Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Service Weapon Purchase Act.

My amendment would expand those who can purchase retired service weapons to include those who have served their country faithfully and retired from Federal law enforcement. This amendment will allow for the brave men and women who retired from service in Federal law enforcement the ability to protect themselves and our communities, if necessary.

By eliminating bureaucratic red tape currently preventing Federal law enforcement officers and retirees from purchasing their service weapons, we are equipping them with the ability to respond to emergencies equipped with the weapon they are well acquainted with. The best deterrent to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

This measure will further protect the Second Amendment rights of our Federal law enforcement officers who have displayed valor and courage in making the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe and protect our communities.

Those who have served our Nation as law enforcement officers with dignity and honor and retired in good standing ought to have the same rights of those currently serving.

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

Mr. Chair, we are talking about the same men and women that went through the rigorous background check before they retired. We are talking about the same men and women that served our country honorably. This amendment speaks in good faith and good faith only.

I agree with my colleagues across the aisle that if there is an individual that has done something nefarious, absolutely, but this amendment alone speaks to the good faith of those men and women who served in uniform.

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

Mr. Chair, anyone who is guilty of what my colleague across the aisle is saying would have to go through--we are talking about weapon systems that are retired out of the Federal system and good-standing law enforcement officers purchasing those weapon systems.

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

Mr. Chair, in closing, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to support this sensible measure that will afford law-abiding retired law enforcement officers the same treatment as those currently serving as defined in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 9, 2023, I was unable to vote on Roll Call Nos. 203 and 204. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: NAY on Roll Call No. 203, and NAY on Roll Call No. 204.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023.

America is facing a crisis on our northern, southern, and maritime borders. Our Nation has witnessed a devastating effect of disastrous open border policies to date. For the past 2 years, over 5 million people have come into this country. That is more than the population of Louisiana and Mississippi combined.

In my district, every day I have to face the families that have lost their babies from fentanyl. A few weeks ago, in San Jacinto County, a known cartel member who was taken out of the country, ended up murdering five innocent people in one of my counties.

Now, thankfully, local law enforcement, FBI, State troopers, and BORTAC caught that bastard. These are the problems that we should not have.

Mr. Speaker, we are criticized on this side of the aisle for our immigration policies, about DACA, where the funding is going.

Well, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: You had 2 years to fix DACA, where were you at?

You had 2 years to fund our ports of entry, where were you at?

You spent the money elsewhere.

We are criticized and criticized about this bill, which is a step in the right direction, which starts to move and solve the problem.

My colleagues on the other side, I ask you: Where have you been?

We showed up. We came here to Congress in order to fix this problem. We pushed this legislation across, and all you can do is criticize. That is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall Nos. 165 and 166. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 165 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 166.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 26, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that passed out of the House last week unanimously on one side but divided on the other, except for one vote from a colleague from Texas.

I understand that the Nation is divided on the topic of abortion, but that is not what this bill is. This bill is to protect a living soul that survived a traumatic event.

This is one that I have been losing sleep over, and I wanted to add my perspective from someone who fought in two wars. What I don't understand is why we are divided because when I was overseas and my teammates and I, my brothers and sisters in arms, were actively engaging the Taliban, al-Qaida, ISIS, and at any moment, whether it was an ambush or an IED, if a hostile act was being presented to us and that individual relinquished their weapons, decreased their aggressive posture, we were to do the exact same.

If that terrorist, if that individual, was injured or shot, we were to render medical aid. We were to act humanely even after they just tried to kill us. If necessary, we would life-flight them to the same hospital that an American soldier would go to, period.

That rule of law was passed out of this body unanimously. Every Member in this House demanded that American soldiers treat every human humanely, period.

That rule protects individuals that, because of the color of your skin, they would crucify, torture, and kill you; that because of your religious practices, if it was not in accordance with theirs, they would lock you in a cage and throw you in a lake. If they did not agree with who you were, what you were, and how you were, they would mercilessly hunt you down and execute you.

What I don't understand is how this body could unanimously pass a law that would protect somebody who absolutely despises our way of life, but we cannot come together to protect an innocent child that survived an abortion. I don't understand that.

I know that everyone in here is a mother, a father, a grandparent, an aunt, or an uncle, and at any moment walking down the street, if there was a child in duress, you would kill yourself to get to them and save them, but because this child survived abortion, you are going to turn your back and vote not to give them medical care.

If this ever presents itself back to this body, I humbly take a knee and ask that you change your vote and vote ``yes'' to protect these children.