Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H.R. 8814.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill. The intention of this bill is clear: It is to prevent a future Republican President from adding a citizenship question to the United States Census.

And yet the question of citizenship was first offered by President Thomas Jefferson in 1800; and from its introduction in the Census of 1820 through 1950, that question was included on every Census.

Now, when you think about the language of the Constitution itself, it gives Congress the authority to call a Census to enumerate the population. And for what was the purpose? The main purpose, of course, was for apportionment, for representation of the citizens of the United States.

The reality, though, is it has become far more than that, and that seems to be permissible within certain limits of the Constitution itself.

Since 1950, there have been additional Federal surveys that have included some form of the question of citizenship, not necessarily included in the Census itself.

But in the recent case cited by Chairwoman Maloney just moments ago, where she said that they threw it out and said you can't ask that question, it was not because of the question. In fact, the Supreme Court specifically said in Department of Commerce v. New York that Congress has the right to ask that question, and the Department of Commerce has the authority to include the question of citizenship. The decision states, ``The enumeration clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the questionnaire.''

That rationale does not work from the chairwoman. I realize a lot of my colleagues don't realize and understand and appreciate what is happening on our southern border. From October of last year through the end of July, Border Patrol has reported nearly 2 million encounters along our southern border, that does not include who entered and have gotten away.

Nearly a quarter of the encounters feature a person who had at least one prior encounter in the past 12 months. We, as policymakers, if we are going to get policy and data, which was just alluded to by Mr. Connolly, we should have some of the most important data, and that is who is in this country illegally and who is a citizen and who is not.

Whether someone is a citizen is an important datapoint that should be recorded on the Census and on other Federal surveys. It is well past time that Congress direct the Census Bureau to ask this question like it did for over 100 years.

This bill is, instead, an attempt to cynically block the inclusion of the citizenship question on the Census and seeks to insulate career staff at the Census Bureau from any accountability. This is not--this is not a good bill.

This bill does not help us get to where we need to get in terms of understanding what is going on in this country so we can make policy that is good.

Mr. Speaker, I address you and this body because I know that you know more than most what it is like to have the impacts of illegal immigration in your State and across the border.

In the town of Yuma, a town of about 100,000 people, every day in their hospital, they get 11 people who go into the emergency room. They get an additional four or five women every day in Yuma, Arizona, who go into the maternity ward. Mr. Speaker, $20.4 million in uncompensated care was provided by that hospital in just the first 6 months of this year.

Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that when the Vice President said on Sunday that our border is not open, she was not telling the truth. Our border is wide open, and it has inherent dangers and problems for the United States of America.

We can close it today. I encourage Members of this House to join me in getting my discharge petition out. We need to close this border.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we do have a culture of human violence. Recently, a 16- year-old young man with three felony arrests in the past 4 months violently attacked and attempted to choke a New York subway police officer. He was released without bail. That is what is happening where you have the left in charge of criminal justice systems.

Why do I bring that up? Because that individual punched that police officer more than 20 times in his attempts to basically kill that officer. Personal weapons such as hands, fists, or feet accounted for 600 homicides in 2019, according to official reports. Mr. Speaker, 1,476 murders were committed with knives or cutting instruments, and 364 homicides were committed with rifles.

Do you see the distinction here? But what the Democrats are going for is they want to take away someone's constitutional right instead of enforcing the law for people who are criminally violent. They are going to release those people back into your streets.

The Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment protects arms in common use. But at markup, Chairman

Nadler admitted that the purpose of the bill is to ban firearms that are in common use. Think about that. That does violence to the Constitution. They simply want to ban guns, and this is just another step along that path.

At markup, it became very clear that Democrats don't even understand the guns that they are trying to ban, but they don't care because when they say they want to put politics above people, or that we shouldn't, what they really mean is they are going to.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Kelly for holding this Special Order and I thank him for his leadership on

this incredibly important issue, particularly the heartbeat bill.

The heartbeat bill criminalizes an abortion that is performed after knowingly determining that a fetus has a detectable heartbeat.

The Democrats have the most radical position on abortion. They have zero regard for life. It is so radical that they want to shut down all crisis pregnancy centers in America. These centers help pregnant mothers in need and after the child is born.

Tomorrow, they plan to pass a piece of legislation that will strip away every protection for children in the womb, the protection for their mothers and healthcare providers.

It would allow abortion up until birth, and it could be used for sex selection. If it is signed into law, we will become the most barbarous country in the world with regard to abortion--more radical than even China, North Korea, or Vietnam, which have no limitations.

Well, what do we have now?

We have States that could regulate this now, and they do. So it is a lie to say that you don't have abortions in these States. Here is the deal. Even in France they regulate it and it is prevented after 14 weeks; Germany after 12 weeks, Greece after 12 weeks, Hungary after 12 weeks, Ireland after 12 weeks, and it goes on and on in the EU.

The United States--if this bill passes tomorrow--will be the most barbarous to unborn babies in the world. I hope and pray that doesn't happen. It must not happen in a civilized country like the United States, I pray it won't.

Madam Speaker, I oppose H.R. 6538. Frankly, this bill is unnecessary. Nothing prevents the States today from creating an alert system for active shooter incidents. Every State has the capacity to implement a warning system if they choose to.

In fact, in 2020, the GAO said there are more than 1,400 systems already in place throughout the country that make this available. We passed here, just 4 or 5 years ago, the Ashlynne Mike AMBER Alert in Indian Country Act. That cleared up a lot of holes throughout the country on these emergency alert systems. This really is duplicative, and is, quite frankly, not necessary.

Contrary to the belief of many Members of this body, the solution to every issue is not a Federal program. We should allow States, who have the ability, to create systems for providing emergency notifications for their citizens in a manner that is best for them.

What this does is by putting a Federal coordinator over there, it actually lays in place the infrastructure for a soon-to-be-mandated system that the States will have to fund, but it will be mandated by the Federal Government. That is my prognostication here because that is what always happens.

DOJ can already issue best practices and guidance related to public safety alerts. So what is this? This is a bill designed to feel good. This is a visceral bill, an emotional bill. This is not a bill designed to make us safer, make Americans safer. We already have those mechanisms and means in place.

We have spent a lot of time going over bills introduced by my colleagues across the aisle regarding gun violence. Very few of them are going to provide any kind of help and assistance. There are bills that we have introduced that will not get a hearing that I believe will actually provide help and safety for the American people.

This bill, however, by creating this Federal alert system--and it is not a Federal alert system, but it will evolve into that--is to remind us always that gun violence exists all around us, and it is to basically prejudice people against lawful gun owners.

One of the best things you can have, regardless of what my colleagues across the aisle say, is a trained good guy with a gun.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment attempts to create a problem where none exists by requiring investigations into law enforcement and the armed services for alleged rampant white supremacist or white nationalist sympathies.

Proponents suggest that there are instances in which members of the armed services have shown sympathies toward white supremacist or white nationalist groups. However, as these same proponents know all too well, the various branches of the military have addressed the Democrat- offered examples of extremism.

This amendment denigrates our men and women in the service. It is Orwellian in nature.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, every member of the military who showed an interest or actual participation in a white supremacist or white nationalist group has faced discipline. The relevant branch either demoted the individual, discharged them, or otherwise disciplined the sympathizer.

Further, the armed services have taken steps to address these concerns going all the way back to the 1980s.

At a time when it is difficult to recruit military and law enforcement, Democrats should not be maligning their integrity by implying they are overrun with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. In fact, we have recently lost tens of thousands forced out of military service due to the vaccine mandate. We are way below in our recruiting levels.

This type of malignancy, this type of imputation of bad conduct in a generic form, in a generalized form because that is what this amendment does, actually will make it harder to recruit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, when you begin to study in a broad basis, very broad implications take place. The urging that an analysis be done regarding white supremacist and neo-Nazi activity in our uniformed services and Federal law enforcement agencies imputes and implies that it is present in a widespread fashion. That then denigrates those offices.

If we are going to say we think that they are the best that this country has to offer, let's treat them like they are the best this country has to offer. When there have been problems, these services have addressed it. We don't need this superfluous, denigrating study.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, taking cues from President Biden and Attorney General Garland, this amendment is just another attempt by Democrats to shamelessly politicize domestic terrorism.

In a memorandum dated October 4, 2021, Attorney General Garland directed the FBI and all U.S. Attorneys' Offices to address the ``disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence'' at school board meetings.

Although the Attorney General's memorandum did not specifically mention ``domestic terrorism,'' the Justice Department's press release accompanying the memorandum noted involvement of the National Security Division.

A whistleblower alerted the Judiciary Committee that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division has been responsible for implementing the Attorney General's directive and that the FBI had created a unique ``threat tag'' to track investigations against parents.

We know from other whistleblowers that the FBI has opened dozens of investigations into parents as a result of Attorney General Garland's memorandum, including one into a mother who was merely part of a group called ``Moms for Liberty.''

The Attorney General's memorandum was the product of a letter from the National School Board Association to President Biden. That letter triggered the Attorney General's memorandum which equated parents with domestic terrorists and urged the Biden administration to use Federal authorities, including the PATRIOT Act, to target parents who happen to show up at school boards. That is how loosy-goosey the term ``domestic terrorism'' is. It is not defined anywhere. It is fluid.

We know from publicly available information that the Biden White House knew the NSBA would encourage the use of the PATRIOT Act and never pushed back. Instead, President Biden called up the head of the NSBA and invited her to the Oval Office. That is just one reason to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

The Justice Department is not alone in abusing domestic terrorism powers. On February 7, 2022, the DHS issued a National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin warning that the United States remains in heightened threat and citing so-called ``mis-, dis-, and mal-information'' as a source of the increased threat environment.

Does that sound like they have got that nailed down in how it is defined?

According to DHS, the purpose of allegedly misleading narratives and conspiracy theories is to increase societal friction and undermine public trust in governmental institutions. It cited two examples: ``Online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.'' That used to be called free speech.

Although DHS has admitted that ``conditions underlying the heightened threat landscape have not significantly changed over the last year,'' it cited ``the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. Government institutions'' as one factor for why the threat environment remains elevated.

The bulletin itself is further evidence of how the Biden administration has used existing counterterrorism resources as a tool to target and silence citizens who disagree with government actions. If you have a heterodox point of view from the Biden left-stream orthodoxy, they consider you a domestic terrorist. We should not be further enabling these actions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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