Biden's Executive Orders and Immigration Policies

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams), my colleague.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, in the weeks since President Biden took office, we have seen a dramatic reversal from the America First policies that we saw under President Trump.

Mr. Speaker, after 4 years of policies that empowered middle-class Americans to prosper, the working class is now getting the shaft under Joe Biden. And it is all happening through heavy-handed executive orders, not through legislation that reflects the voice of the people's representatives.

On day one, he acted recklessly to cancel the Keystone Pipeline, which provided thousands of good-paying energy jobs to the American people. From there, it was only worse.

Rejoining the Paris climate agreement, reentering the communist- compromised World Health Organization, and reducing security on our southern border were all executive actions that will make America less safe and prosperous. The President's radical proposal to grant amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants, while 11 million Americans are unemployed, is the definition of putting Americans last.

As it relates to immigration, this administration's reckless policies know no bounds. Due to President Biden's loosening of security on our southern border, we are sending a message to the world that our immigration laws can be violated without consequence.

Stopping construction of the wall and weakening enforcement, especially during a pandemic, is a huge national security and health risk to the American people. The Biden administration, specifically the Department of Homeland Security, must answer questions the Committee on Oversight and Reform has asked about how they plan to keep the American people safe as they incentivize illegal immigration.

Rather than focus on the unity outlined in his inaugural speech, President Biden has issued divisive executive orders and hurt the safety of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this President to work in a bipartisan way to take his duties seriously and enforce our immigration laws. It is also long past time to reopen schools and get Americans back to work. These are the things the American people expect us to be working on, not engaging in excessive partisanship.

If we continue to see an approach to governing focused on pandering to our far-left base rather than putting America first, American jobs, national security, and energy independence will suffer greatly. Congratulating Graves County High School JROTC

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about H.R. 1, which passed the House of Representatives last week.

Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made clear what their top priority in this new Congress would be: a swamp takeover of America's elections.

At its heart, this radical legislation is a massive Federal takeover that enables ballot harvesting, requires mass mail-in voting, and uses taxpayer money to fund political campaigns. This bill, mistakenly named the ``For the People Act,'' is targeted toward helping politicians, not the people. At a time when the American people are struggling, why is helping politicians, like herself, Speaker Pelosi's top priority?

Whenever Washington gets involved, chaos and dysfunction follow closely behind. If somehow signed into law, H.R. 1 will follow in that familiar pattern.

Mr. Speaker, 2020 brought to light serious concerns with our election system. We saw dramatic delays, uncertainty, and chaos from policies like universal mail-in voting and allowing votes to be counted for days after the election--and in the case of New York, weeks and months after the election.

These concerns are real and present the need for fundamental reforms, but these reforms should be addressed by States, not Congress. And they should be the exact opposite of the disastrous H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation sanctions the very practices that created chaos and uncertainty in the 2020 election and sowed widespread voter distrust. Banning voter ID laws and taking other actions to prevent States from promoting a safe and secure election is a massive Washington power grab.

The legislation allows absentee ballots to come in up to 10 days--10 days--after the election date. Does anyone in this body think that is a good idea?

Mr. Speaker, I would invite anyone in America to come to my home community of Monroe County, Kentucky, and come down on election night in 2022--the primary election because it is a pretty Republican county, 91 percent Republican, to be exact. I would invite anyone to come to my community on election day when all the people who voted in person, which would be about 95 percent of the voters, voted. Let's say a magistrate, a constable, or a jailer candidate gets the most votes on that primary election day. Then, 10 days later, a wad of absentees comes in the mail to the clerk, and lo and behold, that person loses.

I would invite anyone in America to come tell that magistrate candidate, constable candidate, or jailer candidate, ``I am sorry. I know you won on election day, but 10 days later, these ballots came in and you lost.''

That is what H.R. 1 would do. It makes no sense. This bill is nothing but a Democrat attempt to consolidate power. It places Washington in control of elections and enables voter fraud. And like every other priority bill we have seen from this body, it is a disgrace for the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly voted against H.R. 1, as did every Republican in this body. Let's hope, when that bill makes its way to the Senate, that there are some Senators with some common sense on the Democrat side, like Joe Manchin, who will stand up for not just the American taxpayer but the American citizen and reject H.R. 1.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about something very important to the people of Kentucky, and that is the Second Amendment.

With President Biden taking office, there are renewed concerns with the safety of Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and Americans. Given his longtime record of pushing extreme gun control measures through Congress, and given his stated intent to enact those very policies, my constituents have every right to be concerned.

This is especially true given that House Democrats are putting bills on the floor this week that are the first step in rolling back our basic constitutional rights. These proposals come in addition to the bills which implement new registration requirements for firearms and ammunition, and disallow adults under 21 from owning firearms.

So you can join the United States military and fight, and even die on the battlefield when you are 18, but you can't own firearms until you are 21. Seriously?

These radical proposals coming from the Democrat majority infringe on the basic rights and privacy of gun owners, and should be stopped in their tracks.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose these measures, which are extremely radical and the opposite of what Kentuckians sent me to Congress to do. Instead, I will continue to work to support and promote legislation that upholds the fundamental rights found in the Second Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of the law-abiding gun owners in Kentucky, whose continued advocacy makes a real difference in the fight against gun control.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about transparency in government spending. That is one of the main objectives of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. Not only do we ensure the prevention of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government, we also want and expect government transparency, just like the people who send us here to be their voice in Washington.

There is no greater disgrace to the taxpayers than the nearly $28 trillion in debt we are facing as a nation. But instead of taking this burden we are leaving to our children and grandchildren seriously, Democrats are barreling through a partisan $2 trillion package through Congress, $2 trillion of deficit spending.

Congress has already spent $4 trillion to fight the coronavirus in a bipartisan manner. And $1 trillion of that $4 trillion we have already appropriated is unspent. That is why I introduced a resolution with Budget Committee Ranking Member Jason Smith requiring President Biden to provide this body with information about the $1 trillion in unspent funds.

Congress should have the information before we spend more taxpayer money. The American people must have transparency and accountability for how their money is spent.

People find that hard to believe, that 25 percent of the last COVID relief bill hasn't been spent, and we don't have a full accounting of where that money is, where the unspent funds are, where it is going, why it hasn't been spent.

But we are going to appropriate another $2 trillion?

We are not. You all are. Two trillion dollars more of deficit spending.

Transparency and responsibility weren't on the minds of the House last week when the Democrats passed in a partisan manner $2 trillion additional deficit spending.

This is not responsible governing, especially in light of concerns from economists that the Democrats' massive spending bill most likely will cause an economic crash. It is definitely causing inflation.

If you have gone to fill up gas, if you have gone to Lowe's or Home Depot or anywhere for home improvements, or if you tried to buy any commodities, you have gone to refinance your house, you are starting to see inflation.

And with the $2 trillion in that fund, along with the $1 trillion that still hasn't been spent, you are going to create the kind of inflation that I studied about in the 1970s.

This bill wasn't about relief for Americans. I have supported targeted relief, including the direct stimulus checks supported by President Trump. I voted for the $2,000. I was one of the few Republicans that voted for the $2,000 in direct stimulus to the individuals who qualified economically. That is called targeted relief.

I also support funding to help with vaccine distribution and actually win the fight against COVID-19, but only 9 percent of Nancy Pelosi's and Joe Biden's so-called relief bill went toward fighting COVID, and less than 1 percent went towards vaccines. Instead, the focus was on satisfying the far left political agenda.

This relief measure inserted unrelated pork projects in Nancy Pelosi's backyard and bailed out blue States, which chose lockdowns over recovery. In other words, that COVID bill rewarded the States that kept their economies locked down, the States that have the highest unemployment rate, and they got rewarded with this blue State bailout bill.

The no-strings attached, $350 billion in State bailout money comes at a time when, collectively, State revenues have hardly budged.

For example, California has a $15 billion budget surplus. We played a video in the House Oversight Committee where California Governor Gavin Newsom was bragging about his $10 billion budget surplus. But you want to send more money to California.

My home State of Kentucky saw a higher tax revenue during the pandemic months of 2020 than they did during the same period of 2019. That is because we had a strong economy. If you take COVID away, it was the strongest economy in my lifetime. The biggest impediment to the economy over the past year has been mayors and governors who have locked their cities and States down.

The truth is, Congress has already provided States with funding for COVID expenses through the CARES Act. Now we must look out for our taxpayers. This includes our senior citizens. Instead of helping our citizens who are most vulnerable to the virus, Biden's bailout bill smacks Kentucky seniors with a $6.4 billion Medicare cut over the next 10 years. That is not an America-first proposal.

Before Democrats even attempt to spend another dime of taxpayer dollars, Congress needs to act to prevent government waste, fraud, and abuse; and we need to refocus our attention on actually helping the American people.

I hope to see the United States Senate exercise the due diligence that taxpayers deserve, and that the House did not provide, in only passing funding that is targeted directly to the pandemic. Honoring Veteran Thomas Bruzan

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks with mentioning an issue that will be debated by my colleagues over the next few days.

I want to make clear to the people I represent, not just in the First Congressional District but the entire State of Kentucky and America, for that matter, where I stand on this issue, and that is the issue of earmarks and whether or not to end the ban on congressional earmarks.

I am opposed to that for many reasons. First of all, I have learned this over the 4 years I have served in Congress: Congress is not a democratic place, especially when it comes to money. We are going to have a debate--and it is going to be in the press--about whether or not to bring back earmarks.

But, in fact, there have always been earmarks. This last COVID bill had earmarks in there for Speaker Pelosi. The CARES Act had earmarks for legislative leaders on both sides, Democrats and Republicans.

Bringing back earmarks will only give certain people the ability to spend more money at the expense of a majority of Members, and I can't believe that Republicans would put a whole lot of consideration into supporting the bringing back of congressional earmarks.

Another reason why I oppose earmarks is common sense. We have to get serious about deficit spending. We are $28 trillion in Federal debt.

Congress has to set the example. And the example is standing up and saying that we are going to do more earmarks, bring earmarks back, bring back pork?

More pork?

That is a terrible example, and somebody has to stand up for the American taxpayer. Somebody has to stand up for the children and grandchildren who are going to inherit this $28 trillion in debt, and I want to stand up for those people and oppose earmarks.

Lastly, as the top Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, one thing I have studied in oversight, not just in Congress, but in my time in the Kentucky General Assembly and in my study of history and American politics, is that there is always a direct correlation between earmarks and corruption.

I said that to some Members, and they said: Oh, no, my earmarks won't be corrupt, they are going to go to building projects.

The corruption is seldom with the municipalities. The corruption is with the contractors and the subcontractors in the pork projects. There is usually a direct correlation between earmarks and campaign contributions.

At a time when we have got too many special interests with their paws in the pot in Washington, bringing back earmarks is a bad idea.

I want everyone in Kentucky to know exactly where I stand on that issue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source