Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1446, and in defense of the constitutional right to bear arms.

This right does not come with caveats, asterisks, or exceptions. It exists to make sure that the freedom to keep and bear arms is not unjustly infringed upon by the government.

It is the government that has the legal burden of explaining why it is restricting the natural rights of the citizen. H.R. 1446 would reverse that burden and require the law-abiding American to petition for the right to bear arms if they don't hear back from government after 10 business days, 7 more than the current law provides.

In response to this unconstitutional action, I will introduce a bill to allow a Federal firearms licensee to transfer a purchased firearm to a legitimate buyer within 3 calendar days of contacting the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as opposed to the current law, which requires 3 State government business days.

As a Federal firearms licensee myself, I saw firsthand during the pandemic how the closure of State government offices across the country easily infringed upon our right keep and bear arms. With these offices closed, or purported closed, 3 business days can turn into weeks and even months before a firearm transfer is allowed to be completed by government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1446.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in defense of the Second Amendment and in opposition to H.R. 8, the universal background checks act.

Federal law already restricts transferring firearms to prohibited individuals. Instead of working to strengthen the enforcement of laws currently on the books, this legislation will criminalize many activities that are common practice among law-abiding gun owners, while failing to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.

Criminals do not follow the law when obtaining their firearms, and nothing in the bill would prevent them from continuing to obtain firearms through avenues like the black market, theft, or illegal straw purchases.

Federal law already strictly prohibits the possession, receipt, or purchase of firearms by prohibited individuals, including convicted felons, fugitives from justice, unlawful users of controlled substances, illegal aliens, and individuals subject to protective orders or convicted of a crime of domestic violence.

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens could face up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine for common practices such as trades, private sales, gifts, or temporary loans of firearms if this bill becomes law.

Lastly, I will note that under the rules of interpretation in H.R. 8, it says: ``Rules of interpretation. Nothing in this act, or any amendment made by this act, shall be construed to: authorize the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms registry.''

That is false. This bill will create a national registry. That is because every firearms transfer has to go through a Federal firearms licensee's acquisition and disposition logbook. And every time a Federal firearms license is not renewed, those records must be sent to the ATF for storage, which, in turn, scans those records into a database for a future use. That is, in effect, a national firearms registry in the making.

If the rules of interpretation of H.R. 8 are correctly followed, then one could logically argue that this bill actually prohibits itself by, in its own words, prohibiting, directly or indirectly, a national firearms registry.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule providing combined consideration for H.R. 8, H.R. 1446, and H.R. 842.

I want to focus on the first two. That is where Democrats are peddling their dangerous gun control agenda under the guise of working to stem the tide of firearms used in crime and under the guise of helping make our communities safer. These Democratic efforts are part of their larger radical and shameful ploy to slowly chip away at the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

As a Federal firearms dealer by trade, I remain staunchly opposed to any effort that abridges our God-given Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms--those inalienable rights recognized by the Constitution.

If enacted, H.R. 8 will criminalize many common and often necessary firearm transfers between law-abiding citizens while not reducing criminals' access to guns at all. I predict we will see more moms and pops get busted for

illegal possession or transfer of a firearm than we will violent gang members or criminals.

How on Earth will criminalizing moms and pops curtail firearms used in a crime? The answer is that it won't. My Democrat colleagues are naive to think that criminals are suddenly going to rush to the closest firearms dealer to buy a gun. I know.

Even more egregious than H.R. 8 is H.R. 1446, as it not only sets up a process by which American citizens would have to petition the government to exercise their right to bear arms, but it also extends the amount of time before a dealer can legally transfer a purchased firearm.

Current law provides a 3-business-day safety valve to ensure the government doesn't further infringe on the customer's constitutional rights, and that must not be extended.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1 because it violates the U.S. Constitution. It usurps the rights of States to establish and administer their own elections.

As we speak, Georgia lawmakers are working to make smart and targeted reforms to Georgia's election laws, like picture identification for absentee voting. Such reforms are critically important.

H.R. 1 would not only nullify Georgia lawmakers' efforts, but it would also mandate that all States provide no-excuse absentee voting with absolutely zero safeguards.

I read the bill to see what I needed to do to obtain and cast an absentee ballot under H.R. 1. I was shocked to learn I needed nothing: no witness signature, no picture identification. Nothing is required.

Just tell that to TSA the next time you try to get on an airplane, or to your local gun dealer when you try to buy a gun. In fact, if we are going to eliminate a valid government-issued photo ID for constitutional voting rights, then let's eliminate the need for photo ID to exercise your Second Amendment too.

The hypocrisy by the liberal left to eliminate voter ID is stunning. Trust starts by States taking steps to verify that all votes are legal and cast by eligible voters. That is why we must verify citizenship and require picture identification.

I commend our Georgia lawmakers for strengthening the integrity of our Georgia elections, and I am proud to support those efforts by voting ``no'' on the Federal takeover of elections.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280, a purely partisan bill, developed with zero Republican input, that would defund the police and hamstring the ability of our law enforcement agencies to keep our communities safe.

This bill would lower the legal threshold to criminally prosecute a police officer for deprivation of rights, which would, at best, lead to a torrent of frivolous cases against officers and, at worst, discourage them from doing their jobs.

Our officers are already forced to work in difficult environments. Countless officers have already simply quit or retired early, while morale has plummeted for those who stay. It will continue if this bill passes.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1280, a bill that defunds the police.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the nonequality Equality Act.

This legislation is not about promoting equality but provides preferential rights to some people at the expense of the rights of others. This bill is a blatant attempt to normalize and promote laws that are both unfair and dangerous to our society.

H.R. 5 circumvents the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act, making it illegal to oppose abortion and forcing taxpayers to fund abortion and healthcare professionals to perform abortions in violation of their sincerely held beliefs.

H.R. 5 will also violate women's right to privacy and safety by opening the door for predatory men to prey on them in the most vulnerable of places: in shelters, changing rooms, and showers.

It will strip parental rights by permitting children to undergo life- altering sex changes without parental consent, which is nothing short of child abuse.

It will undermine both individuals' and businesses' faith-based convictions.

Today, I proudly stand in defense of our women, our children, and people of faith by saying no to H.R. 5; no to biological males in women's sports; no to biological males in women's shelters, locker rooms, and showers; no to religious oppression of any kind; no to taxpayer-funded abortion; and no to transgender medical treatments for children, which is child abuse. Yes, child abuse. Transgender medical treatments for children is child abuse.

God help us, have we lost our ever-loving minds? Just think, think for a minute.

I ask my colleagues to consider the threats this bill poses to their families, their communities, and join me in protecting and upholding our Constitution by opposing this shameful legislation, H.R. 5, that shows favoritism to some while trampling on the rights of others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this unprecedented power grab orchestrated by the Democrats.

Much has been said about what my colleague from Georgia has spoken of in her past, but the past is past. I do not believe Congress has jurisdiction to re-litigate what a Member of this body said before they took their solemn oath of office. That is an issue to be adjudicated by her constituents at the ballot box in the 14th District of Georgia, not here in Congress.

Without question, this body is putting itself on an extremely dangerous path, a path that opens the door to allowing the majority party to strip the minority party members of their committees, based on statements made or beliefs held before holding office.

It is clear the resolution before us is not about my colleague; it is about Democrats seizing upon an opportunity to further suppress the rights of the minority party, to silence a bold member of the opposition, and to thereby further their socialist agenda.

Members of Congress have a duty to hold themselves to the highest standards, and I know Marjorie is doing just that. I expect no less from my Democratic colleagues, which is why this resolution must not pass.

Madam Speaker, I was not present in the House Chamber for Roll Call Vote no. 13. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 13.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the effort to impeach President Trump. This course of action will only increase dissent and disunity across our country, and it flies in the face of all efforts to heal our Nation.

Quite simply, it is a shameful final act of political retribution, retribution this President has weathered since day one.

I have no doubt that those who breached the Capitol will have due process and their day in court. However, there will be no investigation in the people's House into whether the allegation against the President meets the criteria for a crime worthy of impeachment. No evidence was presented. No witness testified. No cross-examination was conducted. No due process was afforded. That sets an extremely dangerous precedent for the future.

If my Democratic colleagues were serious in their efforts to get to the truth, they would convene the House Judiciary Committee and investigate, but they are not.

And so I am proud to stand before you today to defend our President from the injustices my Democratic colleagues are so giddy to pursue. I oppose this effort to impeach the President and ask all Members of the House to do the same.