Andrew Clyde

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Nehls for his comments. He is truly a staunch supporter of law enforcement, as am I. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), from my home State, who represents Georgia's First District.

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Carter for his inspiring words. Madam Speaker, I ask this: If we grant an 18-year-old individual the right to cast a vote, which decides the fate of our Nation, and can ask them to serve in our Armed Forces, should we not also grant that individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is granted by the Constitution? I am proud to support a bill introduced by my friend from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, which would restore Second Amendment rights to individuals of voting age. Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Massie for those inspiring words. Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 21 for his passionate defense of our Second Amendment rights. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those inspiring words. As a fellow combat veteran, I honor his service and I honor his speech this evening. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who sent out an amicus brief, and I was proud to cosponsor that brief. I thank her for defending our Second Amendment in that brief.

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her inspiring words and her work on this very important amicus brief. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), a fiery defender of our Second Amendment because she knows exactly what is at stake.

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great State of Pennsylvania for reminding us of how tremendously important the Second Amendment is. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), my good friend and colleague who represents Virginia's Fifth District.

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado's Third District for her excellent remarks and reminding us of the investigation that needs to be initiated on the purchase of a firearm by Hunter Biden, a 4473 that was not filled out correctly, which is a violation of law. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), representing Pennsylvania's 10th District.

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman and my good friend, Representative Good from Virginia, for his inspiring words. As previously noted, Madam Speaker, the Biden administration has issued a proposed rule that would misinterpret the law and criminalize pistols with stabilizing braces. My friend from Virginia, Mr. Good, has introduced legislation to right this wrong and provide clear and accurate definitions for both rifles and pistols to avoid infringing on individuals' Second Amendment rights, and that is H.R. 3823. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore), my good friend from Alabama's Second District.

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Alabama for those inspiring remarks. I want to talk about privately-made firearms, which I briefly referenced in my introductory remarks. Undeniably, the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, has been fundamental to the freedom and security of our Nation since it was first founded in 1776. It is the teeth behind so many of the other rights and liberties we enjoy. We know this to be true, because history has shown us that when the right to keep and bear arms falls, then the right of free speech and of the free press falls immediately after. From our very beginning until today, for almost 250 years, people have always been able to build their own firearms. But that right is at risk, considering the White House's gun control agenda. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, commercial firearm manufacturers, importers, firearm distributors, and retail firearm dealers had to get Federal Government licenses in order to continue to operate their businesses. Along with those licenses came record-keeping requirements and compliance inspections to ensure they followed the new laws and regulations. This effectively put almost all firearm manufacturers and importers under the direct control of the Federal Government. History also tells us, Madam Speaker, that after registration comes confiscation. We saw it happen in Russia after the 1917 Communist revolution; in Nazi Germany in 1938; in Australia in 1996; and most recently, in New Zealand in 2019. In those countries, national registration led to eventual confiscation. Now the ATF wants even privately made firearms under their total control. To make component parts like upper housing and slides, those parts that can hold a firing pin or a bolt or a bolt carrier, to make those simple parts into a serialized firearm will have a chilling effect on privately made firearms. In fact, it could completely eliminate privately made firearms, finally placing all manufacture of firearms under complete government control. Those fears are genuinely based, and we see that today with ATF trying to legislate by redefining the meaning of words or creating new ones that don't even exist in the written law. As I noted earlier in the hour, Madam Speaker, I share the passion of my Democrat colleagues in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. But in achieving that shared goal, we cannot trample on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. If the ATF succeeds in pushing these new definitions across the finish line, Madam Speaker, I fear that we will be opening the floodgates to allowing the agency to regulate our God-given Second Amendment rights right out of existence. I don't plan to allow that to happen. Not on my watch, Madam Speaker. I don't think my colleagues who filled these seats earlier plan to allow that to happen either. Together, with the support of the American people, we will never give one inch in the defense of the Second Amendment. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), my good friend who represents Kansas' First District and introduced H.R. 1758, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021.

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, while any infringement of our Second Amendment rights is unconstitutional, policymakers have imposed even stricter regulations on some types of firearms, particularly short- barreled rifles. I truly appreciate my friend from Kansas' First District correcting this by introducing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021, which will accurately classify short- barreled rifles as semiautomatic rifles, as they should be. They should be semiautomatic rifles and only semiautomatic rifles and regulated as such. Madam Speaker, I thank you for affording my colleagues and me the opportunity to stand before you today in defense of the Second Amendment and to highlight commonsense, conservative-led proposals to protect and preserve our rights. Madam Speaker, I thank each of my colleagues for their participation this evening. Their respective constituents should be proud to have such staunch defenders of the Second Amendment representing them in the people's House. Though several of my colleagues who have introduced proposals could not join us tonight, the American people should know that the solutions highlighted in the last hour are not exhaustive of our efforts to restore, protect, and preserve our God-given right to keep and bear arms. Rather, the solutions presented tonight are just the tip of the iceberg. Madam Speaker, I again reiterate to you my sincere hope that the American people will take the opportunity to share their thoughts with the ATF on the two proposed regulations that I mentioned, as you can see on this board right here, as they have the potential to upend not only the firearms manufacturing industry but also the legality of guns in homes across the country as we know it. My constituents sent me to Congress to do everything in my power to protect and uphold the Constitution, and I plan to do just that so long as they entrust me with their voting card. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Georgia's Ninth District to bring attention to two major issues plaguing our country as we speak, the economic crisis and the Biden border crisis, as both will affect our country for years to come. Inflationary pressures are crippling consumer purchasing power at record rates, and our national debt is on the rise. My constituents are eager to course-correct our Nation's fiscal ship so we can guarantee that the American Dream is attainable for future generations of Americans. Unfortunately, the Biden administration shows no signs of curtailing its spending habits any time soon, as Democrats are keying up a plan to shoehorn through Congress, the progressive American Jobs and Families Plan, which combined total $4 trillion in deficit spending. Folks, the debt is already at $28.4 trillion. The White House has announced a budget that will leave the American people holding a stunning $39 trillion in debt by 2031. And what is truly scary? The interest payments on the debt are on track to eclipse our Nation's defense spending in just 10 years. As a military officer, that doesn't sit well with me. The looming debt spiral will quite literally be the death of the American Dream as we know it if we don't act now. It is clear the Biden administration has no regard for Americans' pocketbooks, nor does it show any remorse for the future generations who will be left to bear the brunt of Democrat-controlled spending. If that wasn't enough of a crisis, it has been 84 days since Vice President Harris was tapped as the border czar, yet she still has not made a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border. I have traveled to the border twice and have personally witnessed the escalation of the crisis. Why has the Vice President not gone? The Department of Homeland Security published shocking statistics that paint a very clear picture of how the Biden administration policies are creating a devastating crisis on the border. Last month, encounters at the border exceeded 180,000. This level of apprehension has not been seen in over 21 years and is up 675 percent when compared to May of last year. Dangerous human traffickers, gang members, and other criminals are smuggling deadly drugs over the border and into our communities at an alarming rate, refueling the opioid crisis, the very crisis former President Trump successfully subdued. When we look at fentanyl seizures alone, Customs and Border Protection has already seized almost double the amount of fentanyl in the first 8 months of fiscal year 2021 than it did in all 12 months of fiscal year 2020. The numbers will only continue to rise as more illicit substances come across the border through September, especially as Biden continues reversing Trump's successful border policies. Enough is enough. We must put country over progressive politics, and I look forward to standing with my Republican colleagues to do so.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 2021 recipients of the Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce's annual agribusiness awards. The Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce comes together each year to recognize and celebrate the contribution of agriculture in our everyday lives. We were blessed to be hosted by the Echols family at Jaemor Farms this year. The Farmer of the Year award went to Mr. Scott Glover of Glo-Crest Dairy and Mountain Fresh Creamery. In fact, I recently had the privilege to tour Mr. Glover's farm, and it was indeed an impressive operation. The Friend of Agriculture award was given to the Hall County School District's Agri-Business Center for their agriculture programs and the related education they provide to their students. Cargill, Incorporated, was awarded the Outstanding Agribusiness award for its generous donations of nearly $100,000 in the past number of years. Additionally, Mr. Phil Hulsey was inducted into the Hall County Agriculture Hall of Fame for his incredible lifetime contributions as a dairyman. Agriculture is the leading industry in Georgia, bringing in about $73 billion annually. I thank the Greater Hall Chamber of Commerce for allowing me the opportunity to join them in honoring agricultural leaders in Hall County, Georgia. Madam Speaker, I congratulate this year's winners on their achievements in the agriculture industry.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for hosting this Special Order on this very important and increasingly pervasive issue in our society: Cancel culture. I hold very deep concerns about how this ugly movement is corrupting our youth and stands to seriously threaten the many core values shared by those in my district, those from north Georgia: altruism, patriotism, faith, and integrity, just to name a few. While calling people out on their actions and/or behaviors is nothing new in our society, there is something inherently dangerous about fringe groups of people moving in a calculated manner to strip people of jobs, to strip businesses of revenue, and shutting down entire thought groups altogether, without a fair and just consideration being afforded to the targeted party. Each of us has an understanding of what is right and wrong, just as we, as lawmakers, have our own ideas for what is good policy and what is not. We can debate and defend our personal opinions and sincerely held beliefs all we want, but when rights enshrined by the Constitution are at risk, I believe we have a duty to step up and defend those rights. Whether we are talking about standing up for God-given, unalienable religious liberties, Second Amendment rights or First Amendment protections, I wholeheartedly believe that we should also be pointing to the truth within the Constitution. It is easy to point to the Constitution as a blanketed rationale for countless issues. Both sides do it, and I find it does the public a disservice at large on two fronts, especially when one side just doesn't tell the truth. For one, I believe blanketed statements pointing to enumerated rights inadvertently desensitizes Americans, especially our youth, to the importance of the Constitution. Secondly, we are not challenging ourselves to push beyond the emotional sphere of these issues and to think critically and analytically to find the truth. So we, as conservatives, need to stand up to cancel culture in two ways. First, the Constitution has provided the basis for which the canceled individual and the ``cancelor'' engage in debate to begin with. Second, we should be putting truth behind our decision to stand up in defense of those being targeted. For example, I stand here today to oppose the progressive push to cancel biological genders, to cancel religious liberties, and to cancel the Second Amendment. Probably the most bold example of cancel culture that I have ever seen is that of Facebook and Twitter trying to cancel the sitting President of the United States, Donald Trump. I stand in defense of biological genders because the truth is that women are biologically different from men. Young men should not have to compete against self-identified transgenders who are biological men. Moreover, the truth is that women are the bearers of life, and only women can give birth. Call them what they are. Moms are moms, not birthing people. How ridiculous is that term, ``birthing people''? How about H.R. 5, the Equality Act. That was another brazen attempt by progressives to cancel biological sex by normalizing transgender equality. As I have said before and will say again, transgender medical treatment for children is child abuse, and any effort to normalize such treatments is a serious violation of the welfare and bodily integrity of our children. Allowing children to undergo life-changing alterations to their bodies should be a violation of the law, and the child abuser should be criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I oppose efforts by progressives to cancel religious liberties in their entirety. While I could speak at length about the various targets of cancel culture that fall under religious liberties, there is no better example than the Democrats' bill on the floor this week, H.R. 1065, that blatantly and knowingly leaves out protections for religious entities, as prescribed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under this act, a religious employer could have to consider allowing an employee to take paid time off to have an abortion procedure. While religious liberty protections are the center of this cancellation attempt, the truth is that an unborn child is a living, human child, and we must protect it as such. I stand strong against the Democrats' all-out attack on the Second Amendment, because it is no secret they are trying to cancel Americans' right to keep and bear arms in a piecemeal manner. The truth is that law-abiding gun owners are not the perpetrators of violent crimes. However, law-abiding gun owners will bear the brunt of the impact from this ploy. The facts are on the side of the law-abiding gun owners. The Democrats know that and they just can't stand it. That is why Democrats are rolling out rules to ban guns piece by piece so that guns in the homes of Americans, as we speak, become outlawed over time. They do this under the guise of abolishing firearms made at home by individuals by calling them ghost guns. The truth is that we see through this thinly veiled facade, and we will not sit by and allow them to cancel our rights. Finally, I challenge all of my colleagues to not just stand up to the cancel culture in the name of the Constitution, but to do so by adding truth to the dialogue.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to shine a light on the current crisis that is plaguing our southwest border. Customs and Border Protection agents has stated that they are encountering more than 3,000 illegal immigrants per day. It has also been reported that Customs and Border Patrol encountered the highest number of illegal aliens recorded in the month of February in over 7 years, at 100,441 encounters. The Biden executive order terminating the construction of the wall caused this crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic has made it worse. The Biden border crisis stands to threaten not only U.S. communities along the southern border, but also Americans throughout the interior. And as a result of the Federal Government's inaction, local border communities are stepping up to fill the void. But, unfortunately, these localities do not have the authority to retain these illegals who plan to travel to dozens of cities throughout the country. We must do everything in our power to protect Americans from unnecessary exposure to the coronavirus. It seriously troubles me that the Secretary of Homeland Security acknowledged just yesterday in a committee hearing that the Department not only does not know how many illegal immigrants have been released, but they are also not testing all of them for COVID- 19 before releasing them. Let that sink in. The Department charged with protecting the homeland lacks an executable strategy to ensure that all illegal immigrants are properly screened and tested before they are released into the interior. In order to right this wrong and stand up for the safety of all Americans, I will be introducing the COVID-19 Border Protection Act, a bill that repurposes COVID relief funds, funds from Democrats' nearly $2 trillion package slated to be sent overseas, to test immigrants who are encountered by Federal officials at the border and quarantine those who test positive. I took an oath to protect all Americans, and this bill does just that. The crisis at the border is unacceptable and it exemplifies the threat posed by the rollback of Trump-era policies that were tough on illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to enter our country to begin with, and a wall would help do just that. But they should certainly not be allowed to enter and spread the COVID-19 virus. All Americans should be appalled with the crisis at the border. I call on my colleagues to join me in rejecting the administration's America second policies and get tough on illegal immigration.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Senate amendment to this payoff package. According to the Treasury, at the end of 2020, $46 billion provided to States in the CARES Act pandemic relief funding remained unspent. And this payoff package provides them an additional $360 billion. The partisan formula used will direct hundreds of millions more to liberal States like California and New York. That is because the formula is determined by the State's population of unemployed people. States that enacted stricter lockdowns with the heavy hand of government saw higher unemployment rates and, therefore, will get more money. I will also highlight the racist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers provision. This provision should be a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I call on the Department of Justice to investigate it if it becomes law. It is shameful and, in my opinion, illegal. I cannot justify conditioning relief based on race and ethnicity. This is not equality under the law. Federal aid dollars should be colorblind, and this bill puts the Federal Government in a precarious position. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this relief package.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to stand against H.R. 8. This bill would make it a crime to transfer a firearm from one individual to another without a Federal firearms licensee overseeing the transfer and conducting a background check on the prospective buyer. While there are limited exceptions to this bill, in this bill it does nothing to address how violent criminals actually obtain firearms, nor does the bill make it harder for them to obtain a firearm. That is because criminals don't follow the law. That is why they are called criminals. So by making these types of changes to the law, the bill does nothing to prohibit guns from ending up in the hands of criminals. Instead, it does everything possible to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 8.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. 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.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. 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. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. 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.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. 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. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. 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.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. 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. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. 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. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. 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.