Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

A ploy? It is not a ploy when the Department of Justice treats parents as terrorists; moms and dads who are simply showing up at a school board meeting to advocate for their son or daughter. It is not a ploy when the FBI pays Twitter $3 million, not 1, not 2, $3 million to censor American citizens.

It is not a ploy when the Department of Homeland Security tries to set up a disinformation governance board because we all know that the Department of Homeland Security can tell what is good speech and what is bad speech. You have got to be kidding me.

I will tell you what, dozens of whistleblowers who have come and talked to Republican staff on the Judiciary Committee don't think this is a ploy. That is why they came to talk to us. They know how serious this is.

The former Democrat chair of the Judiciary Committee is in the press today saying we are going to fight this tooth and nail. This is political. Meanwhile, the former Democrat chair of the Intelligence Committee pressured Twitter to censor a journalist. You have got to be kidding me.

This is about the First Amendment, something you guys used to care about. I had actually hoped we could get bipartisan agreement on protecting the First Amendment, the five rights we enjoy as Americans under the First Amendment: Your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition the government, freedom of press, freedom of speech. Every single one has been attacked in the last 2 years.

The Government was telling people they couldn't go to church just a few years ago; your right to assemble. Your right to petition the Government. The Democrats kept the Capitol closed. You couldn't, as a citizen, come to your Capitol that you pay for to address your Member of Congress to redress your grievances because Nancy Pelosi wouldn't let you in.

Freedom of the press. I just told you what the head of the Intel Committee tried to do to a journalist. The most important right we have, though, is your right to talk. Because if you can't talk, you can't practice your faith, you can't share your faith, you can't petition your government. The right to speak is the most important, and that is what they are going after. That is why we have had dozens of whistleblowers come talk to us. We want to focus on that because we want it all to stop. We want the double standard to stop. This idea that, oh, if you are a pro-life activist, you are going to get your door kicked in and you are going to get arrested and handcuffed in front of your seven kids and your spouse for simply praying in front of abortion clinic, and telling the guy who was harassing your son to knock it off you are going to have the FBI raid your home; but the protests that went on at Supreme Court Justices' homes in the aftermath of the leak of the Dobbs opinion, oh, no problem there. Americans are sick and tired of it.

We don't want to go after anyone. We just want it to stop. We want to respect

the First Amendment to the Constitution that the greatest country in the world has. That is what this committee is all about, and that is what we are going to focus on. That is what we are going to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want Americans to believe that the Supreme Court at any moment--in fact, the chairman just referenced this--at any moment could step in and overturn its opinions in Obergefell and Loving. It is just not true. The Supreme Court is not poised to overturn its opinions in either of those decisions.

Just look at what the Court has said. The Dobbs opinion does not undermine other substantive due process rights in any way. Just in case anyone is not clear on the meaning of does not undermine them in any way, the Court later reiterated that the Dobbs decision should not be misunderstood or mischaracterized `` . . . to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.''

The Court condemned the alarmist idea that the Dobbs decision would lead to the overturning of other cases as ``perhaps . . . designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights . . . ''

It is that unfounded fear that brings us here today.

Democrats have conjured up this nonexistent threat based on one line in Justice Thomas' concurrence in Dobbs, and they are misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what Justice Thomas wrote.

Justice Thomas made the same point that he has made for years: that the collection of rights secured by the doctrine of substantive due process is better understood as being a function of the Constitution's privileges and immunities clause. That is it.

From his statement that a body of law should flow from one place in the Constitution instead of another comes the hyperbolic arguments that we have heard about the necessity of this bill.

After the House last considered this bill in July, the Senate was forced to make significant changes to the bill. Unfortunately, those changes do not go far enough in protecting religious liberty.

For example, the Senate amendment does not protect a private entity that is determined to be a State actor as a result of the services they provide on behalf of a government. These entities could be adoption agencies, shelters, or other service providers operated by a religious organization under contract with a city or State.

Across the country, people of faith serve their neighbors and their communities through these charitable efforts, but this bill could force them to abandon their faith or abandon the service. That is an unacceptable outcome in the United States.

For years, the Democrats have been playing a dangerous game with the Court. They want Americans to believe that the Court lacks transparency and struggles with its ethics. That is simply not true.

This bill is simply the latest installment of the Democrat's campaign to intimidate the highest court in our land. They have engaged in a smear campaign against sitting Justices and nominees. Democrats have stood on the steps of the Court and threatened Justices by name for not ruling the way they want in high-profile cases. Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee, including the chairman, have introduced a bill to pack the Court; to add four Justices to our highest court--not one, not two, not three, but four, because they simply want to take it over.

Democrats have held hearings to showcase fringe legal and conspiracy theories about the Court and its rulings.

In fact, later today, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to again suggest that the Court has somehow been compromised based on a totally unsubstantiated allegation that Justice Alito leaked information 8 years

ago about an opinion in the Hobby Lobby case.

There is just one problem: Justice Alito denies this allegation. The individual who allegedly was the conduit for the leak denies it ever happened. Even the media admits there are holes in the story.

Politico said this:

We spent several months attempting to corroborate the

allegation but was unable to locate anyone who heard about

the decision directly from Alito or his wife before the

release of the case.

The New York Times reported that there are ``gaps'' in the allegation. The New York Times is the one who broke the story. They reported there are gaps in this allegation about a leak from Justice Alito 8 years ago. Gaps in an allegation.

Do you know what that is? That is liberal-speak for that story doesn't add up. But the Democrats are determined to not let the truth get in the way of their story and their intimidation tactics on the Court.

This is not the way we are supposed to operate. I hope that we can vote this bill down. I hope it does not pass because I think it is dangerous and takes the country in the wrong direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Virginia (Mr. Good).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I would just first say, the previous speaker talked about being out of step with the American people.

Are you kidding me?

The Democrats are the party who think men can use women's restrooms; the Democrats are the party who think boys can participate in girls' sports; the Democrats are the party who think you can take the life of an unborn child

right up until their birthday; and the Democrats are the party who actually had a witness in committee who said that she thought men could get pregnant.

And we are the ones who are out of step?

You have got to be kidding me.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Mast).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, what happened in Colorado, as the gentleman referenced, was wrong as wrong could be. We all understand that.

But you know what else is wrong?

The 100 churches and crisis pregnancy centers that were attacked in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision--actually, when the leak happened. Dozens and dozens of those attacks happened between the leak of the opinion and the opinion itself, all designed to intimidate the Supreme Court.

And what did this body do while that was happening and Supreme Court Justices' homes were being--protests, harassed, all kinds of things said about their family, an assassination attempt on one of those justices, Justice Kavanaugh--what did this body do?

They waited a month to pass legislation to give our highest court members the protection they needed. This body did that.

There is no place for violence. But let's be clear: Let's condemn all of it. Let's do what we can to protect against it, and let's not stay on this concerted effort to intimidate the Court.

By the way, Madam Speaker, we have yet to have a hearing on the leak of the Dobbs decision, but in 1 hour and 15 minutes we are going to have a hearing on the fake leak that was brought up about Justice Alito in the Hobby Lobby case.

Why can't we get to the bottom of what happened earlier this year with the Dobbs decision that resulted in all that violence--over 100 churches and crisis pregnancy centers attacked?

I would like to have a hearing on that. I hope at some point the chairman will--we will look into doing that next year when we convene the new Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, the fact is, the Senate passed the bill and you guys waited a month before we passed it on the House floor, and you know that is accurate.

Justices' families; I will correct that. But you guys waited a month to do that when they were being threatened. That is my point.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote based on arguments we have made on the floor today. I think this is--I just urge a ``no'' vote. I think this is the wrong way to go.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said--the Democrat chair said--this bill is not about the border. That is the problem. That is what we should be addressing.

There have been 4 million illegal migrant encounters since Joe Biden has been in office; 1.4 million illegal migrants released into the country; 1 million got-aways; and an administration that says the border is secure. It is laughable. I don't know how they can say that with a straight face.

Remember this, too. Remember those border agents on horseback? Remember those guys doing their job on horseback? This administration allowed a lie to fester and grow for months knowing that those guys did nothing wrong.

Yeah, this bill is not about the border. It should be. When are the Democrats going to take this issue seriously?

We have literally gone from a secure border to no border. When are they going to take it seriously?

No, no, they are never going to take it seriously.

Obviously, over the last 22 months they haven't done anything to address it, which leads us to--I think the logical conclusion that any American and every American is making is--they are doing this intentionally.

Why? I do not know.

It has to be intent. It has to be intentional. It has to be deliberate. It has to be premeditated because you can't have this kind of chaos just happen--and now they bring this bill.

The bill says veterans who have committed crimes that make them deportable aren't going to be deported. It makes no sense to me.

I hope at some point the Democratic Party will wake up. I hope at some point the Biden administration will do what everyone knows needs to be done and get our border secure again.

Maybe it would help--maybe it would be a good first step--maybe a good start would be for the President of the United States, who is charged with securing our homeland, securing our border, maybe it would be a good first step if he went to the border.

I know the leader of our party has asked him to go. Leader McCarthy has asked him to go.

Why don't they go together and help unify the country maybe?

Stand up for something that makes sense that we would actually have a border. Maybe that would be a first step, instead of bringing bills like this and not addressing the fundamental problem.

A bill that is not about the border--you can say that again because this one sure isn't. This one is not going to address the problem that every American knows is as real as it gets.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation codifies into law an existing Department of Justice pilot program known as the Rural Responses to the Opioid Epidemic initiative, established during the Trump administration.

In 2020, the Trump administration created the new initiative to improve the opioid response and to reduce opioid overdose deaths in America's high-risk rural communities. The initiative enables 21 rural communities to receive existing Department of Justice funding to develop responses in opioid prevention treatment and recovery services.

While this work is important, it is also critical that we not lose sight of the dangerous drugs like fentanyl that are so easily trafficked across our southern border.

The Biden border crisis is making America's drug crisis worse. We have seen record numbers of drug seizures like fentanyl, encounters of illegal aliens, and apprehensions of suspected terrorists at the southern border.

For example, in fiscal year 2022, Customs and Border Protection seized over 14,000 pounds of fentanyl at the border and up to 10,000 pounds in fiscal year 2021 and 4,500 pounds in fiscal year 2020.

Oh, by the way, these drugs are only what CBP officers catch. We do not know the amount of dangerous drugs that have slipped through the gaps due to President Biden's open border policies, but there is no mistake that drug cartels and illegal aliens are taking advantage of the crisis at our border.

Meanwhile, our drug crisis continues to spiral out of control. We have seen the sad reality that overdose deaths in America reached an all-time high last year. An estimated 107,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2021, an increase of approximately 15 percent from the previous year.

Overdose deaths involving both opioids and synthetic opioids like fentanyl sharply increased in 2021 compared to the year before. These dangerous drugs are killing Americans at record levels and destroying families and communities across America. Communities in rural America have been particularly hard-hit by the opioid crisis.

While passage of this legislation will continue the important work started by President Trump's administration to help rural communities combat this crisis, we must do more. We must also take actions to address the Biden border crisis and stem the flow of illicit drugs flowing into our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Feenstra for his work on the legislation. We support the litigation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 4834 reauthorizes the National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction for an additional 2 years.

In 2008, Congress passed the PROTECT Our Children Act, which required the attorney general to develop and implement a National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction.

The PROTECT Our Children Act formally authorized the Internet Crimes Against Children task forces. These task forces support State and local law enforcement agencies in combating online enticement of children and the proliferation of online child sexual abuse material.

Since its inception, nearly 90,000 individuals have been arrested because of complaints reviewed by these task forces. They not only put the dangerous criminals behind bars, but they also provide outreach to communities to spread awareness about and, hopefully, prevent internet crimes against kids.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office established the Patents for Humanity program as a pilot program in 2012 to recognize noteworthy inventions that address humanitarian problems.

The program has honored inventions relating to water purification, infectious diseases, crop yields, and infant mortality, among others. Winners are awarded certificates that grant acceleration of certain matters before the USPTO, such as examination of a future patent application.

The Patents for Humanity program provides an incentive to encourage innovation in areas important to addressing humanitarian needs of today and the future. It does this without costing taxpayers a penny and without the need to raise user fees at the PTO. This is a very important distinction.

This bill would also allow this successful pilot program to continue as a congressionally approved program. The Senate version of this bill on the floor today is almost identical to the version the House passed this past spring with just a few minor changes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3372 authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to community-based nonprofits to operate one stop reentry centers.

The biggest problem, though, is the Department of Justice already does exactly what this bill would require it to do.

The Second Chance Act of 2007, reauthorized by Congress and signed into law by President Trump in the First Step Act of 2018, provides comprehensive assistance to individuals in transition from prison back to the community. This bill is duplicative. It is redundant, and maybe, most importantly, the Democrats know that.

Last Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing. The majority's own briefing memo for that hearing highlighted the reporting center in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. And the center said this: It was a community-based correctional program that has been designed to provide services for its participants at one location.

This is the exact type of program outlined in H.R. 3372. And indeed the center's program received a grant from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance.

In fact, the name of that grant is Smart Supervision: Reducing Prison Populations, Saving Money, and Creating Safer Communities.

H.R. 3372 is duplicative of efforts found in the Second Chance Act under which nonprofit entities are eligible for grant funds. While we want successful reentry programs to reduce recidivism, we should not be creating duplicative and additional bureaucracy in the process.

Also, the bill encourages State, Indian Tribes, and local governments to employ sex offenders, murderers, and human traffickers, and other dangerous criminals to operate the reentry service assistance hotlines.

H.R. 3372 authorizes $7.5 million in grants to States, Indian Tribes, and local governments to operate these reentry service assistance hotlines that direct individuals to local reentry services.

It requires the Attorney General to give preference to applicants who would employ people to operate the hotlines, ``who have been convicted of an offense or have served a term of imprisonment and have completed any court-ordered supervision. But the bill provides no exceptions for violent offenders, such as sex offenders, murderers, human traffickers, and other dangerous criminals.

While it might be appropriate to employ certain offenders who have demonstrated full rehabilitation, Congress should not be incentivizing local communities to hire certain offenders who may not have been rehabbed.

What should we be doing? Spending our time, our limited time, in addressing the rampant crime epidemic in America. Cities are rejecting lenient, soft-on-crime policies and encouraging prosecutors to actually enforce the law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a respected member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out there is nothing in the bill that requires that you screen these individuals. It says you are supposed to hire these folks with that past criminal record to answer the hotlines. That is what the bill says. If you want to amend it to say no, that they have to be screened even more before you let them answer the phones, that is not what the legislation says.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Again, I would just point out that that is not what the legislation says. It says the Attorney General shall give preference for hiring folks, that I described in my opening statement, to answer these hotlines.

So what the gentlewoman from Texas, my friend, said is just not accurate. It doesn't reflect what is in the bill itself.

That's not the first thing she said today that is not accurate. Earlier, the gentlewoman made a statement. I wrote it down: Isolated programs will not help Americans.

How do you know?

Which isolated programs are you talking about?

I assume you were talking about the one I referenced in Pennsylvania that is doing exactly the same thing this bill seeks to do.

Have you checked that program out?

If they don't help Americans, then whom do they help?

Are they helping illegal immigrants?

I don't know.

Again, all I am saying is it is important when we have these debates we stick to the facts.

For the reasons I outlined before, Mr. Speaker, we oppose the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, it requires the Department of Justice to issue a report. Seeing how the Department of Justice is already doing what is authorized in this bill, it would be kind of nice, frankly, to have this report done before we spend an additional $59 million over the next several years.

Mr. Speaker, for the reason we outlined against the legislation itself--it is redundant, it allows people with a violent past to work at these facilities, and it actually encourages them to be the preference for answering the hotlines at these facilities, and for those reasons we are opposed to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, sexual misconduct is terrible and it is wrong. Those who engage in it should be held accountable. But this bill, while well intentioned, is misguided.

For starters, it is a massive Federal overreach. It regulates contract law that has been and should be handled at the State level. Some States have decided to regulate confidentiality clauses in contracts. Others have decided not to. That is how our system of government works. That is how our Constitution works, States experimenting to find out what, in fact, works best.

However, this bill creates a new Federal floor that undercuts the power of States in the process. This is just the beginning of a new push by Democrats to chip away at States' rights.

The White House said as much this week. In commenting on the bill, the Biden administration said it ``Looks forward to continuing to work with the Congress to advance broader legislation that addresses a range of issues implicated in NDAs and nondisparagement clauses.''

They are not hiding the ball here. Federalism is a serious issue, and Congress should not be taking power from the States just to impose its top-down approach.

Additionally, we should take a hard look at the findings included in the bill as passed by the Senate. House Democrats intentionally left these findings out of the version of the bill that the Committee on the Judiciary marked up. These findings include statistics about the percentage of men and women who have experienced some form of sexual harassment or sexual assault in their lifetime. It is not clear where these statistics and new findings come from, but they seem to rely on a study that uses a broad definition of sexual harassment, very broad, that included instances of ``misgendering'' as sexual harassment. That definition goes way beyond existing law.

A finding of Congress that effectively treats ``misgendering'' on its own as a form of sexual harassment will doubtlessly lead to future efforts to expand the law in other ways. If Democrats are going to include findings like this, they should at least have to debate it in the committee. We should think carefully about these findings before cementing them in Federal law.

Finally, this bill, as drafted, is too broad and will affect contractual matters completely unrelated to sexual misconduct. A confidentiality clause may cover a wide range of information. When the bill applies, it nullifies the entire confidentiality clause, with just a few poorly defined exceptions.

As such, it will give trial lawyers an incentive to add unsupported allegations in litigation so they can void a confidentiality clause and access and use confidential information unrelated to the sexual misconduct.

We all condemn sexual harassment and sexual assault, but this is a flawed bill, and it is going to create problems down the road.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my friend and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, Marion Technical College in Marion, Ohio, will hold a ceremony on Thursday, November 17, to mark the induction of its 2022 Alumni Hall of Fame class. I am honored to commend to the House this year's inductees:

Tammi Cowell, MTC Class of 1991, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer at Tri-Rivers Career Center.

John ``Tom'' Gleespen, MTC Class of 1975, President of Gleespen Engineering and Surveying.

Sue Jacob, MTC Class of 1981, retired River Valley School District educator.

Darl Snyder, MTC Class of 1983, Territory Manager for 2J Supply Company.

Selection for the Hall of Fame is a high honor accorded to only a small number of alumni each year. To be considered, alumni must demonstrate excellence in their respective professions and set a positive example for current and future MTC students.

On behalf of the people of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, I am pleased to join in the accolades for these four distinguished alumni as they are inducted into the Marion Technical College Alumni Hall of Fame.

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

Mr. Speaker, the families of the 9/11 victims have our deepest sympathies. They have spent the last 20 years seeking justice through a maze of red tape.

Due to errors made with how funds to compensate victims were structured, a disparity emerged between the compensation received by differently situated 9/11 families. This legislation would help remedy that inequity.

Behind the scenes, we have been working to solve this problem for years. Unfortunately, the Democrats have not been particularly interested. During the last few years of trying to resolve this matter, the Judiciary Committee has not held a single hearing or markup to evaluate the problems with victims funds or how to best address the problem.

In fact, according to a GAO study required by Congress, the shortfall owed to 9/11 families amounts to $2.7 billion. The proposal before us takes from COVID relief money that Congress appropriated for small businesses to make 9/11 families whole.

There are potential solutions to this problem that we should have put forward earlier. Unfortunately, because Chairman Nadler has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to consider these other possibilities, we are left with just the bill before us today.

I do think it is important to recognize that we are here today thanks to the hard work of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I know Congresswoman Malliotakis and Congressman Smith have been working tirelessly on this during this entire Congress. It would have been nice to have their bill before our committee for some debate. We never would have gotten to a place of finding a solution for these victims without their tireless efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been representing the good folks of his State for over four decades here in the United States Congress and who has worked tirelessly on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), who has worked so hard on this issue this entire Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' While parts of this bill have some support, the package before us today does nothing but empower the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.

Why would we support more funding for unaccountable officials in the Biden administration, particularly these two agencies, the Department of Justice, in light of what we have seen from them over the past several months?

Time and time again, they have weaponized that agency to go after the American people.

Now, some are asserting that oh, no, this wouldn't give more money to the bureaucracy. But this is the kind of Washington budget gimmick that the swamp uses to grow government all the time.

In the majority's own committee report on the bill they acknowledge ``the updated fee structure would provide the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission with additional resources to review mergers and enforce the antitrust laws; more money for Merrick Garland and the DOJ to harass the American people.

Even proponents of the bill are talking about how this would get resources to the agencies while saying it doesn't include an appropriation. This logic is laughable.

We know where this money is going. In fact, the chairman of the committee said in his opening remarks that the DOJ and FTC are ``in desperate need of more resources.'' We know where this money is going, $280 million, $140 million to each agency, every single year.

Congress has already appropriated money to hire 87,000 new IRS agents, and now we are going to give hundreds of millions of dollars to the DOJ and the FTC. Such a deal for the taxpayer. Where does it stop?

If you want to do something about Big Tech, this bill is not the vehicle. A bill that empowers these two agencies to, I think, collude with Big Tech to come after conservatives is not the way to go. I hope we can vote this down.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I will respond to the gentlewoman from California. I appreciate the fact that she is a ``no'' on this bill, but I think her logic is all wrong. This bill would actually give $140 million to the DOJ so they can continue to do what they are already doing, work with Big Tech to censor certain information from getting to we the people.

Why do I say that? Because we know it happened. Just a month ago, Mark Zuckerberg said the FBI came and told him not to allow the story about Hunter Biden's laptop to be on their platform. They gave him the old wink-wink, oh, we think this is Russian disinformation, which we know it wasn't. Now, we are going to give that agency $140 million more to go collude with Big Tech to keep we the people from getting valuable information before the most important election that we have, the election of the Commander in Chief of our country?

That is why this thing is so scary and why we should be against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to comments made by my friend from Colorado. He used the term ``overcooked theory.'' Let me tell you what is not theory.

The Department of Justice's raid on a former President's home. Not theory.

The Department of Justice taking the phone of a sitting Member of this body. Not theory.

Fourteen whistleblowers coming to our office talking about the political nature of the Justice Department. Not theory.

Those are facts. That is scary stuff.

Now this bill, if passed, will give that agency $140 million each year for the next 5 years.

That is what we want to do? For that reason alone, we should be against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), my good friend, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that I find it interesting. First, we had Mr. Cicilline, the chair of the subcommittee say that DOJ and FTC don't get the money. It has to be appropriated next year. But then the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Nadler, said we know how the money is going to be spent. It is going to be spent on antitrust enforcement. It can't be both.

So it can't be both. We know what is going to happen. This money is going to wind up in DOJ and FTC, and we know their track record in how they have been treating the American citizen.

But I find it interesting that the Democrats can't even get their argument straight which just reinforces why this bill should not pass, because in the end it is more money for the Department of Justice--the same Department of Justice that has done their egregious actions over the last several months.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) who is a former judge, a great member of the Judiciary Committee, and a friend of mine.

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

Madam Speaker, concentrated political power: that is what the Department of Justice is doing right now. They are weaponizing the Department of Justice against the American people.

The most concentrated political power--awesome power--you can have is the Federal Government. And I would argue the agency within the Federal Government that is the most dangerous is the Department of Justice, and we are going to give them $140 million more over the next 5 years.

It is amazing. Again, Mr. Cicilline can say what he wants, Madam Speaker, but that is not consistent with what the chairman said. The chairman said that this is going to give more resources to antitrust enforcement.

Here is what the Democrats' own committee report says: ``The upgraded fee structure would provide the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission with additional resources.''

So either Mr. Cicilline is completely wrong, or the majority report is wrong, or the chairman is wrong. Somebody is wrong.

We know what is going to happen. This is the same old game we hear all the time: Oh, it is not really appropriated, but we are charging more money.

It will result in more money coming to the concentrated political power at the Justice Department, but it is really not going to go there.

Give me break. We know where it is going. They have even said it in their own darn committee report.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I just point out that I didn't say that Congress shouldn't appropriate dollars to Federal agencies. What I said is that we shouldn't give more money to the Department of Justice in light of what we have seen them do and in light of what 14 whistleblowers have told us over the last several months what they are up to. That is a completely different point.

I am all for looking for ways to cut certain agencies and reduce Government and the power that they have, but I didn't say that. I just said that we shouldn't be giving them more money, for goodness' sake, in light of what they have been doing. I think that is a pretty reasonable position, and, frankly, I think it is the position the vast majority of the country would have when they look at the actions they have seen from their Department of Justice and the tax money that supports that agency.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would just add I have talked a lot about my concerns with the DOJ in light of what we have seen from that agency, and I think that is the main reason why this bill is so wrong and it should not be supported.

But the FTC is also engaged in all kinds of things that I just think are interesting.

One commissioner said that she supports prioritizing FTC investigations related to ``systemic racism and rulemaking for racist practices.'' A senior FTC adviser who called Kay James, the former head of the Heritage Foundation, she called her a bigot and criticized viewpoint diversity. She is the one who developed FTC policy on AI and discrimination.

Republican Commissioner Wilson described Democrat goals as ``rooted in unified world view that draws heavily on Marxism.''

This is an agency controlled by people who have a radical belief system, radical opinions, and radical political views. Again, not only is the Department of Justice getting $140 million more a year, so is the FTC which is run by people with those kinds of positions.

So, again, I think we don't want to be giving more money to agencies with this kind of track record, particularly, I think, now when the American people are about to speak on whom they want to control their Congress. That is why I think we should vote ``no'' on this legislation, hopefully it goes down, and do the oversight that needs to be done of these two agencies so we can point out the facts and the truth and get that to the American people.

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, the chairman just said that the Democrats have always been for--I think the direct quote was: ``equitable funding for law enforcement.'' That is interesting because, just 2 years ago, here is what the chairman said in June 2020:

There should be substantial cuts to police budgets.

I don't know how you can say you have always been for something when 2 years ago you said that you weren't, but that just seems what Democrats are up to today.

Let's call this package of bills before us today exactly what it is: It is an election year ploy from Democrats to look like they care about funding law enforcement.

In the wake of radical leftwing efforts to defund the police, it is no surprise that violent crime is on the rise in America. Every major urban area has seen a huge uptick in violent crime. It should also be no surprise that Democrats are now trying to run and hide from their radical ideas and dangerous rhetoric.

For more than 2 years, we have seen violent crime surge all across the country, particularly in Democrat-run cities while many of those same Democrats not only advocated for defunding police departments, but they did it. They cut them.

Now, the Democrats want to use Federal tax dollars to paper over the problems they created in their local Democrat-run cities.

These bills do nothing to solve the underlying problem. They simply create more grant programs within the bureaucracy of the Federal Government.

Under current law, there are already grants available to law enforcement to hire personnel. In fact, last year, the Justice Department awarded more than $139 million in grant dollars through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. That money provided funds to 183 law enforcement agencies and allowed them to hire more than 1,000 additional officers.

We don't need more Federal grants so Democrat-run cities can then divert taxpayer money to fund their woke agenda. What we need are prosecutors who are willing to prosecute crimes and jurisdictions with laws that actually keep violent criminals in prison.

Nothing in these bills prevents jurisdictions that choose to defund their police from receiving these grant funds. In fact, when Judiciary Republicans offered an amendment to preclude jurisdictions that defunded their police from receiving grant funds, the Democrats rejected it, and they rejected it unanimously.

Faced with an election just over a month away, House Democrats now want to pretend they actually support law enforcement. The timing of this bill should tell you all you need to know about where Democrat priorities are.

Democrats who are in full control of this body have had 2 years to show their support for law enforcement. Only now, when faced with an impending election, are Democrats beginning to feign support for our men and women in blue.

Democrats could have shown their support for law enforcement. Instead, Democrats passed bills to infringe on Americans' Second Amendment rights, legalize marijuana, and further empower the Biden Justice Department to spy on concerned parents.

These bills are just another admission by Democrats that the defund the police movement is wrong and irresponsible. Perhaps, if the Democrats weren't in a cleanup mode after their irresponsible embrace of defund the police rhetoric, the Judiciary Committee could have had an opportunity to consider and improve most of these bills before they came to the floor. But we didn't. Instead, Democrats are rushing to consider these bills to give themselves some pretense that they support funding the police.

No one is fooled. Americans know where Democrats really stand. Americans aren't buying the Democrats' revisionist history. They have seen years of Democrats embracing and supporting the radical defund the police movement. Americans know that the Democrats are the party of soaring crime and defunding the police.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear. The Democrats want to go from COPS to community organizers, and they want the American taxpayer to pay for it. That is what they want to do in Democrat-run cities.

Mr. Speaker, read the bill. It talks about stipends to be used for graduate education or social work. That is what the bill is for. It is not about putting cops on the street. It is about transferring wealth from the people who funded their police and communities around the country, who funded their police, and giving American tax dollars to cities who didn't fund their police so they can use it for community organizers.

That is what this bill is about. That is why we are against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what my distinguished colleague and chairman of the committee was referring to there, but I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I would just add this: One of the phrases we heard from the Democrats over the last couple of years is ``reimagined policing.''

Well, now we know what they mean. Now we get it. They want to take money from communities who funded their police and give it to communities who didn't, so they can get past this whole defund the police that has been their mantra for the last couple years.

In fact, as I said before, I am surprised by some of the statements I have heard from the chairman of the committee, because as I said, in June of 2020--and it is a direct quote--``There should be substantial cuts to the police budget. . . . `'--by Mr. Nadler.

Now he has got a bill that supposedly, they are saying, funds the police, but we know it doesn't. It takes money from communities I get the privilege of representing in west central Ohio who never, never defunded their police. They made sure the men and women in blue got the resources they needed to protect their communities.

And now the Democrats are saying: We want to take taxpayer dollars from those communities and set up these grant programs so we can give it to social workers. This is straight from the bill, so we can give ``a stipend to be used for graduate education in the area of mental health, public health, or social work. . . . `'

That is what they want the money to be used for, not for the people who are stopping the crime that is happening in every major urban area around the country.

That is why we are opposed to this legislation. I hope it goes down.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), my friend and colleague, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I would say, if this bill was so important-- we have had over 20 markups in the Judiciary Committee--why didn't this bill come up? We have had markups in the last 2 days on one occasion, so I don't know why this bill didn't come up.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is about giving dollars to community organizers. This bill is most definitely--$5 billion goes to Health and Human Services, $1.5 billion goes to the Department of Labor, zero money goes to law enforcement.

In the last bill, they could at least make that case somewhat. This bill you can't. It doesn't give one penny to law enforcement. In fact, the legislation explicitly says it can't go to police officers and it can't go to police departments.

But what it does do is this: sets up an Office of Community Violence Intervention to administer programs or activities related to violence intervention; it sets up a Community Violence Intervention Advisory Committee; it sets up a National Community Violence Response Center. Three new bureaucracies in the Department of HHS. I mean, wow.

This is all about taking money, taking American tax dollars from communities who did fund their police and setting up three new bureaucracies, $5 billion for community organizers.

If that is what you are for, vote for it, but I sure ain't. I know the folks I represent and, I would guess, most Americans aren't for that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for reasons we have articulated on the previous bills, we oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my friend and colleague and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 3103 eliminates the statute of limitations for a minor victim of a human trafficking offense or a Federal sex offense, to file a civil action to recover damages.

Studies indicate that many of these crimes go unreported or victims sometimes wait years to disclose their abuse to others under current law. A victim may file a Federal civil claim up until when the victim reaches the age of 28 or up to 10 years after the discovery of the violation or injury.

This legislation would allow victims of human trafficking or sex offenses to seek civil remedies regardless of when the crime took place.

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

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