a State, we are going exactly against the intent of our Framers and the intentions of our Constitution. The Framers crafted our Constitution with the direct intent that we would have a unique district, the seat of our Federal Government that is not influenced by a State. That is what we have, and that is what we need to keep. H.R. 51 disregards the Constitution, and we cannot take this lightly. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act. There is a whole lot more to statehood than simply being a large and vibrant city. Our Nation's Founders made it clear that D.C. is not meant to be a State. They thought about it, they debated it, and they rejected it. In fact, in those early days, Alexander Hamilton himself proposed an amendment that would allow the District residents to have a voting Member in the House, and that proposal was rejected. If the majority wishes to go against our Founders, that is their prerogative, but they should simply admit, in their opinion, the Founders were wrong. They cannot ignore the intention behind D.C.'s current status. The Constitution simply does not allow city governments to become microstates with all the rights and responsibilities of full States. The debate about the nature of Washington, D.C., is not a new debate, but it is absolutely a settled one. My friends on the other side of the aisle may gasp and protest in outrage at the suggestion that what this is really all about is an attempt to get two more Democratic Senators. That is what this really is all about. On our side, there is no question that we have the Constitution on our side on this whole debate. The Constitution clearly establishes a federation of sovereign States, and representation here in Washington, D.C., comes from those States, the federation of those States. This District is a unique entity. It was set apart to not be influenced by a State, but to, in itself, be governed by those representatives of the various States who are here. Our Founders did not want this city, the seat of our Federal Government, to be influenced by any other State, but that is exactly what this proposal would do. As James Madison expressed it himself in Federalist 43, if the Nation's Capital City were situated within a State, the Federal Government could be subject to undue influence of that State. That is not the intent of our Federal Government; that is not the intent of this District that has been set aside; and that is exactly what would happen under this bill. My colleagues across the aisle believe that excluding a small Federal enclave from this new State would nullify the need for a constitutional amendment, but that is simply not true. The original text of the Constitution is clear. Congress has the power to create States from two sources: a territory or an existing State that agrees to secede its territory to become a State. Washington, D.C., is neither of these. It is the Nation's only Federal District, and it is set aside for a specific purpose. Congress does not have the authority to take this District and create a State out of it. At least one constitutional amendment would be required for that to happen. During the markup of this bill, I personally raised these constitutional concerns and offered an amendment to provide an expedited procedure to deal with the constitutional amendment, but the Oversight Committee Democrats opposed that amendment, and they opposed, in fact, all of our amendments that were put forth. This is not a surprise that this whole proposal has been rejected by the American people. In fact, in a Gallup Poll last year, 64 percent of Americans reject the idea of D.C. being a State, only 29 percent approve of it. Granting D.C. statehood goes against not only the American citizens' desires, but more importantly, against the Constitution itself and certainly our Framers' original intent. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to oppose the Washington, D.C. Admissions Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the chairwoman that the entire court system of Washington, D.C., is supported by the Federal Government. And there is representation. This District has three electoral votes. No other city in the country has that. There is a representative here. It is just an amazing thing, too, that this whole bill does not even allow elections for the new Governor that is proposed here, so the very thing they are arguing, they reject and deny from the residents. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy), my good friend.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), my good friend and a great member of the Oversight Committee.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would just say again that our Constitution has representation here in our Capitol from the Federation of the States, and this district was set apart, not to be a State, nor to be influenced by one. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), a great member of the Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, to somehow try to paint a picture that D.C. is a second-class city is absolute absurdity. Without question, this is the most influential city in this country--perhaps in the world. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my friend.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my good friend and a great leader.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining for each side?

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it certainly can happen. It just requires a constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), my good friend.

Mr. HICE of Georgia

Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.