Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to the Airspeed XP8 8-Way Formation Skydiving Team, which won the gold during the recent World Skydiving Championship in Russia. Team Airspeed XP8 is based out of Raeford, North Carolina. The team competed during MONDIAL 2020, the largest world skydiving championship in history. This year's event brought together the greatest skydiving athletes in the world from more than 33 countries. Even just competing is a huge honor and privilege, and Airspeed XP8's taking the gold is truly an extraordinary achievement. I am proud to salute the fine athletes who worked so hard and have accomplished so much and am honored to represent them in Congress.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to honor James H. Freeman, Founder and President of the Emerging Technology Institute. On December 10th, Mr. Freeman was awarded a Native American 40 Under 40 award by the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development. These award winners truly represent the best and brightest minds in Indian Country, Mr. Freeman is a member of the Lumbee Tribe and it is a great honor for him to be included in this distinguished category. The Emerging Technology Institute is an integration hub for the Department of Defense, located in the town of Red Springs. I recently had the chance to visit ETI, where I got to fly one of the many drones on site. I congratulate James once again on this honor. The Lumbee Tribe and Robeson County are very proud of him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I have no hesitancy to take on the distinguished gentleman from Maryland on the points that he has made. I would say first of all this: I hope that he will continue to read those text messages because they don't prove what he thinks they prove; quite the contrary.

I can't think of how many times the gentleman from California has spoken in derisive terms about Donald Trump, Jr., but Donald Trump Jr.'s tweets show that he was concerned about exactly the right things.

You don't see tweets coming from Republicans about bailing out violent rioters, abolishing police forces, or decrying the plight of Jussie Smollett.

I think the issue with the effort today before the body is how Democrats are dealing with the President's close counselor and the legal principles that arise therefrom, especially the constant and repeated threat of criminal prosecution in the face of an unresolved issue of privilege.

When you treat noncompliance as willful noncompliance, you mean there is a lack of good faith basis. But the record in this case in the House Report is replete with contentions over the nature and extent of the President's executive privilege.

The positions that are taken on Mr. Meadows' behalf are those that have been continually asserted by the Department of Justice; in fact, many others. Many other potential objections he has completely waived. He has not attempted to assert the fact that your subpoena is inquiring into legitimate First Amendment rights to associate, to speak, to petition for redress or in the absence of a legitimate legislative purpose.

And to the point repeated over and over by the gentleman from Maryland, the current position on privilege is entirely sensible. Mr. Meadows has produced those documents that are implicated by the current President's waiver of privilege, but he preserves that core part of privilege that President Trump is likely entitled to preserve; that is to say what he was told by one of his closest advisers.

Nothing illegitimate about it at all. What is illegitimate is the decision

made on how to deal with the counselor of a President, the representative of a coordinate branch of government.

The Democrats are setting a new bar. Even while the handwriting is on the wall, may you enjoy the fruits. Let the contempt resolutions and the criminal referrals flow freely and quickly as a river. Merrick Garland, Ron Klain, Hunter Biden, Chuck Dolan, Marc Elias, Andrew Weissmann, Alejandro Mayorkas. Let them come.

This is the choice that is being made by the Democrats.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.

I was just sitting on the floor and it occurred to me, as I listened to the debate, that the point just has to be made that the majority is so obsessed with Donald Trump that they will run roughshod over the Constitution to continue to try to persecute him.

Do they not see that they twice-impeached him and the court of impeachment twice acquitted him?

Do they defer to the decision of our constitutional process in terms of what was just characterized that the President did? Or do they stubbornly override that and continue to pursue him endlessly, despite what our processes and constitutional provisions require and provide for?

What about the provision requiring Presidents, who the Constitution specifies the qualifications for office, that they be required to submit private tax returns in order to pursue that office? Perhaps, if you'd like it, if it is a tradition to do so, for you to impose it by law means you disregard the Constitution of the United States.

To what end will you go? To what end will you go to prevail?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Representative Butterfield for those fine comments. I agree with him 100 percent.

That bill that Congress passed back in 1956 said this, even as it recognized the Lumbee: ``Nothing in this act shall make such Indians eligible for any services performed by the United States for Indians because of their status as Indians, and none of the statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall be applicable to the Lumbee Indians.''

My goodness. What an error, what a mistake, and what an injustice. But that is what the Congress of that time

said, and it is high time for us to correct that injustice. Therefore, I am proud to be a cosponsor with Representative Butterfield and Representative Hudson of this legislation.

The Lumbee have for three centuries been a cohesive and distinct community of aboriginal origins and durable institutions, especially schools, living near the Lumber River in Robeson County.

The Lumbee have been called by several names, but it cannot be disputed that they are the continuously present and vital people shown on a map drawn in 1725 whose common modern surnames appear on a document written in 1771: Locklear, Chavis, Dees, Sweat, and Groom. They are the Lumbee who were living in Long Swamp in the 1730s, the community now known as Prospect.

I said these words last year when it appeared very favorable that we were going to pass Lumbee recognition then, and I am going to say it continuously until we get this done, that this is going to be the year.

I know the Lumbee. I know the Warriors Ball and Lumbee Homecoming, UNC-Pembroke and Old Main, the Lumbee Cultural Center and the Cozy Corner. The Lumbee are supremely patriotic Americans, God-fearing and washed in the blood, devoted to the liberating cause of education and to civic involvement, proud of their community, and loving and welcoming to strangers. They are the best of America, and the only honorable course for the United States Congress is to accord them their due recognition at long last.

So my thank-you to Representative Butterfield for sponsoring this legislation. I thank Representative Hudson and Representatives Grijalva and Westerman for permitting it to come forward--staunch supporters of the Lumbees' pursuit of justice. I thank Senators Burr and Tillis. Lumbee recognition took on new life when both North Carolina Senators began to champion it.

Thanks also to former Representative Mike McIntyre of Robeson County, who worked for Lumbee recognition for more than a decade. We almost accomplished passage last year. This is going to be the year.

Madam Speaker, I urge overwhelming support for the Lumbee Recognition Act.

Madam Speaker, Hoke County Sheriff Dr. Hubert Peterkin died unexpectedly last Friday during surgery and from a previous unannounced affliction of cancer. For the people of Hoke County, whom Sheriff Peterkin served in that capacity for 19 years, it has been a devastating shock and loss. I consider it to have been my honor and privilege to have gotten to know him briefly.

Sheriff Peterkin wore the badge over three decades. His fellow sheriffs elected him vice president and then president of the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association. But, of course, as sheriff, he maintained not only law and order but community cohesion in that special way that rural communities throughout my State do so well. Peterkin's terrific presence earned him many awards and recognitions, including the Order of the Long Leaf Pine and the key to the city of Raeford.

Sheriff Peterkin leaves behind his wife and two children to cherish his memory as well as many colleagues and friends. The people of Hoke County will miss his leadership, and I join them in lifting up the Peterkin family in prayer.

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

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

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to Garren

``Jon G'' and Kelly Kirkman, the proprietors of Jon G's Barbecue in Peachland, North Carolina. After only a year in business, Jon G's has already become a local institution, as evidenced by the consistently long line of customers who are readv to enjoy good barbecue. For the Kirkmans, barbecue is truly a labor of love and the establishment of their restaurant took many years of hard work and experimentation.

Small business owners have been ravaged by the government response to the pandemic, and it is tremendously important during this time to highlight entrepreneurship and to support small businesses in our local communities. Jon G and Kelly, I hope your hard work will continue to pay off and that your barbecue restaurant will be a Peachland institution for years to come.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor my good friend Don Reid and to wish him a very happy 90th birthday. Don, a stalwart conservative, served on the Charlotte City Council from 1991 to 1999. There, he established a reputation as a zealous defender of the taxpayer--demanding accountability, asking tough questions, and standing against imprudent and ill-advised big spending projects, even if that meant standing alone. Among those big spending projects: a proposed taxpayer-funded NBA stadium and an expensive light rail system.

Twenty years off the Council, the passage of time has proven Don right again and again. In addition to his service on the Council, Don helped found the watchdog group Citizens for Effective Government and hosted weekly breakfast meetings in Charlotte that were must-attend events for those interested in local politics. Don, you continue to be an important voice on behalf of fiscal responsibility, and Charlotte is grateful for your service. Happy birthday.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor retired Lieutenant Colonel Allen Lamb of Lumberton, North Carolina, and to extend him best wishes for a very happy 90th birthday.

Lieutenant Colonel Lamb, a decorated fighter pilot, led the legendary Wild Weasels tasked with destroying North Vietnam's air defenses, which included Soviet-made surface-to-air missile installations. The Wild Weasels baited the enemy into targeting them with their radar, allowing their teammates to detect and destroy the anti-aircraft system.

On December 22, 1965, Lamb was the first Wild Weasel to destroy one of these missile sites, marking a key event in the war and saving countless American lives.

For his heroic service, Lieutenant Colonel Lamb received two Silver Stars and a Distinguished Flying Cross. I am honored to call him a constituent.

Happy birthday to Lieutenant Colonel Lamb.

Madam Speaker, to come to the correct conclusion, a law professor used to say, ``You've got to know the facts.'' And that is what the American people need here: the facts, not emotion.

This bill would comprehensively transfer the power to govern elections in this country from the sovereign States to the Federal Government permanently and everywhere.

So what is the factual premise for so fundamentally concentrating the power here in Washington and diminishing the States? What has happened to justify making pervasive and permanent what Chief Justice Roberts explained was ``a drastic departure from basic principles of freedom'' when it was necessarily undertaken in the 1960s, temporarily and in limited parts of the country?

Well, Democrats offer lurid claims, but the American people are catching on. Like earlier this year, Stacey Abrams claimed that a simple voter ID law would be Jim Crow 2.0, but once the absurdity of that caught up to her, she looked so ridiculous that she tried to deny ever having claimed it.

Nothing epitomizes this better than the slur repeated in the Rules Committee yesterday by my law school classmate and colleague, Congresswoman Ross. She quoted three ultraliberal judges in the Fourth Circuit who said that when the North Carolina legislature enacted voter ID and other reforms in 2013, it ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.''

Activists and media have quoted that phrase over 7,500 times, according to Google. But few know that the three judges who stated that finding of fact were appellate judges who were supposed to be bound by the trial judge's finding of fact; or that the trial judge found in a painstaking 400-page analysis that the legislature's bill was not discriminatory. So the three appellate judges abused their power.

Few know how the three liberal appellate judges became the final word, that a Democrat State Attorney General intentionally sabotaged the State's appeal to prevent an upcoming review by the Supreme Court. That AG abused his power.

Madam Speaker, when the details are known, the absence of factual basis becomes plain. Nobody is getting wet. A University of Oregon economist showed, just in February, that the Shelby County decision to which this bill purports to respond, has not impaired Black voter turnout at all. There is no Jim Crow 2.0. This bill is about abuse of power.

Democrats wish to entrench themselves in power and to use the Federal

Government to obliterate the States in order to achieve it. You have to know the facts.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to honor Johnnie Kershaw, a retired volunteer firefighter and native of Hoke County, North Carolina. The second oldest of nine children, Johnnie was born July 29, 1936, and moved to Brooklyn, New York, as a young man. There, he enrolled at Brooklyn Automotive School, where he learned transmission and auto body repair. In 1966, he returned to Hoke County and opened Kershaw's Body Shop, making him the first African-American man in the county to own his own paint and body shop.

Throughout his 30 years of service as a volunteer firefighter, Johnnie received several awards, including the Outstanding Leadership Award, the Outstanding Fire Chief Award, and the Outstanding Safety Award. Now, at 85 years old, Johnnie continues to serve as a model leader for the Hoke County community. I am proud to recognize his achievements today and to call him a constituent.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize former U.S. Representative Sue Myrick who has a landmark birthday this Sunday.

Congresswoman Myrick served the people of North Carolina's Ninth Congressional District from 1995 to 2013. Before that, Sue made history in 1987 when she scored a major upset against a two-term Democrat to become the first female mayor of Charlotte. Importantly, before politics, Sue was known for her faith life as a Sunday school teacher and private sector career as an advertising executive.

In Congress for the Ninth District, Sue was a notable and effective conservative chairing the Republican Study Committee. Protecting America from foreign threats and securing our border defined her congressional career. As important, she was and is kind and caring, and she provided legendary constituent service. I am honored to serve in her place today and fondly remember her campaign slogan: We need Sue Myrick in Congress because ``Sue Myrick gets things done.''

Happy birthday to Sue.

Madam Speaker, we should defeat the previous question in order to immediately consider H.R. 4698, Representative Burgess Owens' bill, called the Say No to Indoctrination Act.

The Nation has awakened to the insidious ideology, or better said, theology of critical race theory and its allied neo-Marxian concepts, all spawned in the fringes of academia.

After a few hardy individuals began focusing on this phenomenon, Americans have discovered with growing alarm that it seems to be everywhere: in the media, in the workplace, in our armed services, in healthcare, in churches, and, yes, in the classrooms where our school children are taught.

With this daunting realization, employees, soldiers, and moms and dads from all walks of life have been speaking out.

Now, the proponents of CRT are scrambling. Their first answer has been to play word games, to ridicule the notion that the ideology is present. But whether couched as CRT, critical social justice, conflict theory, race essentialism, intersectionality, White fragility, or many other names, Americans have seen it and they have caught on.

So the second line of defense--we just heard it--by the activists is to erect a straw man to falsely ascribe to those who confront CRT a motive to deny or conceal racial and group injustice in our history.

But Americans are on to that as well. They know that at the core of critical race theory is the mission to indoctrinate people, especially young people, into the idea that our country is forever locked into group conflict, especially racial conflict, so that the country, and certainly all White people, are irredeemably racists. It casts the American principles of individual liberty, meritocracy, and free enterprise as systems of oppression.

This condemns the progress our Nation has made since first stating its founding principles.

Madam Speaker, CRT has nothing to do with teaching accurate history.

It is impossible to overstate the danger of indoctrinating Americans with the belief that their race, or other group membership, is the primary determinant of their path in life.

My friends, Mr. Owens' bill ensures that this poison is not funded with taxpayer dollars. The U.S. Congress should catch up with the moms and dads confronting school boards across the country.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to support Representative Owens' bill.