Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of my bill, which in this case is the S version--the Senate version--that was introduced by Senator Tuberville from Alabama, S. 2794, the Supporting Families of the Fallen Act.

The ranking member just articulated why this legislation is important. I think one of the things that we have to remember is the extent to which our men and women in uniform have to keep up and keep pace with inflation, and we thought this was important.

I had a constituent in my district who raised this issue. I sat down with that constituent and then met with a bunch of other constituents who were running into the same problem. I talked to a number of my veteran colleagues, and we believed that this was an important solution.

As many know, I am not one to want to put forward legislation that isn't paid for. This bill, for the most part, pays for itself with the slight exception of Active Duty combat individuals. I believe that is an exception worth making when we talk about things that are not paid for.

It is straightforward. It simply increases the SGLI and VGLI maximum coverage from $400,000 to $500,000 so that servicemembers and veterans can customize the coverage amount that they need. I think it is a commonsense solution. It is bipartisan and it is bicameral.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member for their support.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his service to this country. We should all be down here engaging with our colleagues more often to learn more about them. I did not know that about your father. God bless you. Godspeed. Thank you for serving in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, much has been made in the last week over the actions of two Governors; in particular Governor Greg Abbott of the State in which I live and where I am a Congressman--Texas--as well as the Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis.

Much is being made of the fact that these Governors transported certain individuals who had come to this country and were released into this country by this administration--I believe contrary to law, I believe in direct violation of both the text and the spirit of the law--that they were released into this country by the thousands.

Governor Abbott of Texas and Governor DeSantis of Florida transported some of these individuals to particular locations. Now, it was very clear that they did so in significant part to make a point. That point is that our States are bearing the brunt of an administration's policies that are purposefully allowing our border to be operationally controlled by cartels to the detriment of the American people. That is what is happening.

So kudos to Governor DeSantis, kudos to Governor Abbott for bringing to light a problem which is being ignored by the leftist press that refuses to bring the truth to the American people.

So 50 people get transported to Martha's Vineyard, and the entire wine-and-cheese circuit loses their collective mind. Oh, no, what have you done? Oh, the cries of politicization of using human beings as pawns. But who is it that is using these individuals as pawns? Could it be my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or the people in this administration that are leaving our border wide open, such that 53 human beings died in a tractor-trailer in San Antonio, which I represent?

So which is it? Which is worse? Fifty people being sent to Martha's Vineyard to bring attention to a problem so that all of these Americans on Martha's Vineyard could put their glass of wine down and put their cheese plate down and suddenly recognize that there are literally thousands of people being distributed into our country every single day by this government and by nongovernmental organizations. Every single day.

My colleagues do nothing about it. Fifty-three human beings died in an oven that was a tractor-trailer, and my Democratic colleagues don't say a dadgum word. Nothing.

But they sure say something when suddenly 50 show up to Martha's Vineyard. Then everybody gathers around for a photo op and brings sandwiches and pats themselves on the back for their grand compassion because, oh, we are enlightened leftists in Martha's Vineyard. We love everybody. So we are going to bring sandwiches, then we are going to call the National Guard and say haul them out of here.

That is the truth.

But why isn't anybody talking about the 53 human beings that died in that tractor-trailer in San Antonio, Texas? One example of the thousands.

There is a cemetery that has been created in south Texas with PVC crosses for bodies of migrants pouring across the Rio Grande in south Texas. That is what is happening to these people, getting sold into the sex trafficking trade, being abused by cartels, bodies littering ranches, dying in the Rio Grande River, dying in trucks.

All while here in Washington, D.C., the Mayor of D.C. complains about, oh, we are now a border city; or the city councilwoman who said, well, we don't have the infrastructure for this. Well, welcome to the party.

Well, welcome to the party, because that city councilwoman declared D.C. a sanctuary city, and that city councilwoman called for the abolition of ICE. And prior to the individuals being delivered to D.C. by Governor Abbott to the steps of the Vice President's home--who supposedly is in charge of securing the border but can't find her way to the border if you gave her a map and a plane ticket to get there--73 human beings were found in the Nation's Capital in a stash house right here within a couple of miles of this building, 12 of whom were kids.

Where are my Democratic colleagues?

They are burying their heads in the sand because it is not politically expedient to acknowledge that open borders results in dead migrants, dead Americans, empowerment of cartels, empowerment of China, and a danger to the American people and our national security, while almost 100 individuals associated with terrorist countries or terrorist organizations have now been apprehended coming across our border not even dealing with the million people who were got-aways.

I have given this speech so many times, but I keep having to update it. I keep having to come down to the floor and talk about what is happening in Texas and what is happening to our people.

Now let's talk about what is happening to Americans. These are the faces of the individuals and the lost voices of people who have died from fentanyl. I showed these to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and he scoffed. There are 72,000 lost voices and 72,000 dead Americans in 1 year. That is more than we lost in the entirety of the Vietnam war right here.

Where are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle?

Where is the President of the United States?

These individuals are dead. Their mamas found them in their house dying and tried to resuscitate them. They left their home in a body bag because they took a pill that was laced with fentanyl that was cooked up in the backyard of a cartel. Fentanyl is coming in from China, and they are dead. That is what is happening, and my Democratic colleagues are nowhere to be found. They are nowhere to be found.

At the same time that we have got wide-open borders and our country is getting destroyed, we have vaccine mandates in place that are absolutely decimating our ability to maintain, control, and to hold our servicemembers in the military. It is an absolute abomination. We are losing hundreds and thousands of servicemembers at a time when our recruiting levels are at historic lows. The Army is having trouble recruiting. They are at 50 percent of their goals.

I have met with members of the United States Marines, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Army, and they are all coming in under their recruiting levels.

Meanwhile, we are firing people. They are losing their jobs. It is happening as we speak right now; members of the United States military are getting fired and having to leave service.

Why?

Because of a vaccine mandate, a vaccine mandate being carried out by the administration with complete and total disregard for the fact that that vaccine does nothing for transmission and which the CDC wholly recognizes is totally useless for the individuals in question.

In fact, now the President of the United States says the pandemic is over.

The pandemic is over, so why are we firing our men and women in uniform?

I will take a moment to recognize my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), who is a veteran himself who served his country, to see if he has any thoughts on this matter.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

As the gentleman probably knows, and I am sure he has talked to his own constituents, I have had people coming into my office saying, I don't know what to do. I have served my whole life wearing the uniform, but I don't think it is in my best interest, I don't think it is helping the military, I am not going to do it, and I am getting fired.

They have discharged 5,000 Active Duty servicemembers for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine while the Army's recruiting levels, as I have said, are at 52 percent of the 2022 recruiting goal. Forty percent of men 18 to 24 are unvaccinated, the prime recruiting demographic. Service academy applications are down 10 to 30 percent depending on the service academy, and now DOD comes in and says, hey, we need more money for recruiting.

Well, how about you stop screwing up?

How about you not tuck tail and run from Afghanistan and leave $85 billion behind?

How about you stop pumping out woke garbage into the men and women in uniform? And how about you not fire them because they dare to say that they don't want a vaccine?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

It makes absolutely no sense.

One might question why would this Congress and why would this body give more money to the Department of Defense and this administration to continue to fire men and women in uniform?

Madam Speaker, why would we not attach to a continuing resolution refunding bill in 9 days a requirement that our men and women in uniform not be fired for not taking a vaccine for a pandemic the President says is over?

Madam Speaker, $6 billion, by the way, goes to Fauci's NIAID, and $9 billion goes to the CDC.

Why are we funding this?

Why are we funding an open border?

Why are we funding $60 billion to the Department of Homeland Security which is causing Americans to die from fentanyl and causing migrants to die on people's ranches, endangering the American people and allowing people known to be associated with terrorists in our country, and at the same time we are funding vaccine mandates to fire men and women in uniform when our recruiting levels are at an all-time low?

It begs the question.

But that is not the only problem. That is not the only thing we are dealing with. We are dealing with an energy crisis. We are dealing with a reality that energy prices are up.

Why would that be?

A tsunami of shutoffs the headlines say, 20 million U.S. homes are behind on energy bills, Federal oil leases slow to a trickle under Biden. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warns that gas prices could spike again this winter.

We are decimating the ability of the American people to be able to fund their lives, heat their homes, and drive their cars to work all in the name of choosing to pursue unicorn energy policies which are destroying our country.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this administration are purposely driving up the cost of gas, purposely driving up the cost of electricity, and purposely making our grid less reliable all so they can pat themselves on the back for pursuing a ``green'' agenda that is doing nothing but empowering China, making our country worse, and not doing a dang thing for CO2, by the way, nothing.

While China has 1,100 coal-fired plants and is building one new coal- fired plant a week, we have 250, and we are building zero. We are adding no new gas plants. We are adding no new nuclear plants to speak of.

We are adding wind and solar, making our grid less reliable. We are reducing our ability to produce liquified natural gas to the world. And we are decimating our strategic advantage and undermining the health and well-being of the American people so my Democratic colleagues can pursue a leftist, radical agenda to appease their leftist base.

The American people have had it.

Here is another point.

Why would we fund it?

Why would we continue to fund a government that is doing that to the American people?

I know my colleague here cares a lot about energy policies from his home State of Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Electricity, one in six families are behind on their bills. Gas prices are $1.66 higher in this administration. Energy prices are six times higher than last year in Germany which just banned fracking and phased out nuclear which is a telltale warning for where we are heading. They are nationalizing their gas companies. Germans are stockpiling wood to heat their homes.

Madam Speaker, you never met a set of policies that you could possibly imagine where you could do more to undermine and damage your own country than the policies that this administration and the colleagues on the other side of aisle are adopting.

So the question is: Will my GOP colleagues, will my Republican colleagues give $14.1 billion to the Department of the Interior to continue to lease fewer Federal acres for oil and gas? Will we do that?

Will we give $9 billion to an EPA that is imposing a methane fee and taxes on the oil and gas industry that will be crippling my friend's constituents, my constituents, and every American across the country, or the EPA that is targeting the largest U.S. oil field or proposing rules to shut down half of Texas' coal-fired plants?

They want to weaken our grid even further while also giving $10 billion for Federal wind subsidies that are destroying our grid. That is the question.

How about $5 million for climate czar John Kerry to fly around in his private jet talking about how great he is advancing a Green New Deal agenda?

That is the reality.

So here is the question--and this is really what I want to engage my colleague, my friend from Pennsylvania: What do we do?

What do we do in the face of an administration and colleagues who are at war with the American people, who are endangering America with open borders while people die of fentanyl, who are at war with the American people and their ability to afford energy, have gas in their car, have a job, have electricity, and have a strong grid; and at war with the members of our military, making them lose their job if they don't take a mandatory jab because Dr. Fauci says so?

What do we do about an administration that is at war with the people, targeting them, defining them as domestic terrorists by the FBI, if you are challenging the school board, targeting them with 85,000 new IRS agents to go audit them to raise revenue?

Madam Speaker, what do you do in the face of an administration that is doing that every single day?

Madam Speaker, I will tell you what you do if you are a Republican or if you are a Democrat who actually believes in Article I of the United States Constitution.

I give you James Madison. I give you the father of the Constitution.

In Federalist No 58 it says, ``The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse. . . .

``This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.''

That, Madam Speaker, is what the Founders gave us to push back on an executive branch that is out of control and operating in direct detriment to the American people or a Senate that refuses to do its job.

The people's House has this tool, and we should use it. I think my friend from Pennsylvania agrees.

Madam Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Pennsylvania how proud I am to serve with him and how proud I am to serve with him in the House Freedom Caucus. People like to malign the Freedom Caucus on the other side of the aisle--heck, even a little bit on our side of the aisle--for daring to want to stand up for freedom, the belief in the individual, the belief in civil society, the belief in Federalism, and the belief in free enterprise. The belief that not all answers come from this town; it doesn't come from this government.

In fact, if you empower people, empower States, and empower civil society, than human beings prosper, their lives are made better. They are able to go carry out the greatest things that you could possibly imagine to bring freedom to the rest of the world as this country has done for almost 250 years.

That is why we are here. That is why I am in the Freedom Caucus. That is why I am pushing forward, along with my colleague, my friend from Pennsylvania, and my other colleagues. Forty-two of us have signed a pledge and put out a letter, a letter that says that we are going to reject any continuing resolution that expires before the next Congress.

Then we are going to reject any appropriations package put forward by my colleagues on the other side of aisle this year, whether it is before or during any lame-duck session, because the American people should speak on November 8 about the atrocities that have been carried out against them by an administration that cares more about their political dynamics than they do about the American people every day. The American people should speak, and then we should spend taxpayers' money on the priorities that they choose.

Right now, I can tell you that those priorities are not continuing to carry out open borders, endangering them. It is not firing our men and women in uniform for daring not to take a vaccine. It is not continuing energy policies that are undermining our national security and stable grid. It is not hiring IRS agents to go after the American people.

We are just simply saying we should use the power of the purse. My message to my Republican colleagues: Use the power of the purse. Use the power of the purse to check the executive branch. Join us. Why are there only 42 people who have signed that letter? It should be all 218 who are saying no. No to an administration. No to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are at war with the American people and their well-being.

Stand up in defense of the people you represent. Don't fund the government you campaign against every day. Hold that funding and demand change. Hold that funding and demand that you stand up for the people. Stand up for America. Stand up for energy freedom. Stand up for the ability of our men and women in uniform to serve. Stand up

for a secure border. Stand up for the ability to carry out your business without being targeted by armed FBI and IRS bureaucrats and agents.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I want to credit our leader, Mr. McCarthy, for yesterday saying that he also believes that it would be wrong for my Republican colleagues to support a continuing resolution that does not address the damage being done to this country by open borders. He is right to say that. He is correct to say that.

We should demand that we change how we are dealing with the border because it is an absolute abomination; endangering Americans, endangering migrants in the false name of compassion. We should change that because we can.

Madam Speaker, I thank our leader, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for saying that because it is correct. We should not fund a government that is continuing to allow open borders to endanger the American people. We should fund a government that demands change. That is what the power of the purse is and that is what you use it for.

My friend, Senator Mike Lee from Utah, in the Senate, has circulated a similar letter demanding the same thing in the Senate. This is the time for the people's House and for the Senate to stand up. We should demand change. If we don't get change next week, and we get a continuing resolution into December, we should demand change in December.

If we don't get change in December, we should demand change in January or February or March, but we should demand change every day. We should be down here fighting on the floor of the House, not out at steak dinners; not out doing all the business of this town, but here doing the business of the American people who sent us here to change this place; to stand up for them, to stand up for America, to stand up for a better future.

On July 2, 2026, when we turn 250 years old, we can look proudly at our kids and grandkids and pass down a great country to them, instead of leaving it bankrupt, which is what this administration is currently doing. We can take that back. That is our calling. That is our calling today. And that is why I am proud to be in the Freedom Caucus with my friend, Mr. Perry, and I will give him the last minute.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman. Not one more penny. Not one more penny for a government running at odds with the American people. Let's use the power of the purse. Let's stand up for America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleagues talking about the politicization of how we deal with Federal employees. The fact is, the bureaucracy has never been more politicized than it is today.

This bill is the Federal bureaucrat protection act. That is what this is. Let's be a hundred percent clear. This is about leftists in this body wanting to protect the entrenched leftists in the bureaucracy, undermining the will of the American people every single day. That is what it is about.

We don't want to allow the people who are running the agencies to go in and fire people who are either not doing their job, completely violating their ethics at the desk, or, frankly, are going right against the law or the will of the American people.

Look no further than the Department of Homeland Security, which is turning a blind eye to our border. Look no further than an FBI that is targeting parents for daring to challenge school boards. That is what your Federal bureaucracy is doing.

All of these charges being levied, saying, oh, this is about hate, going after Federal employees--I am a former Federal prosecutor and worked with the Department of Justice. My father worked in the Federal Government for 20 years right here. But I know why the

gentleman, my friend, Mr. Beyer, was here: Because the richest counties in America are right here in Fairfax, Loudoun County, Montgomery County, feeding right off of the back of the beast that is the Federal Government, the bureaucrats that are stepping over the will of the American people.

If we dare put forward legislation, like I have, to say that those bureaucrats should be able to be fired at will--for example, how about the HUD employee caught using his work email for private business deals, the postal employee arrested for bringing cocaine into the workplace, and the EPA employee who spent years viewing pornography for 2 to 6 hours a workday?

The fact is, only 25 percent of Federal supervisors felt they could successfully remove an employee, while 78 percent reported that previous efforts to remove an employee had no effect. Only 3 percent of whistleblower complaints are substantiated. Mr. Speaker, 175 of 16,000 discrimination complaints were substantiated in 2019.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to preserve an entrenched bureaucracy to step over the will of the people so that this town can decide the well-being of the American people. That is what it is about.

It is about power. It is about the entrenchment of power among bureaucrats. My colleagues know it, and that is why they are trying to advance this legislation.

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, 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 thank the chair and the ranking member for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of bills here that pertain to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs' jurisdiction. I support a number of those bills--maybe not a couple of them. I certainly appreciate that we are having them down here.

As many people know, the House Freedom Caucus and a number of my other colleagues have simply been raising the issue that we should debate, amend on different issues. We should have a different conversation about how the floor operates so we continue to require roll call votes on a number of bills that might otherwise pass by voice. But in doing so, it is not a statement necessarily always on the content of the legislation in question. We will be making some roll call votes here this afternoon, but I just wanted to make sure, as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I make clear my support for a number of these measures, which will obviously be clear in the roll call vote later.

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

Madam Speaker, my Democratic colleagues own this bill. Let's be clear:

Tax increases for the average American, check.

$80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service to go after those Americans, to hire agents, jobs already posted, check.

Increased electricity prices, increased gas prices, tilted windmills with your unicorn energy policies, check.

Increased government and corporate control of healthcare, check.

I hear my colleagues talking about, ``Oh, we are going to go after pharma.'' Well, what did the CDC say yesterday?

Don't worry about all of those mandates, don't worry about all of those vaccines, and don't worry about all the quarantines. Sorry, pox on us.

But my colleagues now today are going to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into corporate America, screwing over the American people every single day with tax audits, increased energy prices, and increased taxes.

Congratulations. Take that to the polls.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this matter. Yes, we shouldn't be talking about disarming the American people when it is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are leaving the American people exposed to dangerous cartels and dangerous narcotics flying through your communities and dangerous criminal gang members and criminals that are coming in and harming the American people, including people that are affiliated with terrorist countries and organizations. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't seem to care a whit about that.

Yesterday, Mayor Bowser was all upset because 4,000 people have been bused to D.C. from Texas since April. 4,000 people. Do you know how many people were apprehended in Texas yesterday? About 4,000 people.

Welcome to the party. Because that is the reality of what we are dealing with at our southern border. Virtually all of the people being apprehend are being released into the United States under notice to appear or parole. There is only one barrier to all being released, and that is the use of title 42 during a pandemic.

Now, I notice a number of the staff, a number of the folks on the other side of the aisle, people that are still masked. We still are under emergency declarations, and yet, we are going to allow people to flow into this country, and we are going to remove the one last vestige of security that this administration remotely will actually look at and use: title 42 at our border.

They are building facilities to process more people to release them into the United States.

Mayor Bowser wants to complain and then call out the National Guard because 4,000 people were shipped from Texas to D.C.; the 4,000 that Texas gets on a daily basis. Again, welcome to the dang party.

You know what? Do you know what you are not talking about, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle? The 73 human beings caught in a stash house in Washington, D.C., this week. Seventy-three human beings in a stash house in our Nation's Capital. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my colleagues particularly on the Judiciary Committee, brushed that aside, patting themselves on the back in the false name of compassion for how much they love Brown people for having open borders. Well, the Brown people in south Texas are sick and tired of it. The Brown people of south Texas that I know, the candidates on my side of the aisle, are standing up for a secure border, and that begins with enforcing our laws under title 42 during a pandemic to ensure that we turn people away.

My friend, Yvette Herrell, introduced a bill that would solve the problem, and that is what we would proceed to. We have a discharge petition that would unleash that bill. I welcome any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join that discharge petition, perhaps, particularly if you are in a tough race. You might want to go home and say that you actually care about a secure border.

But what I will tell you is, is that we should be moving to secure the border of the United States, rather than this fool's errand of the unconstitutional taking of Americans' Second Amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

Fact: This assault weapons ban bill is unconstitutional. Chairman Nadler even recognized, when he stated that ``the problem is that these weapons are in common use.'' And in Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights clearly protects firearms in common use. This is an unconstitutional piece of legislation.

Fact: The assault weapons bill will ban weapons in common use, and my colleague will most assuredly target citizens to take their guns.

In the words of Democratic perpetual candidate Beto O'Rourke: Hell, yes, we are going to take your AR-15 and your AK-47.

That is the truth, and everyone knows it. Don't hide behind it. Everybody knows precisely what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing.

Fact: Less than 2 percent of all prisoners had a firearm obtained from a retail source at the time they committed their crimes. Only 13 percent of the offenders in State prison populations obtained their firearms from retail stores. Criminals usually don't get their guns at gun stores through legal channels. That is a fact.

Another fact: Upwards of 80 percent crimes are committed by people with prior arrest records, often by people with prior convictions for violent crimes or prior weapons offenses, and almost none of our gun control proposals--and particularly this one--are targeting this group. That is the truth.

Those are the facts. The fact is, as Thomas Jefferson said: ``The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.''

This is the precise kind of tyranny that my colleagues are exercising today, precisely when they are opening our borders up to lawless cartels and gangs, and precisely when they are defunding the police. Precisely when they are making our communities unsafe, they want to limit the ability of the American people to defend themselves and to exercise their Second Amendment rights to protect their families.

That is what is happening on the floor so my colleagues can appeal to their liberal White voters while they ignore the Black men and women and Brown men and women who are buying weapons to defend themselves in criminal hellholes in our country.