Rich McCormick

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. I think that is an excellent point. What do we require opt-in for right now? Right now, for free and reduced lunch, you have to opt in. For a field trip, you have to opt in. For lots of activities you have to opt in. Things that are good for the children. If the child wants to go, I guarantee, as a father of seven, they are going to come to me and say, Dad, I want to go to this, and I am going to opt in if it is something that I want them to participate in. This is not unprecedented. This is something that gives you power, once again, control of what you want your children to be exposed to, that has nothing to do with academics. Nothing to do with academics. This could be used in positive ways or negative ways, depending on you how view your children's education. There are already plenty of measures to make the content and the curriculum accountable to parental oversight, but the non-curriculum- based events and initiatives don't have these measures. Further, this amendment doesn't state how schools have to get consent from parents; one event at a time. The language is drafted so that the school can determine how to best inform and receive a parent's consent. It can be done for the entire year all at once. That is up to the school. Once again, it empowers parents to have control of things that are outside of academics, which we already have a precedent for. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, clearly, I am not talking about recess. Let's not get crazy about what kind of things we are claiming right now. I am talking about--you're right, it could be anything from let me dress up as something vulgar, or let me--it could be anything controversial or noncontroversial. It doesn't really matter. Once again, we get back to the content of something we already do. You are right, your kids might benefit greatly from going down to the power station for a field trip, but you already have to opt them in. You are doing that already. I am talking about things that have nothing to do with academics. This has to do with empowering parents, just like they already are on several occasions, to have control of what their children are exposed to. That is what parental rights are all about. That is empowering each individual, as a parent, and each student, to be exposed to only what they think is pertinent to their education in a way that they want to be presented. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of parents who have the right to guide their child's education and to know what is being taught in the classroom. This body will soon vote on a great piece of legislation, H.R. 5, the Parental Bill of Rights. This bill puts parents in the driver's seat and makes students the priority, not bureaucrats or administrators. It is hard to imagine who would fight against parental rights and school choice, but just the other day, Democratic legislators in my home State of Georgia were trying to stop several successful bills that expand education options for families. Shockingly, their reasoning was that low-income families are too uneducated and poor to have a say over their own children's schooling. If you don't believe me, here are the exact words of Georgia's 67th House District Representative just last week: ``. . . they,'' meaning the parents, ``are already in the lower 25th percentile, meaning a lot of those parents did not finish high school, cannot direct, and could not finish their own education.'' She continues: ``I am extremely concerned that we would put money in their hands, that entire piece of life in the hands of parents who are not qualified to make those decisions.'' Well, I think that is nonsense. The vast majority of Americans--moms and dads and teachers and students--know that is nonsense. History is littered by governments who thought they knew better, and that people and parents did not know better, much to the detriment of that culture and the ultimate failure of that government. That is why I am offering two amendments to the Parental Bill of Rights. The first one establishes the right of parents to be informed about, and consent to, participation in any non-curriculum events or activities. We already do this for things that government schools deem important like field trips, gifted programs, individual education plans, and free and reduced lunches. I believe that parents' rights do not end at the discretion of the administration. Unfortunately, in recent years, some school systems have used the classroom as a bully pulpit to push social engineering instead of learning environments. This is not a partisan issue, and this has got to stop. The way it stops is keeping parents informed of what happens at school. My other amendment guarantees parents the opportunity to address their school boards regarding any violation of their rights. As we have seen too often across the country, concerned moms and dads have been silenced, thrown out, or threatened when standing up for their children. This is unacceptable. Families need accountability in their schools and a place to make their voices heard. Fortunately, from Georgia to Virginia, from Texas to Idaho, and yes, even from California to New York, we are beginning to put students over systems and the people over a government, just like the Constitution intended. This revolution of school choice and parental rights will help millions of families across America, and we are just getting started.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Robert D. Cornetti of Roswell, Georgia, ``Bob,'' to his friends. Mr. Cornetti served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War, where he received the Good Conduct Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the Korean Service Medal with Three Bronze Stars, and the National Defense Service Medal. On April 27, 2023, Mr. Cornetti celebrates his 90th birthday. I want to extend my congratulations, and the best wishes of Congress to Bob and his entire family for this special occasion. May America and my great State of Georgia be forever blessed with patriots like Robert Cornetti, and may God give him many happy returns.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Speaker, it is about time. It is good to see a bill actually shed some light on a disease process if we want to expose something, if we want to bring the truth. This should have been done a long time ago. When we first started seeing this disease in the emergency department, I was there on the front lines seeing people with fevers for no reason, testing negative for flu, testing negative for strep, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections. We couldn't figure out why they were sick. We were sending them home, not really understanding what was wrong with them. Then we had a hard time trying to figure out how to treat them. We went through a novel disease process, just like they did back in 1918 when we had the original flu pandemic where 26 million people died in about a year. It should never come to a point where we become politically motivated. More to the point of why we have become so critical of people who should be trusted is when they have bias built into their argument to begin with, and that is what we are here to expose. When we have transparency, when we have declassified information so we can actually make a good judgment based on public opinion when it is exposed to the truth, I think it will expose that people were politically motivated; that they are embarrassed by their choices, and that they made choices to politicize this, rather than get to the bottom of this. We cannot stop a disease by misunderstanding where it came from. We cannot have an honest discussion and heal our Nation until we have accountability. I think where the mistrust comes from is the fact that it was politicized to begin with. So I think it is fair criticism when you have emails that expose the fact that they were trying to spin it a certain way, rather than having an honest, scientific discussion. That is fair criticism, and people should be held accountable if we are going to get to the bottom of this. As an ER doctor who served during the entire pandemic, since before I even knew what it was, watching people die in front of me, learning lessons--and those are honest lessons, where doctors made decisions and in good faith made mistakes, but it was in good faith--and we want to expose people who made decisions out of bad faith.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I missed rollcall 130 due to distraction. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 130.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Speaker, the President is once again using the Department of Defense to advance the far-left agenda and pro-abortion policies. The new policy to give servicemembers and their families paid administrative leave for up to 3 weeks and travel reimbursement to obtain out-of-state elective abortions is yet another extreme example. The law is clear and vetted. No Federal funds are to be used for elective abortions. The military mission is equally clear: to be a lethal force to defend the innocents and to defeat those who would do them harm. This flies in the face of that mission. I call on the President to reverse this policy, which is in violation of law and counter to the military mission.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a fellow marine and a great American patriot, Mr. Donn J. Thompson of Spokane, Washington. Donn was a student at the University of Washington when Pearl Harbor was attacked. But he left after his freshman year to join the Marines in 1943. He took part in multiple assault landings, including the Battle of Okinawa, where he helped capture Sugar Loaf Hill with the 6th Marine Division in one of the bloodiest battles in the Pacific theater. This month, Donn celebrates his 100th birthday. Last spring, Donn celebrated his 75th wedding anniversary with his beloved wife and pen pal for life, Doodee. Donn represents the very best of our history and the very best of America. I thank him for his service to our country. I congratulate him on a century of life and wisdom and a life truly well lived. May Donn and Doodee receive every blessing and happiness under heaven.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the Freedom for Healthcare Workers Act that has been submitted and we will soon vote on. As an ER physician who has treated thousands of patients, who has been exposed to COVID thousands of times, and watched nurses and midlevels and healthcare workers of all kinds complain about the government's involvement in healthcare, I wanted to address this topic. I believe I am the only Congressman who has actually been an ER doctor in the pandemic. My last shift was December 28. I intubated a patient and saw three critical patients. Several of them had COVID. Nobody was admitted for COVID, though. Back to the point, though. During this pandemic we started off with no vaccination. Meanwhile, most of us were exposed regardless of what PPE we had, and it was limited at times to people who had fevers, who had symptoms even before we knew what COVID was. A lot of us got sick and developed immunity naturally. Then the government stepped in. Although well-meaning, a lot of times government officials think they have the answer to everything, including things they really don't know about. What they will do is cherry-pick the experts that agree with them to say this is what experts believe, and that is why all healthcare professionals should believe this also. That is not how we make progress in medicine. As a matter of fact, it stifles innovation and progress. At one time we had a President, President Garfield, who was shot, and it was poor practice in medicine where doctors probed his wound and made him septic that caused him to die. There was a dissenting opinion by Dr. Lister--you may have heard of Listerine--who believed in antiseptic but he was scoffed at and belittled because he was the outlying person. Imagine where we would be if government stepped in and said: Our experts said you don't need to wash your hands before you probe wounds. We would still be in the Dark Ages of medicine. I beg the government to stay out of the way of healthcare progress. To stay out of the debate of healthcare professionals because, quite frankly, very few people in Congress understand medicine the way healthcare professionals do. They haven't been to medical school, and even those who have, they haven't been in medicine for a long time. Quite frankly, the Doctors Caucus is seldom relied on for healthcare policy, which is a shame. If you haven't been to medical school, if you haven't taken your boards, if you haven't been through a residency, if you haven't seen tens of thousands of patients, you shouldn't be telling doctors who have a dissenting opinion what to do. There is no standard of care based on government. It is based on physicians having a good decision, trying different things, and finding out what works. That is how medicine has progressed in America; far beyond any limitations that we have in foreign counties. We are the leaders of innovation and healthcare. We should consider our healthcare professionals when we make decisions and not consider government first when it comes to standard of care. If you want to require healthcare professionals to have a vaccination, why do you think the government understands that requirement better than the very healthcare professional who not only treats this but was exposed to it, who has natural immunities, and who understands the side effects; not only of the disease but of the vaccination. Once again, I submit to you that it is time to let healthcare professionals make their own decisions, especially when it comes to their own lives. They are the ones that put their lives on the line during the pandemic. They are the ones that treated the sick patients. They are the ones that know best whether a vaccination will benefit them or harm them, not a government. I must also remind you that our Constitution is based on individual rights, not on a collective governance by politicians telling people what to do in things they don't know about. Mr. Speaker, I hope we support the Freedom for Healthcare Workers Act.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 days, I have heard repeatedly the other side of the House say that Republicans want to cut Social Security or reduce spending on Social Security and reduce benefits from Social Security. I will call that a lie. Just because you repeat it multiple times does not make it a fact, Mr. Speaker. I actually asked around my entire delegation, my entire caucus: Does anyone want to reduce spending on Social Security? Not one person said yes. As a matter of fact, everybody said no. As a caucus, we have discussed this multiple times, both on the floor and in conference, and we have all unanimously said that we are not going to reduce spending on Social Security. As a matter of fact, I will challenge anybody who says differently to show me in writing where this secret document exists or where the secret statement exists because I haven't seen it. I want to take this opportunity to express that just because you say it doesn't make it fact. The fact is that no Republican is talking about reducing spending on Social Security as a caucus.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why there is some confusion. I understand why we can get distracted by foreign nations and communism, which most of us agree is a bad thing. What I think is enlightening, though, is how we opened. What was stated, in my understanding or recollection, was that it was just said that the last Democratic-controlled Congress was the most effective and productive in recent history, which you just agreed to. The standard that the statement was made and measured by, though, shows why we are having this discussion, why my Democratic colleagues are confused. They equate record spending, record debt, and unprecedented control by government over private business as success. That is why they are confused about what this bill is about and why it is germane. They do not understand what socialism is or, worse, don't recognize that their policies are in direct support of socialist leanings. Their policies have continuously placed government in a position to control businesses, picking winners and losers, deciding what is moral and immoral, and continue to advance the idea that government somehow should have been empowered to solve the very problems that it created. To clear up things and create less confusion, we are trying to counter a movement that is moving toward something we have never been, a socialist nation. We are a unique government created by the people, for the people, empowered to protect, not to provide for, and not to determine the outcome of people's endeavors. We are uniquely positioned to benefit our citizens by empowering them, not through more government. I believe that we the people are far more valuable than we the government. That is why we speak against bigger government and socialism.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Speaker, this week, Americans are hearing about yet another battle over the debt ceiling, a fiscal restraint that was supposed to stop Congress from spending too much. Every couple of years, Congress basically gives itself a free pass and votes to raise the debt ceiling, kicking the can down the road. With a national debt over $31 trillion, this is a game our country cannot afford to keep playing. Today, President Biden is set to miss his budget deadline as required by law for the third consecutive year. I would love to see us actually handle the budget one item at a time rather than in a typical omnibus. Vilification of debt control and protecting our future generations is not where this discussion should start. We are not going to get rid of this deficit in 1 year, but we can get rid of something this year. Can we at least have a small step toward reducing our national debt for the future of our children? Hardworking American families have balanced budgets every month, every year, and they deserve a government that does the same.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Well, sir, you asked for a physician to stand. I am a physician. I am an emergency medicine physician who served during the entire COVID pandemic from before the pandemic began. I am sure I was exposed to it over a thousand times with thousands of patients that I treated for COVID, some of which I intubated. We had healthcare workers who had decades of experience exposed over and over again before there even was a vaccination. People went home sick. They had fevers. It may surprise you that I was never tested for COVID. Not in the entire career that I have had as an emergency physician have I ever been tested for COVID. I came to work time and time again, putting my life on the line. I lost friends. I watched people put their lives on the line and come to work when everybody else got to call in or stay home based on congressional mandates or congressional exceptions because we were essential, because we understand our profession. We understand how important it is to public service, to save lives, to learn and to continue to grow, to have the debate over what would and would not work for patients, and we evolved. It wasn't just one size fits all for medicine. People are not treated the same because people are different. Different exposures require different treatments. Once you have had the disease, you develop an immunity. If you have immunity, and you are exposed to a vaccination within a certain time, you can have a hyperimmune response that can be harmful. This is not taken into account by congressional people who do not understand medicine, who have not been to medical school, who have not had a residency, who have not had decades of experience either as a doctor, a nurse, a mid-level, or some other healthcare professional who understands healthcare far more than anybody who sits in these seats, who have never treated one patient or read one book or had one test concerning the outcome of a patient. They have never held the hand of a patient who is dying.

Mr. McCORMICK. So, I would challenge you, sir, to consider a healthcare professional, when they get to determine their own fate as they continue to put their lives on the line to serve the very people that we are supposed to be serving here in Congress.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Speaker, today I address something that is near and dear to everyone's heart, and that is food security. One of my biggest concerns right now, as I have become educated on the things that concern Americans, is the fact that all around the world right now, we are facing food shortages. A lot of this is created by our own actions. If you look in Ukraine right now, you have food rotting in bins because of a war. The breadbasket of Europe is not going to be producing crops in the next year because of the war. In China, you have massive pollution which is contaminating their agricultural output. Meanwhile, you have countries like India that are reliant on foreign fertilizer that are going to be choked off because of the environmental movement. You have the Netherlands and Germany reducing their nitrates in their fertilizers, which they haven't done since World War I, which created a famine back then. In the United States, we have a third of our chickens and our eggs that are being reduced because of Avian Flu. Meanwhile, we are allowing Chinese nationals and billionaires to buy up millions of acres of farmland. This is concerning for many reasons. If we thought that the pandemic was a reason for government to overreach, if we thought that that was going to be a crisis, imagine what it would be like if we ran out of food, if we have food shortages. When you realize that we had people panicking over toilet paper, imagine what they will do when they panic when our cupboards are bare. This could be a worldwide reason for war. It is also another reason for government to increase their control. There is always a reason for people to turn to the government to solve the problems that the government created; and that is my main concern today, to be something proactive rather than reactive. We see it coming. We can see that any foreign national country could come up with a virus to contaminate our livestock or even our crops; and yet, we are doing nothing to proactively make sure that Chinese nationals can't buy farmland in America; that billionaires can't buy millions of acres of farmland and artificially increase prices during a food shortage. We, as Congress, need to be proactive. We need to reach out and make sure we are doing things to strategically protect our food resources, both here and abroad. We need to fight back this idea that the environmental movement shouldn't use fertilizer, shouldn't produce agriculture; shouldn't be having foresight to protect human life over all else. Madam Speaker, I propose that Congress is realistic in the way we allow people to purchase. I am all for a free market. I am all for allowing people to sell to who they want to; but always with the idea that America still comes first, and Americans are protected in the process; that we don't turn to the government to solve the problem that we are creating, and that we don't allow foreign nationals to affect our food supply because this would be catastrophic, both here and abroad, and would lead to wars, as we have seen over and over through the history of this world.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the people of Iran as they struggle against an oppressive and dangerous regime. I also commend our great Iranian-American community in Georgia and across this Nation who hope that their friends and family on the other side of the world may one day have the freedom and prosperity we all enjoy in the United States. They are great patriots and valued citizens. For 4 consecutive months, Iranians have been protesting and calling for the downfall of the clerical regime in Tehran. Their rulers have brutally repressed dissidents and protesters, killing women who violate their dress codes and men who stand up for their sisters, mothers, wives, and daughters. In the 117th Congress, 260 bipartisan Members of Congress cosponsored H. Res. 118, which expressed unequivocal support for the Iranian people's desire to establish a secular, democratic, and nonnuclear republic. I hope that we can attract even more bipartisan signers for our resolution this week, of which I am a proud cosponsor.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of the Second Amendment, which is, once again, under attack by the unelected Federal bureaucrats in Washington. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is seeking to reclassify firearms with pistol braces as short-barreled rifles, a classification which threatens to make criminals of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans who have already purchased these. The extra red tape, fees, and registrations that the ATF wants to require is an unnecessary punishment for shooting enthusiasts who purchased perfectly legal accessories to their legal firearms. This follows a long pattern we have seen for decades in Washington's antigun, unconstitutional policies, which could never make it through Congress as a law that is imposed upon the public through the rule- making process. Americans are tired of unelected Federal agencies spending their tax dollars attacking and curtailing the constitutional rights of law- abiding citizens.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Speaker, I rise on this occasion to appreciate my constituents, especially those who have immigrated from India. We have a very large portion of my community that is made up of almost 100,000 people who have immigrated directly from India. One out of every five doctors in my community are from India, they represent some of the best citizens we have in America. We should make sure that we streamline the immigration process for those who come here to obey the law, pay their taxes, and be the most creative and productive in society. Although they make up about 1 percent of American society, they pay about 6 percent of the taxes. They are amongst the top producers, and they do not cause problems, they follow the laws. They don't have the problems that we see other people have when they come to the emergency room for overdoses, depression, and anxiety because they are the most productive, most family-oriented, and the best of what represents American citizens. God bless my Indian constituents. I look forward to meeting with the ambassador. God bless Dr. Kulkarni as she finishes her appointment as Consulate General of India to Atlanta.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of those who defend the unborn. I join my esteemed colleague, Mike Johnson, in calling out against violence. Not all of us believe in the Bible, but those who do understand that there are over 100 references to a child before it is born. For those of us who believe that the child is in existence and recognized by God before they are born, wouldn't it be immoral of those people to not stand up for what they believe is life? Therefore, I call on all those people who respect those beliefs and respect the Bible, respect their God, that we defend those people in making sure that we don't have violence, and we call out, as a united body, both Democrats and Republicans, to protect those who stand for what is right.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, we have, right now, a situation where the President is visiting the border. In my line of work, as a young lieutenant, I flew along the border and knew that there was a problem in the early 1990s. As a matter of fact, in the mid-1990s, as a forward air controller, we had to stop operations at nighttime as vans bouncing around in the middle of our operations made us cease fire so we could chase illegal immigrants out of our firing ranges. Then, as an emergency medicine doctor, I treated patients who came here illegally. Most people don't realize the consequence of our actions, of our poor border security, and what it has done. We understand the numbers. We understand the millions that are coming across the border, 4 million since we have had a new President, but not the downwind consequences when you provide laws that encourage bad behavior and punish good behavior. One of the things that most people don't realize is that when you go to the emergency room and are waiting in line behind a lot of people who came here illegally, you are not only waiting in line behind them but you are also paying for their bills. Many people are coming across the border to receive treatment for their chronic illnesses that cost millions of dollars per year, and those are several patients per hospital. We are talking about billions, even tens of billions of dollars, spent on people who come here illegally. It comes from taxpayer money, both out of your pocket and through your taxation, which adds to our debt, which, of course, is going to be paid for by our children. To make it worse, we punish those people who come here the right way. In my district, we have a huge immigrant population, people who come here from all over the world, whether it be India, Europe, South America, and they have to wait in line with a glutted immigration policy that makes it very difficult for them to follow the law. Meanwhile, we reward those people who break the law. I think we need to change our laws. I think we need to make it more streamlined for people who follow the law, who are good citizens, who paid their taxes, who have jobs, who create jobs, and make it more difficult for people who break laws. I think, right now, when you talk about the overwhelming number of people coming across the border, and when you have the President go down there and have the borders cleaned up so he can view something that doesn't really exist, which is a problem where we don't protect our sovereign border, which is one of the President's main responsibilities; where you have people's property violated; where you have people's rights violated; where you have crimes. Of course, as an emergency medicine physician, this last year I lost four patients who came in from fentanyl overdoses that I was not able to revive. Now, almost every single night, I do revive somebody, so it is something I literally witness almost every single shift, usually several times per shift. The opioid crisis is real, and it is something that is killing over 100,000 Americans per year. Every year, we are setting a new record, and we have done nothing of consequence to really stem that tide. I think it is with the greatest earnest appeal to my fellow Republicans and Democrats that we watch after our own house. It is okay to be compassionate. It is okay to reach out and help people, but we have to do it the right way. Most importantly, we have to make laws that encourage good behavior, that people coming here are rewarded for following the laws. They are rewarded with citizenship when they do the right thing, and we are punishing people who come here with ill intent. Finally, I would like to point out that we are experiencing diseases here in America we haven't seen in decades. Where is it coming from? It is because we don't have good screening procedures. It used to be, to come to America, you couldn't even come here if you had glaucoma. Now you can come here with every kind of disease process there is, and we will never even know that you are even here. If you look at the terrorists coming across the border--we know that we have at least nine terrorists we have caught in the last month, but we don't know how many got away. It is because we have poor border security. So, it is not just for one thing; it is for many things that we need to secure our border, make sure that we are a sovereign Nation, and follow the law.