Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight the tremendous achievements of two law enforcement officers in Stephens County, Georgia.

Deputy Sheriff Lieutenant Patricia ``Pat'' Brown recently reached her 30-year tenure with the Stephens County Sheriff's Office. After serving in the field for many years, Lieutenant Brown now diligently leads the records division and continues to display exceptional service to her community.

Senior Deputy Sheriff Paul Shiffer reached his 50-year tenure this past year. Yes, I said 50 years of law enforcement service. And he continues to faithfully serve as head of the civil division. Whether he is working extra hours or using his personal time to custom make Christmas ornaments for each employee, Senior Deputy Shiffer has gone above and beyond to serve his community for half a century.

The good folks of Stephens County are fortunate to have Deputies Brown

and Shiffer, and I congratulate them both for their devoted service to the Ninth District.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to section 513, 529, and 529A of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Section 513 would require our daughters to register for Selective Service, which is the database behind the military draft.

I thank Congressman Green and Congressman Davidson for allowing me the opportunity to cosponsor their amendments to strip this provision from the bill.

Unfortunately, the Rules Committee refused to make either amendment in order, meaning that Members are now not afforded the opportunity to vote their consciences on the issue of drafting our Nation's daughters.

Since our country's founding, women have played a vital role in many of the critical support functions in military forces. The choices these women made in raising their hands to volunteer, to wear the uniform, and to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution are commendable and should be honored. However, it is unconscionable to me that this body would enact a provision to force women into registering for Selective Service.

This would put women in a position where they could be called at random to report for duty before all registered males have been called in the extreme scenario of authorizing a draft during a national emergency.

First of all, adding women to Selective Service is unnecessary. Our Nation has been fortunate enough through volunteer enlistment to have a force that is battle-ready and capable of withstanding any threat posed by our adversaries. If that was not the case, we would not have had a completely voluntary military for the last 40 years. A draft has not been needed since the 1970s, and I am confident that if it ever did get to that point, we would have more than enough men to satisfy the need for increased combatants. And that is the purpose of the draft, to increase available combatants to replace combatants after casualty losses. Thus, this provision is nothing more than an attempt to search for a solution to a problem that would not exist.

In 2015, combat positions were open to women who could meet the physical requirements, but only a small number of women were able to meet those requirements because men and women are distinctly different and not the same physically.

A 2015 study in the Journal of Applied Physiology, found that, on average, men had about 26 pounds more skeletal muscle mass than women. For example, in the Marine Corps, the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force found that the musculoskeletal rate of injury for a woman was nearly twice the rate of injury for a man. And research at the Infantry Training Battalion found that the rate of injury for an enlisted woman was six times the rate of injury for a man. More muscle means more strength and less injury.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of an all-male draft. So why are we doing this? Why are we trying to draft our daughters? It is just not right.

Secondly, I have serious concerns about the lack of explicit accommodation provided in the text that would be needed to ensure we don't haphazardly draft two parents with dependents.

While I realize the bill modernizes language regarding to whom the President is authorized to grant deferments from training and service, which does take into consideration dependents, there is no explicit language to prevent both a mom and a dad from being drafted. That is greatly concerning to me. And it should be greatly concerning to all Americans.

I believe it is an issue that should be addressed by this body and not one determined by unelected officials at the Department of Defense.

The family unit has always and always will continue to play a critical role in forming the posterity of our Nation. And it is imperative that we strive to retain it to the extent within our power to do so and not to erode it. Ensuring women are never forced to sign up for Selective Service and, therefore, never drafted, would be the correct solution.

I also stand in opposition to section 529 of the NDAA, which would shred the due process rights of servicemembers while taking away their unalienable Second Amendment rights. Just think, this section of the NDAA would create the equivalent of a red flag law in the military to eliminate the due process rights of servicemembers who have fought to preserve those very rights for the rest of the country. That is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

I also stand in opposition to section 529A. It includes a prohibition that says an individual who engages in extremist activities or is a member of an extremist organization may not serve as a member of the Armed Forces.

The real issue is the definition of extremism: ``The terms extremist activities and extremist organization have the meanings prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.''

So it is up to the Secretary of Defense and, thus, under considerable influence of the administration and party in control to decide the meaning of the term.

Mr. Speaker, this area is ripe for First Amendment abuse.

Madam Speaker, I stand before you today on behalf of our Nation's unborn children, children, let me remind you, with heartbeats at 6 weeks, with fingers and toes at 10 weeks, and with the ability to feel and react to pain as early as 12 weeks. For too long, our Nation's leaders have tolerated the murder of millions of our precious children through cruel and painful abortions. Madam Speaker, this cruelty and insanity must stop.

Many States have passed legislation to protect both these unborn babies and their mothers, but my Democratic colleagues are actively attempting to undermine and overturn these protections through H.R. 3755, the Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act.

In addition, the bill disregards the conscience rights of millions of Americans. An Associated Press poll released in June of this year shows that up to 66 percent of adults believe abortions should be illegal in the second trimester and up to 81 percent in the third trimester. Yet H.R. 3755 is set in direct contradiction to the beliefs of the people as it allows for full-term abortions for any reason under the bill's all-inclusive health clause.

The abortion on demand bill is murder in the first degree.

Madam Speaker, it is impossible to justify the murder of a precious child in the womb. We all know that it is wrong to take innocent life, and no amount of slick talk will make it right.

The scientific community has made great advancements through modern medicine and patient care practices to extend longevity for those who could not otherwise survive on their own, both old and young.

At the time of Roe v. Wade, the average life expectancy for a man was close to 68 years and for a woman 75 years. Today, the average life expectancy is 78 years for men and nearly 83 for women. These are significant increases thanks to modern medicine.

Such scientific and medical advancements have also proven viability for many infants born as early as 21 weeks gestational age, a feat that was nearly impossible at the time of Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey. We also now know that a heartbeat exists at 6 weeks.

While science is ever improving, the moral and ethical considerations are crystal clear: To end an innocent human life is to end a heartbeat. That is murder.

I firmly believe that life begins at conception, and speaking objectively, I ask you this: What better scientific metric to determine the existence of life than the presence of a heartbeat? You have a heartbeat, and I have a heartbeat. We both are alive. A heartbeat means life. When a heartbeat ceases, then life ceases. So when a heartbeat is present, we know there is life. When two heartbeats are present, a mom and her child, we know there are two lives.

Madam Speaker, a heartbeat is a defining evidence of life.

A small child and an aged adult alike can both wrap their minds around the fact that a heartbeat equals life, and that to end a heartbeat is to end life.

This bill, H.R. 3755, ends heartbeats, so it ends life. The Declaration of Independence says: ``We hold these Truths to be self- evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . . ''

Life is the first of the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. And to secure these rights, government is instituted. To protect life is our first responsibility. We cannot ignore this. We must not ignore this.

Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to reject H.R. 3755 and join me in standing for the sanctity of life, for the preservation of the most innocent heartbeats in America. Soli Deo gloria.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, everyone sees it on the news. No one can legitimately deny it. Our country is going through the worst immigration crisis in the country.

Now, statistics reported by Customs and Border Patrol show that, in August 2021, our frontline border agents encountered 208,000 illegal migrants. That is a 317 percent increase from August 2020, just 1 year ago.

In total, over 1.3 million illegal aliens have crossed our border this year alone, and we are on track to reach almost 2 million by the end of the calendar year. We do not have a secure border.

Now, with the continued failure of the administration to fully use Title 42 authority to expel illegal immigrants and reduce the spread of COVID-19, it is not just border communities facing the consequences of the Biden administration's policies; it is every community. Every State is now a border State thanks to the administration's open border policies that have green-lighted drug smugglers, human trafficking, and other criminal enterprising that are finding their way into our communities.

Instead of using the Federal Government and the resources at its disposal to protect American citizens, the White House and my Democrat colleagues are doing nothing, failing to even call what we continue to witness at the border a crisis.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We must finish the wall to control the crisis at our southern border, and then we must consistently implement our immigration laws. Americans deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, as elected Representatives, we are obligated to handle taxpayer dollars in a manner that is both responsible and above reproach. For decades, legislators, through provisions such as the Hyde amendment, have rightfully shielded hardworking citizens' tax dollars from the unethical practice of abortion.

However, countless legislative proposals this Congress prove that my colleagues across the aisle are not interested in preserving vital pro- life, good government provisions upon which our constituents depend, as they have intentionally eliminated the Hyde amendment at every opportunity. By removing pro-life provisions like Hyde, we are subjecting the American people to funding practices that violate the sanctity of life.

I could speak at length about the horrors of abortion, but the simple fact of the matter is this: Taxpayer dollars should never financially support abortion, and we should always protect the conscience rights of our constituents.

As such, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 18, and I ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I am proud to stand up for the lives of the unborn, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Encounters at the southern border have reached a 20-year high of now over one million illegals trying to smuggle themselves into our country. This proves that the Biden administration's immigration policies are not working and that they have reignited a crisis at our southern border previously contained by the Trump administration.

In fact, the border crisis is getting so bad that States not even geographically connected to the border are feeling the effects.

Just last week I was traveling down I-24 East from Nashville, Tennessee, to Chattanooga, Tennessee, and larger than day was this huge yellow billboard that said: ``CRISIS, Biden Fix the Border.'' The problems are drugs, cartels, and illegals. This was not some political party that put up that billboard, it was organic. It was homegrown right from the heart of the American people. The message is crystal clear, and America should stand up and take notice.

So why am I seeing this sign in Tennessee, a State that has no connection to the southern border? It is because the Biden administration is flying illegals to every State in the Union making every State a border State. This must stop.

Further complicating the crisis, the Biden administration is considering the elimination of title 42, a Centers for Disease Control public health authority that allows border officials to turn back illegal migrants due to the danger posed by communicable diseases.

By doing this, the Biden administration is not only preventing U.S. border officials from doing their jobs, but unnecessarily exposing American citizens to the dangers of COVID-19.

Since the beginning of the crisis, the Biden administration's reckless policies implemented by executive order have been exposing communities to COVID-19 by refusing to test every illegal migrant that is apprehended.

Even Secretary Mayorkas himself admitted to me in a committee hearing that his agency has released illegals into the interior of the United States who are known to be infected with COVID-19. Local communities are then forced to deal with it.

This is simply unacceptable.

For these reasons I introduced H.R. 2076, the COVID-19 Border Protection Act. My bipartisan legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with Health and Human Services, to develop a comprehensive strategy to test illegals that are encountered at the border and quarantine those who test positive. With the rise of the new COVID-19 delta variant, it is critical that every illegal alien who crosses the border be tested.

H.R. 2076 has bipartisan support and 41 cosponsors, including the support of all the GOP Members of the House Homeland Security Committee.

I will continue to push this effort to safeguard the American people and will soon introduce an amendment to the fiscal year 2022 DHS appropriations that will help accomplish the goals of H.R. 2076.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. I thank my good friend and colleague from Texas for holding this very important Special Order.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in hosting a Special Order on the Second Amendment, which is both near and dear to my heart and which is also near and dear to the many millions of Americans who cherish their rights and freedoms.

The Second Amendment says: ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''

Though it brings me great joy to talk at length about the Second Amendment and the foresight our Founding Fathers had to enshrine this God-given right into the U.S. Constitution, I regret that lawmakers today must still rise to defend it, a matter that was settled 230 years ago.

We must still do this because the Second Amendment is, again, under direct and constant attack from not just gun control activist groups and the left, but now from our very own government within the executive branch.

The Founding Fathers enumerated our right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights to ensure the people had the ability to protect themselves from a treacherous government that sought tyranny over democracy.

We know, Madam Speaker, and our Founding Fathers knew as well, that the first step toward tyranny is to disarm the citizenry.

The irony is not lost on me that the Democrats in control today are trying to do everything they can to gain power and keep power through rule changes and enacting sweeping laws that will forever tilt the scales of that power in their favor.

It was announced just this past week that Republicans and Democrats were able to strike a deal on an infrastructure plan which was heralded as great news and no easy feat in this partisan body. But then the news broke that the Democrats wanted to add to the bipartisan agreement a vast human infrastructure proposal. What is human infrastructure?

So now infrastructure becomes redefined to be anything they want it to be. So if you cannot get something done legitimately via legislation because you don't have the votes, then the new tactic is to accomplish it by redefinition. Just redefine the meaning of the word. So when does this act of redefining everything as we know it stop?

Madam Speaker, I fear that it won't, and I see that to be true when it comes to attacks on the Second Amendment, as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' newly proposed rules on the definition of a frame or receiver and on pistol stabilizing braces makes that abundantly clear. Through these proposed regulations, the administration is attempting to unilaterally redefine what constitutes a firearm under Federal law and in doing so, restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

In some cases, the courts have not ruled in ATF's way, so ATF wants to change the rules, so the courts have to

abide by new regulations more favorable to them. The ATF wants to increase their influence and authority and do it by edict, making it harder on law-abiding citizens to own firearms. They want a new definition for a firearm, one that will greatly expand its meaning and give ATF immense additional authority.

It was Congress who created the law that defines a firearm. ATF does not have that authority. We have a separation of powers issue here that ATF wants to ignore. It seems they don't want the representatives of the people to have a say. No, ATF wants to make the change themselves and thereby increase their own power. This is wrong thinking and it is dangerous.

Before I go further, let me pause for a second and review the legislative history of our key gun laws.

Congress passed the National Firearms Act, or NFA, in 1934; the Gun Control Act, or GCA, in 1968; and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act in 1986. While two of these acts have since been amended, with the GCA amending portions of the NFA, the current definition of the term ``firearm'' can be found in the GCA under 18 U.S.C. 921 and has been effectively used for over 50 years.

But the ATF has decided to expand its authority by proposing broad and arbitrary definitions of industry terms including some that are not even referenced in the definition section of the current law, including the terms, ``privately made firearm,'' and ``complete weapon.''

It is one thing for an agency to use its regulatory authority to clarify terms included in statute for purposes of implementation, but it is clear to me that the AFT has overstepped its authorities by legislating new terms not even referenced in the statute.

Under one of the proposed new regulations, a dummy receiver or an 80 percent lower would now be considered a firearm as it would be covered by the grossly expanded definition of a frame or receiver.

As you can see in the illustration right here, you see the difference between the two. The top is actually functional. The other one on the bottom is a solid block of metal with no ability to accept a firing mechanism, no hammer, no trigger, no selector. And so it is completely nonfunctional.

Now, let's look at those same two from the top-down view. Do you see the difference right here? The bottom one is a solid block of metal, but the top has been machined and has places for a trigger and a hammer and a selector. To make the bottom one work, you have to have the tools and the skill of a manufacturer.

So let's take a closer look at the dummy receiver, Madam Speaker, right here. This solid block of metal doesn't look like a firearm to me and it certainly doesn't work like one either. There is not even a hole right down here for a trigger. The ATF, in its own rule, noted that Congress recognized that regulation of all firearm parts was impractical back when this body was debating the GCA in 1968.

And in fact, Congress moved to make the regulation of the firearms industry more efficient and functional by striking language in the term ``firearm,'' that would have resulted in regulation of any part or parts of a firearm. Just like the bolt in the upper receiver assembly pictured right here, they are not firearms now. But ATF wants to make this a firearm.

But there is another aspect of this redefinition that will go completely unnoticed unless it is challenged, and that is taxation. The more pieces and parts the ATF can call firearms, the more excise tax they can collect. Let that sink in for a minute. Yes, this is another tax hidden in the price of a firearm.

Every firearm manufacturer pays a 10 or 11 percent excise tax to the ATF based on the invoice price when they sell a firearm to a dealer. So through this redefinition, the government is going to make more tax money on the backs of law-abiding citizens. And will Congress have passed a new law to increase taxes? No. The ATF will have created a new stream of tax revenue by simply changing the definition of a firearm frame or receiver. More taxation at the whim of ATF.

The Second Amendment recognizes the right endowed by our creator and codifies it into law. Taxation of a constitutional right is unconstitutional. But if this redefinition is allowed to stand, then this will only be the beginning of more and more taxation on citizens' gun rights. ATF knows that they cannot make the law more stringent without action by Congress, and they know that such support does not exist in Congress. So they try a flanking maneuver and end run to bypass the legislative branch.

They believe that they, along with gun control activists like David Chipman, can use the authority of the ATF, a law enforcement agency, as a political pawn to carry out their anti-Second Amendment agenda.

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the ATF is doing, as we speak. One day you have a perfectly legal firearm or part, the next day you wake up and your firearm is no longer legal as defined by ATF. Such legality must be left to Congress to decide as it has done through the legislation I previously referenced; not decided by unelected Federal bureaucrats, bureaucrats that may soon be led by a radical gun control activist named David Chipman, unless my colleagues in the Senate oppose his nomination, and I trust they will.

I fear, Madam Speaker, that if my Senate counterparts do not thwart his nomination, we will have more redefining of words led by a partisan, radical gun control activist. I call it legislation by redefinition.

But this abuse of power can be stopped, Madam Speaker, and I invite you to join me in defending our rights by submitting comments directly to the ATF through the Federal Register notice. The two proposed rules I have referenced so far are available online for the public to read and have collectively received more than 180,000 comments so far.

One rule is called, ``Definition of `Frame or Receiver' and Identification of Firearms.'' The other rule is called, ``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces'.''

Madam Speaker, I believe all Americans, especially gun owners, should inform themselves of the proposed changes and share their thoughts directly with the ATF through the public comment opportunity at www.regulations.gov. It is written right here.

The public comment period will last for just a few more weeks, and I would love to see the total number of submitted comments hit half a million for each proposed rule. I think every single member of this body agrees with my belief that criminals who misuse firearms and perpetuate violent crimes should be held accountable for their actions. And I also hope my colleagues would concur with my belief that law- abiding firearm owners should not be punished because of the illegal acts of a few who knowingly commit evil acts.

But rather than focusing their efforts on punishing criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime, my Democratic colleagues have, instead, chosen again and again to slowly chip away at the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 are prime examples of Democrat-led efforts to curtail Americans' Second Amendment rights. That is why I introduced H.R. 1787, the Ensuring SAFETY Act which would mandate the Federal Government respond to a background check in three calendar days and not allow them to delay background checks potentially indefinitely as happened during the pandemic.

Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to have so many of my colleagues join me in standing before you today to speak in defense of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), our conference secretary, from the Eighth Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) for introducing the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, a bill that I am proud to support as a cosponsor.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), my good friend from Texas' 22.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Nehls for his comments. He is truly a staunch supporter of law enforcement, as am I.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), from my home State, who represents Georgia's First District.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Carter for his inspiring words.

Madam Speaker, I ask this: If we grant an 18-year-old individual the right to cast a vote, which decides the fate of our Nation, and can ask them to serve in our Armed Forces, should we not also grant that individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is granted by the Constitution?

I am proud to support a bill introduced by my friend from Kentucky, Mr.

Massie, which would restore Second Amendment rights to individuals of voting age.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Massie for those inspiring words.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 21 for his passionate defense of our Second Amendment rights.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those inspiring words. As a fellow combat veteran, I honor his service and I honor his speech this evening.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who sent out an amicus brief, and I was proud to cosponsor that brief. I thank her for defending our Second Amendment in that brief.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her inspiring words and her work on this very important amicus brief.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), a fiery defender of our Second Amendment because she knows exactly what is at stake.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado's Third District for her excellent remarks and reminding us of the investigation that needs to be initiated on the purchase of a firearm by Hunter Biden, a 4473 that was not filled out correctly, which is a violation of law.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), representing Pennsylvania's 10th District.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great State of Pennsylvania for reminding us of how tremendously important the Second Amendment is.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), my good friend and colleague who represents Virginia's Fifth District.

Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman and my good friend, Representative Good from Virginia, for his inspiring words.

As previously noted, Madam Speaker, the Biden administration has issued a proposed rule that would misinterpret the law and criminalize pistols with stabilizing braces. My friend from Virginia, Mr. Good, has introduced legislation to right this wrong and provide clear and accurate definitions for both rifles and pistols to avoid infringing on individuals' Second Amendment rights, and that is H.R. 3823.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore), my good friend from Alabama's Second District.

Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Alabama for those inspiring remarks.

I want to talk about privately-made firearms, which I briefly referenced in my introductory remarks.

Undeniably, the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, has been fundamental to the freedom and security of our Nation since it was first founded in 1776. It is the teeth behind so many of the other rights and liberties we enjoy.

We know this to be true, because history has shown us that when the right to keep and bear arms falls, then the right of free speech and of the free press falls immediately after.

From our very beginning until today, for almost 250 years, people have always been able to build their own firearms. But that right is at risk, considering the White House's gun control agenda.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, commercial firearm manufacturers, importers, firearm distributors, and retail firearm dealers had to get Federal Government licenses in order to continue to operate their businesses. Along with those licenses came record-keeping requirements and compliance inspections to ensure they followed the new laws and regulations. This effectively put almost all firearm manufacturers and importers under the direct control of the Federal Government.

History also tells us, Madam Speaker, that after registration comes confiscation. We saw it happen in Russia after the 1917 Communist revolution; in Nazi Germany in 1938; in Australia in 1996; and most recently, in New Zealand in 2019.

In those countries, national registration led to eventual confiscation. Now the ATF wants even privately made firearms under their total control. To make component parts like upper housing and slides, those parts that can hold a firing pin or a bolt or a bolt carrier, to make those simple parts into a serialized firearm will have a chilling effect on privately made firearms.

In fact, it could completely eliminate privately made firearms, finally placing all manufacture of firearms under complete government control. Those fears are genuinely based, and we see that today with ATF trying to legislate by redefining the meaning of words or creating new ones that don't even exist in the written law.

As I noted earlier in the hour, Madam Speaker, I share the passion of my Democrat colleagues in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. But in achieving that shared goal, we cannot trample on the Second Amendment rights of citizens.

If the ATF succeeds in pushing these new definitions across the finish line, Madam Speaker, I fear that we will be opening the floodgates to allowing the agency to regulate our God-given Second Amendment rights right out of existence.

I don't plan to allow that to happen. Not on my watch, Madam Speaker. I don't think my colleagues who filled these seats earlier plan to allow that to happen either.

Together, with the support of the American people, we will never give one inch in the defense of the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), my good friend who represents Kansas' First District and introduced H.R. 1758, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021.

Madam Speaker, while any infringement of our Second Amendment rights is unconstitutional, policymakers have imposed even stricter regulations on some types of firearms, particularly short- barreled rifles. I truly appreciate my friend from Kansas' First District correcting this by introducing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021, which will accurately classify short- barreled rifles as semiautomatic rifles, as they should be. They should be semiautomatic rifles and only semiautomatic rifles and regulated as such.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for affording my colleagues and me the opportunity to stand before you today in defense of the Second Amendment and to highlight commonsense, conservative-led proposals to protect and preserve our rights.

Madam Speaker, I thank each of my colleagues for their participation this evening. Their respective constituents should be proud to have such staunch defenders of the Second Amendment representing them in the people's House.

Though several of my colleagues who have introduced proposals could not join us tonight, the American people should know that the solutions highlighted in the last hour are not exhaustive of our efforts to restore, protect, and preserve our God-given right to keep and bear arms. Rather, the solutions presented tonight are just the tip of the iceberg.

Madam Speaker, I again reiterate to you my sincere hope that the American people will take the opportunity to share their thoughts with the ATF on the two proposed regulations that I mentioned, as you can see on this board right here, as they have the potential to upend not only the firearms manufacturing industry but also the legality of guns in homes across the country as we know it.

My constituents sent me to Congress to do everything in my power to protect and uphold the Constitution, and I plan to do just that so long as they entrust me with their voting card.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Georgia's Ninth District to bring attention to two major issues plaguing our country as we speak, the economic crisis and the Biden border crisis, as both will affect our country for years to come.

Inflationary pressures are crippling consumer purchasing power at record rates, and our national debt is on the rise.

My constituents are eager to course-correct our Nation's fiscal ship so we can guarantee that the American Dream is attainable for future generations of Americans. Unfortunately, the Biden administration shows no signs of curtailing its spending habits any time soon, as Democrats are keying up a plan to shoehorn through Congress, the progressive American Jobs and Families Plan, which combined total $4 trillion in deficit spending.

Folks, the debt is already at $28.4 trillion. The White House has announced a budget that will leave the American people holding a stunning $39 trillion in debt by 2031. And what is truly scary? The interest payments on the debt are on track to eclipse our Nation's defense spending in just 10 years. As a military officer, that doesn't sit well with me.

The looming debt spiral will quite literally be the death of the American Dream as we know it if we don't act now. It is clear the Biden administration has no regard for Americans' pocketbooks, nor does it show any remorse for the future generations who will be left to bear the brunt of Democrat-controlled spending.

If that wasn't enough of a crisis, it has been 84 days since Vice President Harris was tapped as the border czar, yet she still has not made a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border. I have traveled to the border twice and have personally witnessed the escalation of the crisis. Why has the Vice President not gone?

The Department of Homeland Security published shocking statistics that paint a very clear picture of how the Biden administration policies are creating a devastating crisis on the border. Last month, encounters at the border exceeded 180,000. This level of apprehension has not been seen in over 21 years and is up 675 percent when compared to May of last year.

Dangerous human traffickers, gang members, and other criminals are smuggling deadly drugs over the border and into our communities at an alarming rate, refueling the opioid crisis, the very crisis former President Trump successfully subdued.

When we look at fentanyl seizures alone, Customs and Border Protection has already seized almost double the amount of fentanyl in the first 8 months of fiscal year 2021 than it did in all 12 months of fiscal year 2020.

The numbers will only continue to rise as more illicit substances come across the border through September, especially as Biden continues reversing Trump's successful border policies.

Enough is enough. We must put country over progressive politics, and I look forward to standing with my Republican colleagues to do so.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 2021 recipients of the Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce's annual agribusiness awards.

The Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce comes together each year to recognize and celebrate the contribution of agriculture in our everyday lives. We were blessed to be hosted by the Echols family at Jaemor Farms this year.

The Farmer of the Year award went to Mr. Scott Glover of Glo-Crest Dairy and Mountain Fresh Creamery. In fact, I recently had the privilege to tour Mr. Glover's farm, and it was indeed an impressive operation.

The Friend of Agriculture award was given to the Hall County School District's Agri-Business Center for their agriculture programs and the related education they provide to their students.

Cargill, Incorporated, was awarded the Outstanding Agribusiness award for its generous donations of nearly $100,000 in the past number of years.

Additionally, Mr. Phil Hulsey was inducted into the Hall County Agriculture Hall of Fame for his incredible lifetime contributions as a dairyman.

Agriculture is the leading industry in Georgia, bringing in about $73 billion annually. I thank the Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce for allowing me the opportunity to join them in honoring agricultural leaders in Hall County, Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate this year's winners on their achievements in the agriculture industry.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for hosting this Special Order on this very important and increasingly pervasive issue in our society: Cancel culture.

I hold very deep concerns about how this ugly movement is corrupting our youth and stands to seriously threaten the many core values shared by those in my district, those from north Georgia: altruism, patriotism, faith, and integrity, just to name a few.

While calling people out on their actions and/or behaviors is nothing new in our society, there is something inherently dangerous about fringe groups of people moving in a calculated manner to strip people of jobs, to strip businesses of revenue, and shutting down entire thought groups altogether, without a fair and just consideration being afforded to the targeted party.

Each of us has an understanding of what is right and wrong, just as we, as lawmakers, have our own ideas for what is good policy and what is not. We can debate and defend our personal opinions and sincerely held beliefs all we want, but when rights enshrined by the Constitution are at risk, I believe we have a duty to step up and defend those rights.

Whether we are talking about standing up for God-given, unalienable religious liberties, Second Amendment rights or First Amendment protections, I wholeheartedly believe that we should also be pointing to the truth within the Constitution.

It is easy to point to the Constitution as a blanketed rationale for countless issues. Both sides do it, and I find it does the public a disservice at large on two fronts, especially when one side just doesn't tell the truth.

For one, I believe blanketed statements pointing to enumerated rights inadvertently desensitizes Americans, especially our youth, to the importance of the Constitution.

Secondly, we are not challenging ourselves to push beyond the emotional sphere of these issues and to think critically and analytically to find the truth.

So we, as conservatives, need to stand up to cancel culture in two ways.

First, the Constitution has provided the basis for which the canceled individual and the ``cancelor'' engage in debate to begin with.

Second, we should be putting truth behind our decision to stand up in defense of those being targeted.

For example, I stand here today to oppose the progressive push to cancel biological genders, to cancel religious liberties, and to cancel the Second Amendment. Probably the most bold example of cancel culture that I have ever seen is that of Facebook and Twitter trying to cancel the sitting President of the United States, Donald Trump.

I stand in defense of biological genders because the truth is that women are biologically different from men. Young men should not have to compete against self-identified transgenders who are biological men. Moreover, the truth is that women are the bearers of life, and only women can give birth. Call them what they are. Moms are moms, not birthing people.

How ridiculous is that term, ``birthing people''?

How about H.R. 5, the Equality Act. That was another brazen attempt by progressives to cancel biological sex by normalizing transgender equality.

As I have said before and will say again, transgender medical treatment for children is child abuse, and any effort to normalize such treatments is a serious violation of the welfare and bodily integrity of our children. Allowing children to undergo life-changing alterations to their bodies should be a violation of the law, and the child abuser should be criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I oppose efforts by progressives to cancel religious liberties in their entirety. While I could speak at length about the various targets of cancel culture that fall under religious liberties, there is no better example than the Democrats' bill on the floor this week, H.R. 1065, that blatantly and knowingly leaves out protections for religious entities, as prescribed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Under this act, a religious employer could have to consider allowing an employee to take paid time off to have an abortion procedure. While religious liberty protections are the center of this cancellation attempt, the truth is that an unborn child is a living, human child, and we must protect it as such.

I stand strong against the Democrats' all-out attack on the Second Amendment, because it is no secret they are trying to cancel Americans' right to keep and bear arms in a piecemeal manner. The truth is that law-abiding gun owners are not the perpetrators of violent crimes. However, law-abiding gun owners will bear the brunt of the impact from this ploy. The facts are on the side of the law-abiding gun owners.

The Democrats know that and they just can't stand it. That is why Democrats are rolling out rules to ban guns piece by piece so that guns in the homes of Americans, as we speak, become outlawed over time. They do this under the guise of abolishing firearms made at home by individuals by calling them ghost guns.

The truth is that we see through this thinly veiled facade, and we will not sit by and allow them to cancel our rights.

Finally, I challenge all of my colleagues to not just stand up to the cancel culture in the name of the Constitution, but to do so by adding truth to the dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to shine a light on the current crisis that is plaguing our southwest border. Customs and Border Protection agents has stated that they are encountering more than 3,000 illegal immigrants per day. It has also been reported that Customs and Border Patrol encountered the highest number of illegal aliens recorded in the month of February in over 7 years, at 100,441 encounters.

The Biden executive order terminating the construction of the wall caused this crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic has made it worse. The Biden border crisis stands to threaten not only U.S. communities along the southern border, but also Americans throughout the interior. And as a result of the Federal Government's inaction, local border communities are stepping up to fill the void.

But, unfortunately, these localities do not have the authority to retain these illegals who plan to travel to dozens of cities throughout the country. We must do everything in our power to protect Americans from unnecessary exposure to the coronavirus.

It seriously troubles me that the Secretary of Homeland Security acknowledged just yesterday in a committee hearing that the Department not only does not know how many illegal immigrants have been released, but they are also not testing all of them for COVID-

19 before releasing them. Let that sink in.

The Department charged with protecting the homeland lacks an executable strategy to ensure that all illegal immigrants are properly screened and tested before they are released into the interior.

In order to right this wrong and stand up for the safety of all Americans, I will be introducing the COVID-19 Border Protection Act, a bill that repurposes COVID relief funds, funds from Democrats' nearly $2 trillion package slated to be sent overseas, to test immigrants who are encountered by Federal officials at the border and quarantine those who test positive. I took an oath to protect all Americans, and this bill does just that.

The crisis at the border is unacceptable and it exemplifies the threat posed by the rollback of Trump-era policies that were tough on illegal immigration.

Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to enter our country to begin with, and a wall would help do just that. But they should certainly not be allowed to enter and spread the COVID-19 virus. All Americans should be appalled with the crisis at the border.

I call on my colleagues to join me in rejecting the administration's America second policies and get tough on illegal immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Senate amendment to this payoff package.

According to the Treasury, at the end of 2020, $46 billion provided to States in the CARES Act pandemic relief funding remained unspent. And this payoff package provides them an additional $360 billion.

The partisan formula used will direct hundreds of millions more to liberal States like California and New York. That is because the formula is determined by the State's population of unemployed people. States that enacted stricter lockdowns with the heavy hand of government saw higher unemployment rates and, therefore, will get more money.

I will also highlight the racist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers provision. This provision should be a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I call on the Department of Justice to investigate it if it becomes law. It is shameful and, in my opinion, illegal. I cannot justify conditioning relief based on race and ethnicity. This is not equality under the law. Federal aid dollars should be colorblind, and this bill puts the Federal Government in a precarious position.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this relief package.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to stand against H.R. 8.

This bill would make it a crime to transfer a firearm from one individual to another without a Federal firearms licensee overseeing the transfer and conducting a background check on the prospective buyer. While there are limited exceptions to this bill, in this bill it does nothing to address how violent criminals actually obtain firearms, nor does the bill make it harder for them to obtain a firearm. That is because criminals don't follow the law. That is why they are called criminals.

So by making these types of changes to the law, the bill does nothing to prohibit guns from ending up in the hands of criminals. Instead, it does everything possible to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 8.