Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, as we see the ongoing impacts of Biden's inhumane border crisis, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6.

Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to be considering this bill today. This bill provides amnesty to millions of those who are illegally in this country. This promise of amnesty is a magnet for aliens attempting to enter the United States today. For at least 35 years, we have seen a direct correlation between promises of amnesty and an increase in illegal border crossing.

The ongoing Biden inhumane border crisis is a direct result of then- candidate and now-President Biden's flawed border policies, including amnesty. That is why I reintroduced the Fund and Complete the Border Wall Act earlier this year and introduced the Stopping Border Surges Act earlier this week.

These bills include real reforms that will have real impacts. Specifically, the Stopping Border Surges Act fixes problems caused by the Flores settlement agreement that prevent DHS from detaining family units for more than 20 days, ensures that unaccompanied alien children are quickly and safely returned to their homes, and promotes increased integrity in the asylum system.

H.R. 6 will cause more problems than it will solve. It has serious flaws that lead to fraud and abuse.

This bill gives the Secretary broad authority to waive grounds of inadmissibility for humanitarian purposes, family unity, or because the waiver is otherwise in the public interest. That means that, under this bill, even convicted criminals will be eligible for amnesty.

If that is not bad enough, under this bill, aliens who were removed from the country by DHS will be allowed to return and get amnesty. Let me repeat that: Aliens who were ordered removed by an immigration judge after receiving due process and were actually removed will be allowed to return and get amnesty.

Last year, USCIS, the agency that administers this amnesty program, almost had to furlough 70 percent of its workforce because the fees it collects do not cover the costs of adjudicating immigration benefits. But this bill actually sets the amnesty fee arbitrarily low and will allow most aliens to obtain a fee waiver. That is a recipe for disaster.

This bill prohibits information from being shared with ICE so that our immigration laws cannot be enforced. Instead of prohibiting information sharing, we should require information sharing.

This bill does nothing to secure the border or close loopholes in our immigration laws that encourage illegal immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, while the Biden inhumane border crisis rages on the southern border, we are here today, once again, debating amnesty for illegal aliens.

Promising amnesty to those who are already here illegally encourages more aliens to come illegally. All data for the last 35 years shows that there is this correlative relationship.

Instead of voting on amnesty, we should be voting on real reforms to close loopholes and remove incentives for aliens to come here illegally. That is why I reintroduced the Fund and Complete the Border Wall Act earlier this year and introduced the Stopping Border Surges Act earlier this week. These bills include real reforms that will have real impacts.

The Stopping Border Surges Act fixes problems caused by the Flores settlement agreement that prevents DHS from detaining family units for more than 20 days, ensures that unaccompanied alien children are quickly and safely returned home, and promotes increased integrity in the asylum system.

This bill, however, will actually cause more problems than it will solve. It has serious flaws that will lead to fraud and abuse.

This bill gives the Secretary broad authority to waive grounds of inadmissibility for humanitarian purposes, family unity, or because the waiver is otherwise in the public interest. What that means is that convicted criminals will have an opportunity to gain amnesty.

This bill invites fraudulent applications because under this bill, Madam Speaker, if you apply for amnesty, your receipt serves as your authorization to work. All you have to do is apply for the amnesty and you will be able to work legally. There is no way that this will not lead to fraudulent filings.

This bill establishes grant programs that use taxpayer dollars to help illegal aliens apply for amnesty. Instead of spending taxpayer dollars to facilitate amnesty, we should focus on reducing the deficit. This bill does nothing to secure the border or close loopholes in our immigration laws that encourage illegal immigration.

Now, I address something that was said in the last debate. One of the Representatives said that no Republican has taken her up on going to the border. That is not accurate. When she announced that in the Judiciary Committee, I said that I will go with you, that I want to go with you.

We agreed I would go. Our staffs arranged it. My flight reservations were made, and within about 3 days before going, I was told that there is no more room for you on this trip.

So, it wasn't accurate to say that no Republican has taken her up on it. I took her up on it.

I will tell you this, Madam Speaker, when the Speaker says the reason to support the previous bill is that 75 percent of Americans support amnesty, well, if you are going to rely on polling data, I would inform you that a recent poll said that 75 percent of Americans support the use of voter ID. Let's go ahead and fix that then if we are going to rely on voting information to pass good policy.

Let's reinstitute voter ID, and let's vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Cloud, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, Democrats ignored President Biden's inhumane border crisis and passed two amnesty bills. The bills actually encourage illegal immigration.

Here is the way it works: The cartels have operational control of our border. They do. No one crosses the southern border unless the cartel says it is okay. The cartels are advertising now. NGOs funded by this government are advertising down in the Northern Triangle states in Mexico: ``Come north.''

They give brochures how to get here. And what happens is caravans are forming now. But more than that, we have got people lining up at the borders to come across. It is a treacherous journey.

Mr. Speaker, parents are giving their kids to coyotes to bring forward. And these people have no respect for human life. No respect. And that is because of the policies of this administration. And I will tell you what I heard someone on the floor of the House state today, and I am going to quote it.

They said, ``This bill is not amnesty. It does not grant anybody amnesty. It allows individuals to get right with the law and become legal workers in the United States.''

That is the definition of amnesty. Look it up in Merriam Webster.

Earlier this week, Secretary Mayorkas admitted, ``We are on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than at any time in the last 20 years.''

Let that sink in: More than any time in the last 20 years.

And the answer to this by our Democrat colleagues is to pass amnesty.

Mr. Speaker, we hear moving stories that all Dreamers came to the United States as little children, graduated from high school as valedictorians and are now working as doctors saving lives.

If that were true, why did these bills include waivers for illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes?

Why didn't these bills include language to require that illegal aliens who will get amnesty at least have graduated from either high school or college?

The contents of the bills the House passed today do not match the rhetoric of the open borders crowd. We can spend hours talking about the heartfelt stories, what happened to people, kids who I have seen, who have been rented out and used multiple times to take advantage of these policies. Time doesn't allow for me to do that, but we must continue to fight this horrible scourge because it is a humanitarian crisis.

Don't paper over it claiming that you are compassionate when you are enticing people to put their lives in the hands of people who don't give any consideration for human life.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the last 2 weeks, the majority has attacked the First Amendment, and now they are attacking the Second Amendment.

H.R. 8 will not save lives. As Justice Scalia noted in his decision in Heller, the Second Amendment does not give Americans a right; it protects a preexisting right, and that right shall not be infringed.

H.R. 8 would not have prevented recent shootings. In Parkland, the shooter acquired the firearm legally from an FFL after undergoing a NICS check. The same thing in Sutherland Springs, Texas; the same in Las Vegas, Nevada; and the same in Orlando. I could go on because the list would produce the same result. They got their guns after a background check, including in El Paso.

Criminals who seek to do harm get guns regardless of the new restrictions imposed by H.R. 8. And with very limited exceptions, H.R. 8 makes it illegal for Americans to get a gun if a nonlicensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer is not involved. How will the government know if an illegal transfer occurs? Without a registry, this bill is unenforceable.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard supporters of this bill say that other countries have similar restrictions so we should, too. I counter with the fact that other countries do not have the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was included to ensure that the United States would be different than other countries.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for his very informative speech here about our coming, looming economic issues.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 weeks, the majority has attacked the First Amendment; and now they are attacking the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And as Justice Scalia noted in his decision in Heller, the Second Amendment does not give Americans a right; it protects a preexisting right. Hence, the phrase, ``Shall not be infringed.''

Our theme for the next 30 minutes will be about H.R. 8 and the damage it will do to the Second Amendment which is, as Justice Scalia noted, a preexisting right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Cloud).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

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

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I thank all of my colleagues. I appreciate the opportunity to be with so many of my friends who support the Second Amendment and oppose H.R. 8.

I was talking earlier tonight about the Heller decision, where Justice Scalia said the Second Amendment is a preexisting right. Justice Scalia wrote: ``There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.'' He did state ``the right was not unlimited,'' but the bill being considered goes well beyond acceptable limitations.

H.R. 8 is another bill that the majority is bringing to the floor this session without a hearing or markup in the Judiciary Committee.

Last Congress, the markup of H.R. 8 was cut short when the chairman of the committee introduced an amendment in the nature of a substitute right in the middle of the markup after Republicans repeatedly offered amendments highlighting flaws in the bill. He didn't allow Members opposed to the amendment to speak or offer amendments. He then called for the vote on the substitute amendment. This hurried process demonstrated that Democrats cared more about simply passing a bill than passing a good bill.

H.R. 8 would not have prevented recent shootings. In Parkland, the shooter acquired the firearm legally from an FFL after undergoing a NICS check.

In Sutherland Springs, Texas, the shooter made purchases from an FFL following a NICS check.

In Las Vegas, the shooter purchased his firearms from an FFL after a background check.

In Orlando, the shooter purchased his firearms legally from an FFL following a NICS check.

I can go on, but there are so many more examples that are just the same because criminals who seek to do harm will get guns, regardless of the new restrictions imposed by H.R. 8. That is just the nature of criminals.

I was a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. I can tell you, that is the way criminals are. They violate the law.

With very limited exceptions, H.R. 8 makes it illegal for Americans to get a gun if a nonlicensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer is involved. And how will the government know if an illegal transfer occurs?

Eventually, the government will have to create a registry of all firearms and firearm owners so that they can track all transfers. That is what they want to do here. Without a registry, this bill is utterly unenforceable.

I have heard supporters of this bill say that other countries have similar restrictions, so we need to do the same as well. But the reality is, there is no other country on the face of this planet that has a Second Amendment, where the Founders of that country said the right to bear arms and protect yourself against government and individuals is a God-given right and deserves to be protected. It is, as Justice Scalia said, a preexisting right.

Supporters say that this bill is about saving lives. If that is what is important, then I would encourage every supporter of this bill to join me in cosponsoring the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which actually will save lives. I urge Speaker Pelosi to bring that bill to the floor today.

I oppose this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for being here tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed earlier this week that the Justice in Policing Act contains an unfunded mandate by requiring onerous data collection reporting from State and local law enforcement. This includes granular data collection on such basic law enforcement activities, like traffic stops. CBO estimates that this unfunded mandate placed on State and local law enforcement will cost several hundred million dollars.

The consequences of H.R. 1280 are clear. It will drain resources away from important public safety activities. Instead, law enforcement officers will have to spend their time reporting data to Washington, D.C., from behind a desk. Make no mistake. This bill defunds the police.

Additionally, any Member who is opposed to defunding the police should be opposing this bill. This legislation will also lower the mens rea standard when charging an officer with criminal misconduct. It removes qualified immunity, which will result in an ineffectual police force and leave our communities vulnerable to crime, and it also severely limits the Department of Defense's 1033 program.

Mr. Speaker, but make no mistake, regardless of whatever else you may feel about this bill, this bill defunds police. We can never forget that. If you oppose defunding the police, you should be opposing this bill, like I am.

Madam Speaker, the majority leader just said: Everything we do depends on this bill.

I guess he is right because the Democrats are trying to tip the scales of elections to their party. Besides giving the uni-party in the swamp power, funding politicians with taxpayer dollars, and preventing the use of voter identification laws, Democrats will prevent ballot harvesting and mandate nationwide mail-in balloting, which Jimmy Carter himself said is a recipe for fraud.

Madam Speaker, Democrats are so enamored of power, it appears that they want to legalize cheating in elections. If that isn't enough for you, they want 16-year-olds to be able to register to vote, as well as felons and illegal aliens to be able to vote. What could possibly go wrong?

Madam Speaker, while most in the country have some doubt as to the integrity of our elections across both parties, my colleagues across the aisle want to ensure we never have an honest election again.

This bill is a dubious path on which to embark. If we do not stop it again, it will become increasingly difficult to depart to a better road that actually restores trust in America.

Madam Speaker, when I hear the argument of voter suppression, I say we had more voters in the last election for President than ever--more than ever. This bill is a monstrosity. It is a waste. It is unnecessary. I urge people to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill.

Despite its name, this bill is not about equality. It does attack religious freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and all the important rights recognized in the First Amendment. This bill is about forcing the ideas and beliefs of the far left on all Americans. It is about government control over every aspect of your life. It is a remnant from the scrap heap of failed legislation from yesteryear.

I believe that all Americans should be treated equally and respected, but this bill does not do that.

There are lots of concerns to have with this bill, but today, I am going to just highlight two.

First, this bill will have a serious and deadly consequence for unborn children. It expands abortion and undoes current Federal law that prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion. It does so by adding to include ``pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition,'' which has been recognized by courts and the EEOC to mean abortion, to the definition of sex.

I am reminded of when I used to work at the United Nations and would attend conferences throughout the world. The code language in the United Nations documents, in international law, was enforced pregnancy. That meant abortion. That meant you could not proscribe abortion. This bill takes that same tack.

This bill also states that pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions. That is that same tack that is in international documents. This means that abortion cannot be treated differently than other medical conditions, and therefore abortion will be protected by our civil rights laws. That is not about equality; that is about expanding abortion.

Secondly, this bill will negatively impact all Americans whose religious beliefs influence their actions. This bill makes crystal clear that an individual's religious beliefs do not matter, as my colleague from Ohio just referred to. This bill specifically prevents Americans from relying on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was a bipartisan bill in 1993 signed by President Clinton.

This bill says specifically the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 shall not provide a claim concerning or defense to a claim under a covered title or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.

How can you say with a straight face that this bill does not impede or stomp on someone's right of conscience or right of religious worship? It is set forth. It is specific. Who can deny that?

This bill, if enacted, will mean that Americans will not be able to act in accordance with their religious beliefs. They will be forced to set their religious beliefs aside or face consequences. This is unacceptable. This is un-American.

For these and many other reasons, I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here today, but what I feel and what I believe as I am listening and I am hearing the debate is this is not really about words said by Mrs. Greene before she was ever elected overwhelmingly in her district.

If it was about language and that we were disciplining because of language,

we would have disciplined somebody else on this side, on the Democrat's side, who said: ``Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evildoings of Israel.'' ``It is all about the Benjamins, baby.''

That would invoke some discipline, I would have thought.

How about this one comparing Jewish Israeli settlers to termites. That guy didn't get disciplined. He is still on the committees I sit on. He said: There has been a steady stream, almost like termites can get into a residence and eat. And before you know that, you have been eaten up, and you fall in on yourself.

It goes on and it goes on. The Speaker of this House has said that Republicans are enemies of the state. All of these incite violence. All of these demean. All of these dehumanize. All of these are statements that just should not be accepted, but they were accepted. There was no condemnation. And as the last speaker just said, no condemnation is an endorsement. So I guess there is endorsement from all of them on those statements.

So here today you are doing something that is unprecedented. You are taking somebody for things she said before she got into this body, and you are saying that we are going to control the minority choice of committee assignments. This has never happened before, but here it goes. I am afraid it is going to cascade, because that is not the way we should do this. You can't take away the rights of the minority leader and the minority conference. That is the problem that we have here.

No one endorses what Mrs. Greene said, but we endorse her election and the right of the leader to make her committee assignments and not to have those be taken away by the majority.

Madam Speaker, it is with wariness and a certain unhealthy, morbid curiosity that I watch the beast attempt to devour President Donald J. Trump again. The craving to crush President Trump has never been satisfied--not through investigations, not through false allegations, and not even through an impeachment that was wholly without merit.

And the timing of this impeachment makes little sense. Your candidate will take office in a few hours, and President Trump will relinquish the levers of power to President-elect Biden.

Your craving was never a Biden victory, nor was it even a Trump defeat. You believe that your hunger will be finally satiated by impeaching this President without completion of his full term of office. You don't merely seek victory, but you seek obliteration of your nemesis.

The thirst for Trump's destruction will not be slaked, however, even if you are successful today and were the Senate to convict President Trump. Yours will be a Pyrrhic victory, for, instead of stopping the Trump train, his movement will grow stronger, for you will have made him a martyr.

Surely you are aware of this, and that is why your allies in the media seek to censor conservative voices.

Your chums who sit on the boards of corporate America--yes, the same companies that the left vilifies--promise to starve Republicans from receiving their PAC donations.

But I bet that the groundswell of support for President Trump and his policies will not go away. You see, the movement he started is based on building an incredibly robust economy on a foundation of lower taxes and fewer regulations that has the wonderful effect of putting more people to work than ever. It is built upon a strong military that is extricated from endless wars. It provides border security, America- first trade agreements, Mideast peace and stability. Those are the things the American people want.

Your 4-year appetite will be temporarily assuaged while you will, no doubt, continue to chase after leaders of this movement, but your appetite will be unfulfilled.

I urge you, please, do not--and I am mixing metaphors here--attempt to douse the remaining burning embers of this movement with gasoline. No one wants that. I urge you, please, to reconsider the reckless action in which you engage today.

Mr. Speaker, the violence at the Capitol last week has been condemned by Republicans, Democrats, and President Trump. So, I wonder: Why are the Democrats stoking the fire instead of dousing the flames?

This 25th Amendment resolution is actually similar, with some differences, to the proposal filed in October of this year by the same Representative and joined by 42 Democrats. The problem at that time is they were trying to get this commission together. This time, they want the Vice President to invoke the other portion of article 4. But the problem, of course, is that the Vice President sent a very lovely letter to them, saying he is not going to do that.

Our Nation is divided. While folks on the left are trying to lay this all on President Trump, you should consider a few statements from colleagues across the aisle.

One of our colleagues at one point said: ``If you see anybody from that Cabinet,'' meaning Mr. Trump's Cabinet, ``in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them, and you tell them they are not welcome anymore, anywhere.''

Senator Booker called for his supporters to: ``Go to the Hill today. Get up and please get up in the face of some Congresspeople.''

I have dozens more similar statements. But what we are talking about here today is a resolution, asking the Vice President to invoke the 25th Amendment and get the Cabinet together to remove this President.

What that does, it is basically doing what Democrats wrongfully claimed President Trump did on January 6. It pours gas on the smoldering embers, which consist of tens of millions who believe the integrity of the election was questionable. They feel disenfranchised. And quite frankly, they are more angry than aggrieved.

Some believe that by doing this, it is going to be healing. I heard this gentleman say this in the Rules Committee, that doing this would be healing. Yet, the Vice President said he is not going to do that. If this resolution is to ask the Vice President to invoke this 25th Amendment, if this is what the purpose of this is, to ask the Vice President, then the purpose is now null.

But I suggest to you it looks like, it would appear like, if we are going to proceed on, even after you received the answer that you are seeking, and it is disapprobation of your idea, that the only thing that could be left is to pour gas on the fire.

I am asking that cooler heads prevail here. This is not necessary. Don't let this get in the way. Just to parrot the last speaker, I am asking friends across the aisle: Don't do this.