House floor debate heats up over resolution to ‘support’ Texas amid struggles at the border

Del. Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, addressed House Concurrent Resolution 64 during the House floor session on Friday, Feb. 2, 2024, in Charleston, W.Va. (Perry Bennett | West Virginia Legislative Photography)

One delegate’s temper flared on the House floor Friday as lawmakers considered a resolution to pledge support for the state of Texas amid what Republicans have called a “dereliction” of responsibility by the federal government on the southern border.

House Concurrent Resolution 64 asserts that the federal government — though it does not specifically name a president or administration — has committed “intentional” and “calculated” acts that leave the border vulnerable. If left unchecked, according to the resolution, the “hostile situation” could “entail the demolition of our Republic.”

The resolution pledges “resolute support” for Texas and the state’s “sovereign right and duty to defend its borders and the well-being of its citizens.” It also condemns the “actions or inactions” of the federal government at the border, demands that federal leaders “secure the southern border” and calls on other states to also stand in solidarity — through offering materials, manpower and support — with Texas.

Del. Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock, who wrote the resolution as its lead sponsor, gave a fiery 10 minute, nearly 1,000 word floor speech condemning the “ideology” and practices of the “managerial class,” a social class theory under capitalism that, historically since its coining in the 1970s, has referred to educated individuals who often have higher incomes than most blue collar workers.

“Colleges and universities in this modern age, they are what’s called ideological mills, ideology mills. They are no longer the truth-seeking institutions they used to be,” McGeehan said. “So, what exactly is this ideology that these ideology mills are putting out? Well I can tell you what this ideology does. It attacks what made America great. Hard work, religion, family, the constitution, the American dream. It deconstructs it all.”

McGeehan continued, saying people studying and working in “humanities” — which include the fields of philosophy, political science, art and history, among others — are being “indoctrinated” in their college classes to view America as “evil,” explaining why he believes the “managerial class” does not care about issues of immigration or the potential threats it can pose.

With a PhD in philosophy from Franciscan University of Steubenville, McGeehan is known for regularly quoting and referencing philosophical leaders and theories on the House floor during debates. He is also the author of a philosophy book, “Stoicism and the Statehouse: An Old Philosophy Serving a New Idea,” and, according to his legislative biography, pursuing another philosophy degree from Duquesne University.

“[Members of the managerial class] are never going to be subject to their jobs being taken. They’re never going to be subject to the poison that’s introduced in their neighborhood. On the children in their schools,” he said. “These managerial elites I’m referring to are secure from the threats posed by this mass, illegal migration.”

McGeehan, in explaining why he believed the resolution was needed, shared concerns about drug and human trafficking as well as the impact of immigration on the American economy. Several Republican lawmakers during the floor session congratulated McGeehan on a “well-written” resolution before unanimously approving the legislation with six members absent and not voting.

In a tongue-in-cheek move, Democrats in the House — who were specifically called out by McGeehan several times during his speech — joined their Republican colleagues and voted in favor of the resolution to support Texas, with Minority Leader Sean Hornbuckle, D-Cabell, and Del. Sean Fluharty, D-Ohio, even signing on as cosponsors.

That move came after all but two Republicans — Del. Mickey Petitto, R-Harrison and Del. Larry Kump, R-Berkeley — voted down an amendment from Del. Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, urging Congress to pass a bipartisan piece of federal legislation that would redesign immigration policy in the country while providing $100 billion in global security spending.

“If you are for funding border security at the southern border, you will vote for this,” Pushkin said of his amendment.

In considering the resolution without the amendment, Fluharty said that since it doesn’t name a specific president or time frame, he agrees with several of its assertions.

“I will compliment how this is worded because it clearly doesn’t give a specific duration of time, it just says the federal government has failed, meaning both current and former administrations,” Fluharty said, referring to former President Donald Trump’s administration. “I’m glad this body is acknowledging the failures of the previous administration.”

Several democratic lawmakers criticized the resolution as political pandering, noting that there is no real action taken through it.

“We might as well sign a letter we can all send to Texas wishing them the best,” Fluharty said. “This doesn’t have any real effect, so all right, all right, all right.”

Legislation and resolutions to “support” Texas have been floated in several Republican legislatures recently. On Tuesday, lawmakers in both Ohio and Kentucky filed such resolutions in their statehouses.

Unlike West Virginia’s, both the Ohio and Kentucky resolutions specifically name President Joe Biden and his administration in the legislation. Neither, however, make the same assertions that the Mountain State’s does.

“It’s clear this is clearly partisan politics,” said Del. Mike Pushkin. “However I have no problem voting in favor of a meaningless, virtue signaling resolution. We do it all the time.”

The post House floor debate heats up over resolution to ‘support’ Texas amid struggles at the border appeared first on West Virginia Watch .