Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The majority leader, just a few minutes ago said--used the term ``danger to our democracy.'' Danger to our democracy.

Think about this. Democrats have closed the Capitol, allowed proxy voting, kicked Republicans off committees, won't let Republicans serve on this select committee--the first time in the history of the Congress the minority leader was not allowed to put on a select committee the individuals he or she selected; first time in the history of our Nation.

The Democrats are trying to end the electoral college; trying to end the filibuster; trying to pack the Court.

This committee, the January 6th Committee, altered evidence and presented it to the American people as if it were true. And they accuse us of being a danger to our democracy?

Mr. Gaetz was right. We have got a border that is complete chaos. We have $6 gas in California, $4 gas everywhere else in the country. We have crime at record levels in every major urban area in this Nation. And we have an inflation problem that is at a 40-year high.

And this committee has more contempt resolutions for a purely political reason. I think the whole committee is pure political, designed to do one thing; keep President Trump off the ballot in 2024.

The gentlewoman from Wyoming, in her opening comments, used the term, ``false message.'' False message. She used to say big lie. Now I guess it is false message. When she said it, I started jotting things down.

Think about all the false messages we have got from them in the last few years. They told us the protests in the summer of 2020 were peaceful. We got a billion dollars' worth of damage around our cities that says it wasn't.

They told us the dossier was real. They told us it was Republicans, Republicans who wanted to defund the police. That one is almost laughable, if it wasn't so serious for our law enforcement and for the families who live in those areas where mayors and city councils did defund the police.

They told us the FBI didn't spy on the Trump campaign. We know that wasn't true. We have got inspectors general reports that tell us all kinds of things of what they did in front of the FISA Court.

They said Trump colluded with Russia. We have got a Mueller report, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 30 million hard-earned American tax dollars in that report that said that false message was just that, false.

They told us COVID didn't start in the lab; sure looks like it did.

They told us the lab wasn't doing gain-of-function research; sure looks like it was.

They told us the vaccinated can't get it. We know that is wrong. Every day there is a new announcement: Member of Congress is getting it; fully vaccinated, boosted, and everything else.

They told us those who are vaccinated can't transmit it. They told us that was wrong.

And you talk about the biggest false message, the biggest false message that has just been confirmed in the last week, how false it was? The Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. The Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.

October 22, 2020, 2 weeks before the election, Candidate Biden, in a debate,

is asked about his son's business dealings with foreign companies. He says: ``Nothing was unethical.'' He said: My son has not made money with business interests--with companies with an interest in China.

And we all know there are 4.8 million reasons why that statement was not accurate. And how do we know? Washington Post told us. Not me, not President Trump, not Republicans, The Washington Post told us last week, two stories last week, a week ago today, one at 11 a.m., one at 11:04 a.m.; two eight-page articles, 4 minutes apart, confirming what we knew, but what big media, big tech, Democrats colluded to keep from the American people just days before, just days before the most important election we have, the Presidential election, who is going to be our next Commander in Chief.

The laptop was real. The eyewitness was real. The emails were real. The only thing fake was that collusion from those individuals, those entities to keep important information from we, the people, in the run- up to the most important election we have.

And oh, by the way, they were joined by 51 former intel officials, joined in the collusion.

You know what is also interesting? It is funny how that story has changed. Eighteen months ago, it started off, it wasn't his laptop. It quickly switched to well, it was his laptop, but it was Russian disinformation.

And now it is, well, it wasn't Russian disinformation, but Joe Biden had nothing to do with it. Now it was, well, Joe knew what was going on, but he wasn't really involved in anything wrong. Ron Klain told us that, the Chief of Staff told us that Sunday.

We need to be focusing on the issues that the American people want us to focus on. You want to talk about danger to our democracy and the biggest false message. I would say what happened--one of the biggest dangers to our democracy and one of the biggest false messages is what happened 18 months ago, where that story was kept from the American people. We could dig into that, find out what went on there, why that happened.

And we could also focus on the record crime, record inflation, record price of gas, and the chaos on our southern border that is about to get worse.

It is about to get worse as the Democrats look to--as the Biden administration looks to repeal title 42. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Record crime, record inflation, record gas prices, record number of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border.

And what are Democrats doing today? Legalizing drugs; legalizing drugs and using American tax dollars to kick-start and prop up the marijuana industry. Wow. Such a deal for the American people. Every major urban area has increased crime, and Democrats are legalizing drugs and propping up the marijuana industry.

Mr. Speaker, 40-year high inflation. It hasn't been this high since 1982. We have some Members not even born then. Record inflation, and Democrats are focusing on legalizing drugs and kick-starting the marijuana industry.

Record gas prices, $6 gas in California; $4 gas everywhere else, and Democrats are legalizing drugs and helping the marijuana industry.

And, of course, 2 million illegal immigrants crossed our southern border in the last 14 months, and Democrats are legalizing drugs and helping the cannabis industry.

Oh, and by the way, we could be focused on this issue: We have a Justice Department that is treating parents as domestic terrorists, spying on moms and dads who simply show up at school board meetings. We know that is going on, putting a threat tag label on parents, this designation, this label, on moms and dads simply standing up for their kids. And Democrats are focused on legalizing drugs and helping the cannabis industry.

The Democrat majority leader said, Why are we dealing with this today? You know why they are dealing with this today? Because they can't deal with the real problems facing the American people. The left won't let them. You think the left is going to let them do what needs to be done to bring down gas prices?

We sat in a hearing a few months ago. One of our Democrat colleagues in that hearing--we had the CEO of the oil and gas company--he went down the line and said, Will you pledge today to decrease production? They want less oil and gas. Literally, he went down the list. I said, What do you want, $8 gas? And the truth is, they do.

The left will not let the Democrats do what needs to be done to the help the inflation problem, the energy problem, the illegal immigration problem on our southern border. So what do they do? They legalize drugs.

Wow. Wow. This is wrong, and everybody knows it. Let's focus on the thing that matters for--as the majority leader said--for middle-class families who are having to drive to work, pick their kids up at school, take their kids to Little League practice, spending four and five bucks a gallon to get them there and back. Let's focus on the things that matter.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Joe Biden inherited a relatively stable and calm world, and in 14 months, we have complete chaos.

Think about last summer. Think about that video last summer where you had people trying to jump on the wheel of the plane as it was taking off in Afghanistan, that situation there, the debacle that was the exit from Afghanistan. Think about what is going on in Ukraine today.

Here at home, in 14 months, we went from a secure border to complete chaos, over 2 million illegal immigrants coming into this country in 1 year.

We went from relatively safe streets to record levels of crime in every major urban area in the country. We went from stable prices to record-high inflation, 40-year-high inflation. We went from energy independence to $5 a gallon gas and the President of the United States begging Iran and Venezuela to increase production. In 14 months, from stability to chaos.

Today, what are the Democrats bringing to the floor? A bill that is titled Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022. That is what we are focused on today.

How about a world where gas prices aren't $5 a gallon? How about a world where you can actually walk safely on your streets and not have record levels of crime? How about a world where inflation isn't at a 40-year high? How about a world where we are actually energy independent? Those are the issues we should be focused on.

But Democrats today, Friday, March 18, 2022, with chaos all over the place, this is what they are focused on.

Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said, we have civil rights laws that cover any kind of discrimination. It is covered. It is wrong if it happens. But this is what the Democrats are focused on. Fourteen months of chaos, and we are doing a bill on hair.

I think the American people expect more from their Congress, expect more from their elected Representatives, and I hope we can actually focus on the things that matter to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the majority leader just said that the bill is not about hair; the bill is about discrimination.

I would say he is wrong on both counts because disparate treatment cannot be based on race, color, national origin. That is already the law. That is constitutional.

So, he is wrong on that statement, and the bill is definitely about hair. Here is the title of the bill: Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. So, he is wrong on both counts. So, the bill is about hair.

What the bill is not about is dealing with the crazy energy situation we find ourselves in today. The bill is not about opening up ANWR. The bill is not about increasing domestic production of energy so we don't have $5 gas.

The bill is not about dealing with the inflation problem, the 40-year high inflation problem that this country faces, the problem that is impacting moms and dads and families across this country every single day. The bill is not about that.

It is definitely about hair. It is not about that.

It is not about dealing with the border situation, the 165,000 illegal encounters on the border last month alone. It is not about that. It is not about that.

The majority leader was wrong when he said this bill was not about hair. That is all it is about.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), my friend and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to point out, the majority leader just 3 minutes ago said the reason the bill is on the floor today is because of the minority. That can't happen. We don't schedule the floor. The reason the bill is on the floor today is because the majority is bringing it to the floor.

I would love to be able to have the power as the minority to bring legislation to the floor because if we could, I tell you what, it wouldn't be this bill. It would be a bill dealing with energy, a bill trying to bring down the price of gasoline, which is at $5 a gallon in some States. It would be a bill trying to deal with the border situation. I wish we could schedule the floor.

Let's hope the American people are going to make a change this fall and put us in a position where we can schedule the floor because if we do, if we get that power, we will focus on those kinds of issues.

The majority leader of the House of Representatives just said the reason the bill is on the floor today is because of the minority. That cannot happen. I wish it could, but it can't. Those are the kind of arguments we are getting.

We should be focused on the issues the American people want us to focus on right now. Families across this

country, all families want us to focus on certain things. But not the Democrats. They are going to focus on the hair bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just--avoiding? It sounds to me like the Democrats are avoiding the issues the American people care about. That is our point. I am focused on what the families in the Fourth District of Ohio come to me and talk to me about. They are talking to me about $5 a gas; guarantee it. My guess it is the same in all your districts as well.

They are talking to me about the border, our southern border that has been complete chaos now for 14 months. They are definitely talking to me about the price of eggs, and milk, and butter, and food at the grocery store, about everything, because we are at a 40-year high inflation.

Avoidance? The people who are avoiding the issues the American people care about are on that side. And to get lectured and using that is so wrong, so out of touch with the American people. Avoiding. You have got to be kidding me. We want to focus on the issues the American people care about. That is the whole darn point.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for all the reasons we have talked about and what we should be focused on here, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation and hope my colleagues will do the same.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, racial discrimination is wrong; it is un-American; and it is contrary to our ideals. Our Federal civil rights laws recognize these facts. The laws are clear, and courts have been consistent that disparate treatment of one individual when compared to another cannot be based on race, color, or national origin.

A person also cannot use a pretextual reason as cover for taking a discriminatory action prohibited by our civil rights laws. The Supreme Court settled that issue in 1973. As early as 1976, Federal courts held that discrimination on the basis of a hairstyle associated with a certain race or national origin may, in fact, constitute racial discrimination.

In other words, under current law, if a person's hairstyle or hair texture is associated with a person's race or national origin and is used as a pretext for discrimination, that conduct is unlawful.

These decades of precedent make the bill that we are debating today unnecessary and duplicative. In fact, the chairman of the committee just said that 3 minutes ago.

The problem raised by the Democrats is one solved by enforcing our existing laws, not by making this conduct illegal for a second time.

The Democrats may have recognized this fact if they had held legislative hearings on this bill this Congress, but they didn't. So, the Committee on the Judiciary didn't have the opportunity to hear from experts about the legislation or how it comports with existing law. That is just one example of the deficient process that brought this bill to the floor today.

At markup, Republican members of the Committee on the Judiciary raised multiple concerns about this bill's potential impact. For example, schools, employers, and other entities covered by Federal civil rights laws may have race-neutral policies that everyone must follow. These policies are sometimes necessary to ensure an employee can adequately and safely do their job, such as a prohibition on hairstyles that could prevent a firefighter from properly wearing a respirator or a helmet.

This bill, however, may jeopardize these policies because it creates a blanket prohibition on adverse treatment because of certain hairstyles or hair textures.

These concerns and the Democrats' deficient process caused every Republican Member to oppose this bill at markup. Instead of working to address these problems, the Democrats are bringing this bill, which was reported on a party-line vote, to a vote under suspension of the rules. The Democrats are prioritizing this legislation, a bill to prohibit conduct already unlawful under our law, for political messaging reasons.

This bill does not address any of the serious problems our country currently faces. Think about the crime problem; the 40-year-high inflation problem; the 2 million illegal immigrants that have come across our border in 1 year's time alone; and, of course, not to mention the situation going on in Ukraine as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, what is Congress doing today? What is the people's House--under the Democrat majority--what is the House of Representatives up to today? Passing a bill to prohibit conduct that is already unlawful under the law. Discrimination based on hairstyle is already unlawful.

That is what the Congress, what the House of Representatives, is going to pass today. Think about it. That is the priority today when we have gone in literally 1 year's time from a secure border to complete chaos. Two million illegal crossings in 1 year on our border. In fact, we don't really have a border.

We have gone from safe streets to record crime in every major urban area in 1 year's time. They are focused on a bill to make conduct that is already unlawful, unlawful again, I guess.

We went from energy independence to the spectacle of the President of the United States begging OPEC to increase production. We have gone from stable prices to a 40-year high inflation rate, and Democrats are focused on this bill.

This past summer we had the debacle that was the exit from Afghanistan. As we speak, the Ukrainian people are fighting for their lives, and Democrats are passing a bill to prohibit conduct already unlawful under Federal law, a bill that says you can't discriminate based on hairstyle, which is already unlawful.

We have had a year now where Democrats attack every liberty we enjoy under the First Amendment, every single one. There are still some locations in America where a full congregation cannot meet on a Sunday morning. There are some places where you still can't assemble and can't petition.

The Democrats have kept the Capitol closed to the American people, their own darn Capitol. How are you supposed to come in and petition your Member to redress your grievances if you are not even allowed in your Capitol that your tax dollars pay for? Of course, we know what they have done to freedom of speech and the attacks there. Their focus today is on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote. Let's focus on the issues that I think the vast majority of the American people want us to focus on like crime, like the 40-year high inflation rate, like the border problem, and like the fact that we were an energy independent country just a few months back. Let's focus on those issues.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today recalls a dark period in our Nation's history. Lynching is an especially horrible act of violence. It was and is as wrong as wrong can be.

Last century, lynchings were a common atrocity committed by the Ku Klux Klan against the Black community. From the 1880s to the 1960s, approximately 4,743 individuals were lynched in the United States, of whom 3,400 victims were African American.

The bill before us today will make lynching a hate crime under the Federal code. There should be no doubt that our Nation condemns lynching in the strongest possible terms, which is why I was surprised that the bill reported out of committee minimized the importance of the gravity of the crime of lynching. I am pleased, however, that the majority is bringing this version to the floor rather than the text reported out of committee.

The bill reported out of committee simply criminalized conspiracies to commit any type of hate crime no matter how insignificant the injury. The bill before us today criminalizes a conspiracy if death or serious bodily injury occurs.

Madam Speaker, I hope we can all stand with one voice and condemn the atrocity of lynching. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just say that I hope we do have a unanimous vote and support this good piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for her great work here in the Congress and for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. We all know that sexual assault and harassment are as wrong as wrong can be. Victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault must have their claims heard. They must never be silenced or intimidated into silence. But the outrage we rightly feel on behalf of these victims does not mean we should rush to pass a bill that could leave many of them worse off.

In the Judiciary Committee, we heard from experts about why this bill's approach is misguided. For example, some of the bill's supporters repeatedly claim that arbitration is what keeps victims from publicizing their experiences or going to authorities and law enforcement. But arbitration is not automatically secret or otherwise confidential.

Agreeing to resolve a case outside of court is different from agreeing to silence. Arbitration does not prevent anyone from speaking out. Anyone who has agreed to arbitrate may still go to authorities and law enforcement to report the wrongdoing, and well they should.

There is an important distinction between agreeing to arbitrate and agreeing to silence. This distinction matters because much of the push for this legislation comes from concerns about secrecy rather than from an honest assessment of whether arbitration advances justice. Yet despite the focus on secrecy, the text of this bill never actually addresses confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements.

Another key talking point for supporters of this legislation is that it gives plaintiffs more choice over how to resolve disputes, but that is not how arbitration works.

Giving one party the unilateral ability to cancel a two-way agreement to arbitrate will functionally take the option to arbitrate completely off the table. For one thing, contracts will be far less likely to include an option to arbitrate in the first place now. For another, we know that if parties can't agree in advance to arbitrate, then they are unlikely to agree to arbitrate after there has been a dispute. As a result, the plaintiff may never get to arbitration.

More often than not, victims do not have deep pockets or the potential for large-sum litigation settlements like those that are available to high-profile figures. This bill will cause these women to lose the potential benefits of arbitration.

Lawsuits are normally long and costly, and companies often have enough money to vigorously defend these claims. These lawsuits are an ordeal for victims who, in a normal case, must undergo discovery, give depositions, and may even need to give public testimony. The rules of litigation may make it much harder for victims to tell their stories in their own words and get the relief they deserve.

Arbitration can be a welcomed alternative to the rigors and trauma of litigation, but Democrats want to pretend that this bill won't limit access to arbitration for victims of assault.

In reality, the bill is more about empowering the trial bar than actual victims. As drafted, the text gives trial lawyers every incentive to craft complaints and allege sexual harassment or assault to get whole cases out of arbitration and into court.

Ultimately, this bill will empower the plaintiffs' bar in ways that some of its supporters may not intend but that Democrats and trial lawyers certainly do.

For years, Democrats have pursued plaintiffs' lawyers' wish to gut arbitration agreements for all kinds of different claims. If Democrats and the trial bar had their way, everyone from consumers of financial services, to civil rights plaintiffs, to those with antitrust claims and others would be forced into court even if they would rather agree to arbitrate at the outset.

Don't be fooled. What is best for plaintiffs' lawyers is not always what is best for plaintiffs.

Let's ensure whatever legislative vehicle we use actually makes things better. I am very concerned about this legislation and how it will actually play out for victims in practice and for the adverse consequences it could have.

Madam Speaker, for those reasons, I would urge that we oppose the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday I attended the funeral of former Congressman Clarence J. ``Bud'' Brown, Jr., in Ohio. As a result, I was absent from the House floor during that day's two roll call votes.

Had I been present, I would have voted no on Roll Call No. 16, ordering the previous question on H. Res. 900, and no on Roll Call No. 17, agreeing to H. Res. 900.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have objected to counting the Presidential electors every single time this century a Republican has been elected President.

They spent 4 years trying to overturn the 2016 election. Democrats spied on a Presidential campaign, they did impeachment in secret based on a so-called whistleblower, whose identity only Congressman Schiff got to know.

This Congress they have closed the Capitol, enacted proxy voting, kicked Republicans off committees, and for the first time in American history denied Republicans seats on a select committee that was chosen by the minority leader.

They are trying to make D.C. a State, end the electoral college, end the filibuster, pack the Court, destroy executive privilege, take Federal control of elections, and are currently allowing in jurisdictions illegal immigrants to vote.

And finally, the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol has altered evidence and lied to the American people about it.

But somehow, they tell us it is President Trump and Republicans who are undermining democracy? Give me a break.

Undermining democracy because we actually think you should show a photo ID when you go to vote?

In 1 year's time, while Democrats are doing all that, in 1 year's time they have given us record crime, record inflation, record illegal immigration.

And as bad as all that is, it is not the worst. The worst is how they have used the virus to attack our freedoms, how they have used the virus to attack our

First Amendment rights. And here is the irony: They used the virus to attack our liberties, even though everything they have told us about the virus has been wrong.

They told us it didn't come from a lab. They told us it wasn't gain- of-function research. They told us it was only 15 days to slow the spread. They told us masks worked. They told us we have a Federal plan. Joe Biden said that himself. They have told us there would never be a vaccine mandate. They told us people who get vaccinated can't get the virus, the vaccinated can't transmit the virus, and they told us there was no such thing as natural immunity.

Think about this: At the same time Democrats require you to put on a mask, show your papers and an ID to get a Big Mac at McDonald's, they want to allow the Federal Government to stop States from requiring a photo ID to vote.

This is ridiculous.

Vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, Democrats prevent Republicans from serving on the select committee. Democrats kick Republicans off standing committees. Democrats try to make D.C. a State. Democrats try to end the filibuster. They try to pack the court. They do secret impeachment hearings in the bunker of the basement of the Capitol. And they just said a naval veteran is afraid of the truth. Now, today, they are destroying executive privilege.

The United States Supreme Court held those who assist the President must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way that many would be unwilling to do, except privately. The Court further stated Presidential administrations of both parties have asserted that the President's close advisers are an extension of the President.

Who are these close advisers? Who are these individuals who are an extension of the President of the United States? Well, there are actually a bunch, but certainly, the three most important are the National Security Advisor, the White House counsel, and the chief of staff to the President. I would argue the chief of staff is the closest of the close. He is the one who spends more time with the Commander in Chief than anyone else.

Now, why do we have this privilege? Why do we have it? Why is the decisionmaking process between the President and his closest advisers a private matter? Why is that?

Well, guess what, the Supreme Court told us the answer to that one, too. Executive privilege serves ``the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even . . . harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking.''

Let me just say that again: Executive privilege serves the public interest. It is for us. It is for we the people. It is not for President Trump. It is not for Mark Meadows. It is not for any President. It is not for any chief of staff. It is for the country.

But the Democrats are not going to worry about that. They are going to forget about that because they think this is good politics. They think this is all about politics.

They used to care. They used to care about executive privilege. When Republicans wanted information during the Fast and Furious scandal, President Obama asserted executive privilege for bureaucrats at the ATF and DOJ. Think about it. A bureaucrat in a Federal agency gets privilege but not the chief of staff to the President? Because Mark Meadows worked for President Trump, and Democrats have been out to get President Trump before he ever took office when they first tried to spy on him, and actually did spy on him, in 2016.

They are going to destroy this precedent even though this very question is in front of the courts as we speak. They are going to destroy this precedent that has been around since 1794 when our first President first asserted it. And for what?

What did Mark Meadows do? He gave the committee thousands of emails; he gave the committee thousands of text messages; and he agreed to come in front of the committee and answer any question as long as it didn't violate executive privilege; the privilege that is not his to waive but belongs to the President; the privilege that the Court said is critical to executive decisionmaking; the privilege that exists for the benefit of we the people; and the privilege that has been around since George Washington asserted it.

But Democrats say: No, not good enough, Mr. Meadows. You have to come in and answer any and every question we ask you, or we are going to try to put you in prison.

It is so disgusting. Think about it. We weren't allowed to know who the so-called anonymous whistleblower was when they tried to impeach President Trump, did impeach President Trump, but Democrats can destroy executive privilege? The country wasn't allowed to know what took place in that bunker in the basement of the Capitol during impeachment, but they get to know any and everything they want about conversations between the President and his top adviser.

This is so wrong. Democrats on the select committee also can't make up their minds. With Steve Bannon, they said: You have to appear in person to assert any privilege. And because he didn't come, they held him in contempt.

With Jeff Clark, they said to come in person, assert privilege, which he did, and they said, no, that is not good enough. And they held him in contempt.

Now, with Mark Meadows, he gave them thousands of documents and agreed to come, and they still said not good enough. What a charade.

Make no mistake, when Democrats vote in favor of this resolution, it is a vote to put a good man in prison. Don't pretend to argue, either. Don't even attempt the argument: No, no, no, this is just the House acting; the Justice Department will make a decision whether to prosecute or not. Come on. Is there anyone who believes that?

It took the Attorney General all of 5 days to treat parents as terrorists, all of 5 days. If a leftwing political group can write the White House asking the Department of Justice to use the PATRIOT Act against moms and dads and 5 days later the Attorney General of the United States does just that, then what do you think he is going to do when 225 Democrats in the House of Representatives ask him to put President Trump's chief of staff in prison?

I have been in Congress for a while, 15 years. I have seen Democrats weaponize the government to attack their political opponents. Ten years ago, they used the IRS to target good people around this country, good, conservative people. Five years ago, they abused the FISA process and used the FBI to spy on President Trump's campaign. Two months ago, the Department of Justice used the Counterterrorism Division at the FBI to put a threat tag, a label, a designation, on parents who had the gall to go speak up at school board meetings and defend their kids, speak out against some crazy curriculum.

Now, they are destroying executive privilege. Now, they are attacking that. This might be the worst, destroying a precedent that has been around since George Washington and treating Mark Meadows as a criminal.

Mark Meadows is our former colleague. He is a good man, and he is my friend. This is as wrong as it gets. I think, deep down, everyone knows it. I think they know it as well. They know this is wrong. We have all served with this guy. He has done more work with Democrats than probably any Republican. We all know what a good man he is. This is as wrong as it gets.

Madam Speaker, they all know it, but their lust for power, their lust to get their opponents, is so intense, they don't care. I hope they reconsider. I hope we don't take this action.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want safer streets, affordable gas, and freedom. Instead, Democrats give us record crime levels, record inflation, and another

bill attacking President Trump sponsored by the guy who spent years misleading the Congress and, more importantly, the country on the Trump-Russia investigation, on the Mueller investigation, and on impeachments.

Remember when the sponsor of the bill said that his office didn't meet with the whistleblower? Found out that wasn't true.

Remember when the sponsor of the bill told us that we would hear from the whistleblower during impeachment; we would actually have real process instead of having hearings and depositions in the basement in the bunker of the Capitol?

Remember when the sponsor told us this: There was more than circumstantial evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia? That turned out to be false. Bob Mueller said it was false. Everyone knew it was false.

In fact, it was such baloney, even The Washington Post has had to retract and change things from stories because they said, oh, yeah, yeah, there was a lot of false information in that dossier that they used to go spy on President Trump's campaign.

And I think this is important to understand. The sponsor of this legislation wasn't just any Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker. He wasn't just any chairman of a committee in Congress. He was the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the committee that gets additional information from anyone else in the country, making those claims that were not accurate.

So maybe, instead of having another bill that attacks President Trump because Democrats are afraid he is going to run and he is going to win in 2024, so they want to do everything they can to attack him--maybe instead of another bill attacking President Trump, we should actually focus on things that the American people care about.

You know, you can attack President Trump all you want. I know one thing: A year ago, the border was secure. It sure was. A year ago, cities were safe, safer than they are today. A year ago, we didn't have a 31-year high inflation. We actually had wages going up, real wages. A year ago, we didn't have a Department of Justice, attacking moms and dads, putting a label, a designation, a threat tag on parents who simply go to school board meetings and speak out against a racist, hate-America curriculum. No, we didn't have that a year ago.

But you guys can keep attacking the President all you want; not addressing the issues that the American people care about. We are going to speak about the issues they care about. We are going to try to do everything we can to slow down your crazy agenda that is driving up the price of everything. And we are going to speak out against and do everything we can to make sure the Department of Justice quits attacking parents.

God bless the whistleblower that came forward and gave us the information sent from the Counterterrorism Division of the FBI. We could be dealing with that issue today. We could be holding the Attorney General accountable, the Justice Department accountable for what they are doing.

No, no, no. We are going to attack President Trump again. Democrats, that is the only thing they can do because they can't talk about anything else.

I hope we defeat this bill.

Madam Speaker, in 10 months we have gone from a secure border to complete chaos. We don't have a border anymore. We don't. We now have what Secretary Clinton said she wanted when she ran for President 5 years ago. We have a borderless hemisphere.

You don't believe it? Just look at the numbers. March was the highest month on record for illegal crossings at our southern border, the highest month on record until April, and then April was the highest month on record until May,

and then May was the highest month on record until June. June was the highest month on record until July, when there were 212,000 illegal encounters on our southern border.

This past month it went all the way down to 164,000. 1.7 million this year alone. A record.

And guess what? Thousands more in a caravan are on their way. And all the terrible things that happen in these caravans are there because of the policies of the Biden administration and the Democrats who control the Federal Government.

But don't worry. Don't worry. Secretary Mayorkas said this, ``The border is closed. The border is secure.'' If the effects and what happens to kids and families on these treks wasn't so serious, if it wasn't so bad, you would almost have to laugh because there is no way anyone can describe the border as closed and the border as secure.

In this big spending bill, this $2 trillion monstrosity, what is the Democrats' response to that chaotic situation on our border?

Amnesty for over 6 million people who are in our country illegally. Think about that. That is their response.

Oh, and don't forget--don't forget what the Justice Department is getting ready to do. When they are not spying on parents, when they are not treating parents as a domestic terrorist threat, our Justice Department is getting ready to pay people who illegally entered our country $450,000. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. It is why people all across this country are just throwing their hands up. What is going on?

The cost of the immigration policies in this legislation are almost half a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. Half a trillion dollars. But, again, don't worry, Joe Biden says that half a trillion dollars in spending on immigration policies and all the other spending in this bill is going to help the inflation problem.

There is not a rational, sane person on the planet who believes that. And why the President of the United States would make such a statement is beyond me.

Record high inflation. The highest we have had in 31 years, and Joe Biden says spending half a trillion over 20 years on immigration policies in this legislation and all the other spending is going to lower inflation.

Let's defeat the previous question. When it comes up, let's defeat the rule. And for goodness' sake, I hope we will vote down this bill, which is only going to exacerbate the already terrible situation we have seen. Every single policy that has come from the Biden administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress has been harmful to American families.

We have gone, as I said, from a secure border to chaos. We have gone from energy independence to the spectacle of the President of the United States begging OPEC to increase production. We went from relatively safe cities to crime going up in every major urban area in this country, and we went from stable prices to a 31-year high in inflation.

You want to buy a home? It is going to cost more.

You want to rent an apartment? It is going to cost more.

Put food on the table? It is going to cost more.

Put gas in your car? It is going to cost more.

Thanksgiving turkey is going to cost more. Christmas presents for your family are going to cost more in Joe Biden's America.

This bill is so bad. Vote down the previous question, vote down the rule, vote down this bill for the good of the families of this great Nation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The chairman of the Rules Committee said Republicans want to blame Joe Biden for everything. I am not blaming Joe Biden for everything; the American people are. Right-track, wrong-track polling says 71 percent of our fellow citizens think our country is on the wrong track. I am not blaming Joe Biden; they are, the people we represent.

Approval rating is 38 percent, and the Vice President's approval is 28 percent. In the history of polling for Vice President and President, I don't know if I have ever seen anything that low. It is the American people who are fed up with what they see.

The gentleman who chairs the Rules Committee said: What are they for? I will tell you what we are for. I will tell you what Republicans are for. I will tell you what the American people are for. We are actually for a secure border. Imagine that.

We are for lower prices.

We actually would like to have real wages be going up like they were under President Trump.

We would like to have a secure border like we had under President Trump.

We would actually like less crime in our urban areas like we had under President Trump.

We would like to be energy independent like we were just 10 months ago. We would kind of like not to have the spectacle of the President of the United States begging OPEC to increase production at the same time your policies in this bill would discourage American companies from increasing production. What do you guys want, $8 a gallon gasoline?

I will tell you what we are for. We are for a Department of Justice that doesn't target parents, doesn't target moms and dads for standing up and saying we don't want this racist curriculum, anti-American curriculum, taught to our kids.

I will tell you what we are for. We are actually for not raising taxes on American families. That is what we are for. That is what American families want. They like to keep the money they earn, be able to put gas in their car, buy Christmas presents for their family, afford the things that just 10 months ago they could. Ten months ago, it was so much different. That is what we are for.

Madam Speaker, as we speak, the FBI is treating parents as terrorists. The Department of Justice is getting ready to pay people $450,000 who illegally entered our country. And Democrats in Congress later this week plan to spend $2 trillion more, which we all know will only exacerbate the already 30-year-high inflation.

What are they doing today? Censuring a Member for a cartoon. You have got to be kidding me. You have got to be kidding me.

What scares me most about all of this is the attack that we have seen on the First Amendment over the last year from the left, from the Democratic Party. They are attacking moms for standing up and speaking at a school board meeting. There are still places in this country where a full congregation cannot meet on a Sunday morning, stopping Americans from exercising their First Amendment freedom of religion rights.

The Speaker of the House stopped Americans from petitioning their Member of Congress to redress their grievances and wouldn't even let them in their own Capitol.

Now, here we go again, censuring speech. The most fundamental liberty we have is our right to speak, our right to talk, our right to communicate, and they are going after that today because they don't like freedom. You can see it. They don't like it.

This is wrong. We know it is wrong, what they are doing to our colleague, Mr. Gosar. I hope they will have second thoughts and that we will vote this down.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize David Taylor for his outstanding wrestling performance at the Tokyo Olympic Games.

At the age of 8, David wrote down three goals: Win four high school state titles, win four college national championships, and win Olympic gold. Even at this young age, he had his mind set on objectives that would take countless hours of practice and dedication to accomplish.

David wasted no time on his mission, amassing an impressive 180-2 high school record, including four state championships, and graduated with a 4.0 grade point average from my alma mater, Graham High School in St. Paris, Ohio. He would then go on to become one of the most decorated wrestlers in Penn State University's history: Four Big Ten championships, a four-time finalist and two-time NCAA National Champion, and twice the winner of the Dan Hodge Trophy, given to the undisputed best college wrestler in the nation.

He then fixed his eyes on his final objective: Winning Olympic gold. With 17 seconds remaining in the gold medal match in Tokyo, Taylor scored a two-point takedown to give him his 52nd straight victory in international matches. David said afterward: ``You've got to want it. You've got to want to be here.''

David married the love of his life, Kendra, five years ago. Last month, on September 16, they welcomed baby Ivy into the world. David's parents, Dave and Kathy, currently reside in Chattanooga.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, I am honored to celebrate David's accomplishments, his dedication to the sport of wrestling, his integrity and work ethic, and his outstanding contributions to the Olympic tradition. We wish him all the best in the future.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Look, we have seen the worst 10 months of any administration in history. We went from a secure border to chaos. We went from safe streets to violent crime. We have seen stable prices turn into inflation and empty shelves. The respect around the world we had has now turned into the debacle that was the exit from Afghanistan. And we went from peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords to thousands of rockets being fired on our friend and ally, Israel; not to mention, energy independence to now the spectacle of the President of the United States begging OPEC to increase production.

But what scares me most is what this administration and Democrats are doing to freedom. Every right we enjoy under the First Amendment has been assaulted over the last year.

Your right to practice faith. There are still places today in the country where a full congregation can't meet on Sunday morning.

Your right to petition your government, your right to assemble, freedom of the press, freedom of speech--every single one has been attacked.

We just learned in the Judiciary Committee from the Attorney General that the National School Boards Association last month, September 29, sends a letter to the President of the United States asking the FBI to get involved in local school board matters. Five days later, the Attorney General issues a memo to do just that.

The first sentence of the Attorney General's memo says this: In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats at school board meetings.

We asked him a simple question: What is the evidence for a spike in threats? What is the data? What did you review?

Guess what his answer was. His only evidence, the only thing he reviewed, was the letter from the school boards association, from a political organization. Now, they are going to target parents at school board meetings.

And we have the January 6 committee issuing subpoena after subpoena. Eleven of the people they have issued subpoenas to were names on an application asking the government for permission to hold a rally. Individuals exercising their First Amendment right to assemble, asked the government for permission, the government granted them permission, and now these 20- and 30-year-olds, whose names are on that application, they are going to be deposed by these guys for simply exercising their First Amendment right.

Here is what they are asking them, we want to know who the speakers were and how were they selected. We want to know any communications these people--who put their names on a permit, got permission from the government--we want to know any Member of Congress you talked to.

Wow. Your right to petition your government, that is why they are subpoenaing these people? This is scary, where they want to go.

These questions--coordination of speakers, discussions of contents-- this sounds like what the IRS did to people 10 years ago when they were asking 501(c) groups applying for tax-exempt status, do you pray at the start of your meeting?

First, it is school boards, then it is people applying for a permit. We saw what the IRS did to people just a few years ago; not to mention what else the committee is doing; preservation letters to all of the carriers, all of the companies; preserve every call, every email, every text. Think about that. Every call someone made to--hundreds and hundreds, supposedly, according to news reports. They have done this for texts to your spouse, calls to your mom. Preserve it all. And this is just what we know about. This is just what has been reported.

And now Steve Bannon. Now Steve Bannon. Mr. Bannon is a target of the investigation, for the investigation, because--and this is the select committee's own report--``His efforts to plan political activity.''

That is the standard. If you are involved in political activity, they are going to investigate you.

We know what this is really about. This is about getting at President Trump. They tried to stop President Trump before he was even elected with the Russia investigation; tried to remove President Trump from office twice while he was in office. And now they are trying to get him after the fact, after he has left, all because this guy cut taxes, reduced regulation, gave us the greatest economy in 50 years, lowest unemployment, all because he built the wall, got us out of the Iran deal, put the embassy in Jerusalem. When President Trump was President, Americans got their Christmas presents on time. But they are coming after him.

The Reuters story said this: The FBI has found no evidence that President Trump, or people directly around him, were involved in organizing the violence.

They don't care. They don't care that the FBI has no evidence. The Senate report said no evidence of a coordinated plan. They don't care. They are going to drag these 11 people in for depositions with subpoenas, because they are so determined to get their political enemies.

Madam Speaker, the Central Ohio Area Agency on Aging will host its 45th annual Central Ohio Senior Citizens Hall of Fame induction ceremony on October 6 in Columbus. I am honored to commend to the House one of this year's inductees: William McCarthy of Marysville.

Bill is a mainstay of the Marysville community. He started working at Wolgamot's Drug Store in 1949, the same year he graduated from Marysville High School. He then earned his pharmacy degree from Ohio Northern University, after which he purchased a share in Wolgamot's. In 1971, after buying out the last of his partners, he renamed it McCarthy Pharmacy. McCarthy Pharmacy was a downtown Marysville landmark for many years, famous for its five-cent coffee.

Bill met his wife, Ruth, in 1949 while working at the pharmacy. They shared 63 years of marriage until her passing in 2016. They were long- time members of Trinity Lutheran Church and committed delivery drivers for Meals on Wheels programs in Marysville and Plain City. Bill continues to serve Marysville in many ways, including as a member of the G.L. Kingsmore Scholarship Committee. He is proud to be a 33rd degree Mason.

Madam Speaker, selection for the Central Ohio Senior Citizens Hall of Fame is a high honor accorded to seniors who have devoted their lives to serving others. I am pleased to join in the accolades for Bill McCarthy on his induction and thank the Central Ohio Area Agency on Aging for recognizing his many sacrifices--and those of all of this year's inductees.