Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation extends the authorization for a special assessment for the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund for 19 days. The special assessment is a $5,000 fine levied against someone convicted of certain Federal trafficking and sexual abuse offenses. These offenses include human smuggling, human trafficking, and sexual abuse of minors, among others.

This $5,000 fine is in addition to other restitution or compensation that offenders might be forced to pay, such as court-ordered fines, orders of restitution, and other fines related to victim compensation.

Of course, an additional $5,000 fine can never adequately deter criminals from committing these heinous acts. A much more effective solution would be to make it more difficult for criminals to traffic and smuggle people across our borders in the first place.

Unfortunately, House Democrats are flat-out unwilling to do anything to stop the Biden border crisis. For 21 months, we have seen how dangerous criminals have exploited our open borders to smuggle people and drugs, particularly fentanyl, into our country.

The blame for the border crisis, and also our crime crisis, lies squarely at the feet of the radical left's agenda and their anti-law enforcement agenda.

House Republicans are more than willing to increase penalties for human trafficking and human smuggling, but the House can and should do much more to address the catastrophic border crisis caused by President Biden's failures.

Literally, in 20 months, we have gone from a secure border to no border. It would help if we actually had a border again to deal with these issues that we are discussing here today.

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

Madam Speaker, fifty-three years ago this summer, Commander Neil Armstrong and his Apollo 11 crewmates achieved something once thought impossible: Successfully landing on the moon and returning safely to Earth. They succeeded despite the life-threatening dangers they faced and the countless things that could have gone wrong during their mission.

I am especially honored to represent Neil Armstrong's birthplace: Wapakoneta, Ohio, which takes great pride in being the home of the Armstrong Air and Space Museum. Proposed by then-Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes and built with matching funds from area residents, the museum opened on July 20, 1972--three years to the day after the historic first moon landing.

Now under the stewardship of the non-profit Armstrong Air and Space Museum Association, the museum has expanded through the last half- century to celebrate not just the career of Neil Armstrong but also the contributions of many other Ohioans to aviation and space exploration.

This year's Summer Moon Festival, held from July 12 to July 17, featured several special events at the museum in celebration of its anniversary--including meet-and-greets with astronauts, new displays of artifacts from the museum's opening, and a drivable lunar rover replica. A July 20 gala at the museum was headlined by Larry Connor of Dayton, Axiom Mission 1 astronaut and founder and managing partner of The Connor Group.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, I thank the staff and countless supporters of the Armstrong Air and Space Museum for their ongoing work to celebrate the life and lasting impact of Neil Armstrong, a man who ``took a small step but left a giant legacy.''

Madam Speaker, who are they going to harass? Who are these thousands of IRS bureaucrats, leftwing bureaucrats, Lois Lerners at the IRS, who are they going to harass? Middle-class families.

We know who it is going to be. It is that assistant football coach at the local high school who teaches history and who has this side business. He mows lawns in the summer. He paints houses in the summer. He pays his taxes, but he is going to get harassed.

We know how this works. We have seen it before.

This bill raises taxes. It creates a whole new bureaucracy to go after taxpayers. Such a deal, using your tax money to come after you, the taxpayer. Such a deal for the taxpayer.

My guess is they will all be working remotely. They won't have to pay the $5 to drive to work like people in our districts do. They will be working remotely, drinking their fancy coffee, going after the guy who is helping kids and has this side business in the summer. That is who this is going to come after, and we all know it. Everyone knows it. The country knows it.

This is disgusting. I hope y'all vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, for years, the Democrats told us: We are not coming for your guns.

Oh, yes, they are.

Let's be clear. The Second Amendment is as clear as possible. That is their beef. The Second Amendment says: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But they don't care.

In fact, the sponsor of this legislation said so in committee. He said: ``Spare me the BS about constitutional rights.'' They don't care about that fundamental liberty law-abiding citizens in this country enjoy, and they are coming for your firearms.

Six weeks ago, it was the red flag law, where someone who doesn't like you can report you to law enforcement or to a judge. There is a hearing that you can't be at, your counsel can't be present, you haven't been charged with a crime, but they can take your firearm, they can take your property, they can take away your Second Amendment liberties, and then you have to petition for a subsequent hearing to get that right back. And you have done nothing wrong and have not been charged with a crime.

Then House Democrats passed the unconstitutional legislation that said 18- to 20-year-olds can't purchase a firearm. They can fight for our country, but they can't purchase a firearm. And today they are coming for your guns, 24 million of them.

That is right, 24 million AR-style rifles are in the hands of law- abiding Americans today, as we speak, and those individuals will not be able to sell or transfer that property.

In the Heller case, the Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use at the time. During the markup, Representative Bishop asked the chairman: ``Is it the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?'' And the chairman said: ``The problem is that they are in common use.''

So, yes, this is the goal. This is why it is unconstitutional. Couldn't be any clearer. Democrats don't care what the Constitution says.

Fortunately, courts are correctly applying the Constitution. Last week, a Federal District Court judge in Colorado, who was appointed by President Obama, issued a temporary restraining order against the Town of Superior, Colorado, to prevent it from implementing an assault weapon ban.

The judge wrote: Plaintiffs have stated that semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and, therefore, cannot be banned.

And guess what this bill will do? It won't make communities safer. It won't make them safer at all. In fact, in the Heller case, the Supreme Court said: The Second Amendment protects firearms in common use at the time and also said ``for lawful purposes like self-defense.''

Three weeks ago, July 7, 2022, a Florida homeowner used his AR-style rifle when individuals forcibly entered his home. After the homeowner opened fire, the individuals immediately fled. When asked if the homeowner would face charges, the Escambia County Sheriff Chip Simmons said: Absolutely not. The homeowner is protecting himself. And in Florida, you can do that. You can protect yourself.

Democrats tried this ban before. It didn't work. It won't work now.

You know what it will do? It will make communities, I think, less safe. What will make communities safer, though, is if Democrats stop defunding the police, stop cashless bail, and start prosecuting criminals. They are taking away firearms used for self-defense by law- abiding Americans.

This bill is wrong. It will make communities, I think, less safe, and it is unconstitutional.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, here is the fact. This bill is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court made clear the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use. This bill has eight pages of weapons and firearms that it bans, including 24 million firearms that law- abiding American citizens possess today. That is the fact.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), the chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

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

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

We haven't said the Second Amendment was unlimited. We quoted the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment which the Supreme Court has said protects firearms in common use. Twenty-four million Americans have these weapons. That is most certainly common use.

The fact that the chair of the Judiciary Committee says, I don't care, we are going to do it even though we know it is unconstitutional, that is just wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), my friend.

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

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

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

I would just say, if the gentlewoman from Ohio wants to come to the Fourth District of Ohio and debate me on the Second Amendment, I would welcome her to come to my district anytime she wants to. She can stand here and lecture all she wants, but I would welcome her to come to my district. I would be happy to debate her.

My guess is the constituents I get the privilege of representing, most of them probably agree with me and agree with the United States Constitution.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, red flag laws take all guns from some people. This bill makes illegal some guns for all people, and we know where they want to go. We know what they want to do. They want to take all guns from all people because they can't stand the Second Amendment. They hate the Second Amendment.

In fact, during the markup, the sponsor of the legislation said this: ``Spare me the BS about constitutional rights.''

Well, Republicans care about law-abiding citizens' constitutional liberties: Their First Amendment rights, their Second Amendment rights, their Fourth Amendment due process rights. All of those have been attacked by the Democrats over the last several months.

That is why we should vote ``no'' on this legislation and let law- abiding Americans have the respect for the Second Amendment they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, 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, we thought the Democrats were obsessed with President Trump, but Justice Thomas is a close second. This bill is simply the latest installment of the Democrats' campaign to delegitimize and attempt to intimidate the United States Supreme Court.

It started when President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh--that was just too much for the left to bear--and they launched a smear campaign in an attempt to derail his nomination.

Then we saw Senator Schumer stand on the steps--remember, a leader in the legislative branch--stand on the steps of the Supreme Court, a separate and equal branch of government, and threaten Supreme Court Justices. He said: I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you've released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Just last month, a crazed individual attempted to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh in his home. An assassination attempt on a sitting Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

For months, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have pursued this narrative that the Supreme Court is somehow illegitimate. Members of the committee, including the chairman, have introduced a bill to pack the Court to add four associate Justices to our highest court.

The committee has held hearings that can only be interpreted as an attempt to lay the groundwork for an effort to impeach Justice Thomas. Today, the Democrats bring forward a bill that is completely unnecessary.

Why are the Democrats going down this path?

Because, frankly, they have nothing else. We are debating this bill today because it is July of an election year and inflation is at a level not seen in 40 years. It is the highest inflation rate in 41 years. The price of gas, the price of food, the price of daily necessities have skyrocketed. We are debating this bill today because illegal immigration is at unprecedented levels.

Last month, Customs and Border Patrol reported that we have already surpassed the prior years' total for encounters at our southern border, and we still have 3 months left in the fiscal year.

We are debating this bill today because they can't talk about the fact that our country is gripped by an epidemic of violent crime in every major urban area in this country. Every day, Americans are being assaulted, robbed, and murdered in our cities.

We are here because the Democrats have no answers and desperately hope that a manufactured crisis will help them in November. The Democrats want Americans to believe that the Supreme Court at any moment could step in and overturn its opinions in Obergefell and Loving--that is simply not true.

The very decision that Democrats say creates this threat explicitly denies it--explicitly disclaims it. Here is what the court said in the Dobbs decision. The Dobbs decision should not be misunderstood, mischaracterized to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

The court condemned the idea that the Dobbs decision would lead to an overturning of other cases, stating, ``Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil other rights.''

It is this unfounded fear that brings us here today. We are here for a charade; we are here for political messaging. The Democrats can't run on their disastrous record, they can't run on any accomplishments. It is less than 4 months before an election and all Democrats can do is stoke unfounded fears, and so that is why we are here with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can defeat it. I hope it doesn't pass. As I said, it is unnecessary and wrong. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman used the word ``violence.'' Violence? Fifty crisis pregnancy centers and churches have been attacked in the last 11 weeks--50 in 11 weeks. Think about that.

As I said in my opening statement, the leader of the Senate stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and said to two specific Justices: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. The Speaker of this body waited 4 weeks to give protection to Supreme Court Justices' families after the left had posted online where her kids go to school, where their family attends church on Sunday morning. And in that interim, during that time after that bill had come out of the Senate unanimously, we had the assassination attempt on one of the Justices-- one of the very Justices that the Senate Democrat leader had referenced in his comments on the steps of the Supreme Court.

And, of course, the Attorney General of the United States refuses to prosecute anyone who has protested at those Justices' homes in direct violation of the statute while the case was still pending in front of the court. Directly on point.

So concerns of violence--yeah, we all have concerns. She is right about one thing: We all have concerns about violence. But I just want everyone to understand what is going on as we speak. Fifty pregnancy centers and churches in 11 weeks. I don't know if we have ever seen anything like that--that kind attack on the pro-life community.

Even so much that a witness who came in front of our committee for the second time--she was here a few months ago and came back the second time. The second time she had to bring security with her because of threats against her life.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), my good friend and the ranking member on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

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

The chairman of the full committee is right. This legislation would, in fact, codify Obergefell. But what it would also do is reverse the law in 35 States, where those States have said, marriage should be what--you know--traditional marriage. In fact, in 30 of those 35 States, the people of those respective States went to the ballot and voted for that.

So let's be clear. He is right. You can codify what the Court said in that decision, but it would undo what the people in the respective States, 35 States, either in 5 of those States through their elected Representatives in the legislature, or in 30 of those States where the people went to the voting booth and voted, it would undo that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House just said, ``Republicans knew the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional when they passed it.''

Did the 118 Democrats who voted for that legislation know the same thing? Did the President of the United States, President Clinton, when he signed it into law, did he know it was unconstitutional?

I mean, I have heard some ridiculous things said on the House floor in my time here in the United States Congress, but that one--that one-- was right up there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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, as I said at the outset and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) have said, we think this legislation is unnecessary.

Justice Alito was very clear--again, it has been read several times-- the Dobbs decision should not be misunderstood or mischaracterized to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

The Court couldn't have been clearer. The Obergefell decision undid what 35 States have as law in their respective States. Thirty of those States it was the vote of the people, as I said before. But this legislation is going to, I guess, just go after the decision of the respective States, and, as I said, the voters in those States.

I think it is also, as we have indicated, a further effort to intimidate the Court. We have had Senator Schumer's statements on the Supreme Court steps, we have had the AG's inaction with regard to protestors at Justices' homes, and, of course, we have had the Democrats' introduction of a bill to add four Associate Justices to the Supreme Court to pack the Court, and not focus on some of the things that are so pressing.

I mean, Mr. Johnson was right when he talked about 50 attacks on churches and pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in 11 weeks. That last clause is important. In that short a time frame, that sustained effort by the left to go after the pro-life community and places of worship is as wrong as it gets. I would love to have a hearing on that issue and what actions we might be able to take to help stop that because that is not supposed to happen in our great country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we debated this exact bill 3 weeks ago, and it failed with bipartisan opposition. That is right. Even Democrats voted against it.

The Active Shooter Alert Act is an unnecessary gimmick to cede more authority to the already highly politicized Biden Department of Justice.

States already utilize emergency alert systems to warn the public about natural and human-made disasters, extreme weather events, active shooter situations, and other emergencies. Federal, State, and local officials already use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, IPAWS, to send emergency alerts to mobile devices and to alert media platforms.

According to a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office, every State has at least one alerting authority, and there were more than 1,400 alerting authorities across the country.

If the States are already using an alerting system to notify the public about threats, what is this bill really doing?

This bill is creating a new Federal job at the Biden Justice Department to encourage State and local governments to issue public alerts any time a firearm is used anywhere. Don't take my word for it. During the markup, Congressman Jones said that this bill would be most effective at reminding us that the threat of gun violence exists all around us, but it does little to actually protect us from it.

That is right. This bill is about Democrat fearmongering that guns are an ever-present threat and we cannot be safe until Big Government rounds up every last one of them.

In fact, Congressman Jones went further, calling the committee to consider another bill that would ban assault weapons. Chairman Nadler followed by voicing his support.

It is no wonder Democrats want to push forward a bill that would create a reminder about this threat of gun violence against us. They want to create a culture of fear so they can achieve their ultimate goal. If they really

wanted to improve emergency alerts for active shooters, we would be moving a bill to improve the system that is already in place that are sent to mobile devices.

In a recent report, GAO stated that the local alerting officials had expressed concerns about the inability to target WEA alerts with accuracy which made local officials reluctant to use the system at all.

For example, GAO found that one alerting authority sent an alert to a specific geographic area to warn the recipients about a suspicious package, but the alert was received by people located 4 miles outside of the intended target area.

Another concern is that these alerts are one-way communication systems so alerting officials have no way of knowing if the messages are actually received by the public. GAO has also found that another local alerting authority sent an evacuation order through an alert but didn't know whether the intended recipients actually even received that notice.

Utilizing these alerts for active shooter incidents could have tragic consequences. This is yet another reason this legislation should not have been rushed to the floor without going through regular committee order. We could have had hearings, we could have received expert testimony, and we could have been able to fully vet this initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just add that the gentleman said it has nothing to do with the Biden Justice Department. Well, it certainly does. It gives $2 million to the Biden Justice Department to create a program the States can already do. This is the same Biden Justice Department that is the most political Justice Department we have ever seen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume while I am waiting because I have one more speaker who would like to weigh in.

As has been said, this bill is redundant. States can already do it if they so choose. This bill is part of a series of legislation that the Democrats have passed that attacks law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment liberties.

We know what happened a few weeks ago with the red flag law that was passed by this body. Someone doesn't like you, and they go to law enforcement or they go to a judge. There is a hearing. You are not allowed to be at the hearing. You are not allowed to have your lawyer at the hearing. You are not allowed to confront your accuser. You haven't been charged with a crime, but they can take your gun, take your property, take away your Second Amendment right, and then

you have to go petition the court to get it back.

This bill gives $2 million to the Department of Justice. I mean, giving more money to the Justice Department, the most politicized Justice Department I have ever seen, the same Justice Department where over a dozen whistleblowers have come to our office talking about concerns they have with investigations that the FBI and the Justice Department are doing, the same Justice Department that treated parents as domestic terrorists for simply showing up at school board meetings and voicing concerns about the curriculum being taught to their children, that Justice Department, we are giving more money to do this program?

The same Justice Department that, sad to say, has joined the effort by the left to intimidate the Court, our highest Court in the land, we are giving money to that Justice Department?

Make no mistake, this Justice Department has done that by their failure to enforce the statute to protect our Supreme Court Justices. When people are protesting at their home, trying to impact and intimidate the Court, this Justice Department refused to deal with the statute that is exactly on point. We are giving money to that Justice Department.

So for all those reasons, we have real concerns with this legislation, and I would urge opposition to the bill.

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, let me first say, God bless the United States Supreme Court. And God bless President Trump for the people he selected for our highest court. Today's decision is a win for the Constitution and a win for the sanctity of human life. June 24, 2022, a date that will be remembered as a win for the sacredness of human life.

Now this bill. Mr. Speaker, the rights spelled out in the First Amendment and protected by the Second Amendment are why the United States is different than every other country. It is why we are special. It is why we are the greatest Nation in history.

For 18 months, the Democrats have attacked our First Amendment liberties. Today, they are coming after our Second Amendment liberties. And who knows what it will be tomorrow. I can only imagine.

My guess is, in light of the decision yesterday from Justice Thomas, the decision today from the Court, my guess is they are going to look to pack the Court. The Democrat chair of the Committee on the Judiciary has already introduced legislation to pack the Court.

It might be amnesty for the 2 million illegal immigrants who have come into our country in the Biden administration. They told us they want to end the electoral college and the filibuster--and who knows what it will be tomorrow. But today, they are coming after law-abiding American citizens' Second Amendment liberties.

Understand what this legislation does. This legislation tells States: Someone who doesn't like you can report you to law enforcement or to a judge. There will be a hearing, a hearing where you can't be at, your lawyer can't be at, you can't confront your accuser. You didn't commit any crime, but they can take your property. They can take your guns. They can take away your Second Amendment rights. And then you have to petition to have a subsequent hearing where you get them back. That is what this legislation does.

And understand this, and this is so important. This is not being done in a vacuum. Understand what we have seen from the left and how they have weaponized a government against their political enemies.

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, it was the IRS targeting conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago, it was the FBI spying on President Trump's campaign.

More recently, it was the Department of Justice using counterterrorism measures against moms and dads.

Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security set up the Disinformation Governance Board; going to chill everyone's speech. Today, they are coming after your Second Amendment liberties.

Here is the good news: Yesterday, the Supreme Court got it right. They got it right when it came to the Second Amendment. We should celebrate that. I hope that this bill doesn't pass. It seems like it is going to, but I hope it doesn't.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what saves lives. The decision we got from the Supreme Court today saves lives. This bill takes rights away from law-abiding citizens, their Second Amendment liberties. That is the key distinction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

We sure aren't the same, Mr. Speaker. We actually think you should protect the sanctity of human life, and we so appreciate the decision from the Court today. We don't think you should take away rights from law-abiding American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

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 yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.

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

Mr. Speaker, experience has taught me when you have to say a bill is constitutional, it is probably not. When you have to say a bill adheres to due process, it probably doesn't. And this bill certainly doesn't.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Proponents say that this bill doesn't violate due process. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You haven't been charged with a crime, but there is a hearing, a hearing that you are not allowed to be at. You can't be present at a hearing where you don't have a lawyer and a hearing where a judge can take your property.

Again, just to underscore this, you haven't been charged with a crime, but there is a hearing where your property and your rights are at stake.

You are not allowed to be there; your lawyer is not allowed to be there; and you can't confront your accuser. But they can take your gun; they can take your property; and they can take your Second Amendment liberty.

Here is the scariest part of all: As my friend from Kentucky just pointed out, the Democrats say this is just the first step, that this doesn't go far enough. Holy cow. So that kind of proceeding doesn't go far enough when it comes to your Second Amendment liberties?

One of the key things that separates this great Nation from all other countries is how we have due process in our justice system. This bill takes it away. No other way to put it.

You can say all day long that it doesn't violate due process, but as I said just a few minutes ago, every time I hear that, experience has taught me that it most certainly does. When you have to say it, it probably does. In this case, it is certainly violating due process. There are other problems, but for that reason alone, we should vote ``no.''

Again, the scariest thing of all is that they are saying: ``Oh, this is just the first step. This doesn't go far enough.'' Imagine where they want to take us.

Their beef is with the Second Amendment. They want it to go away. Don't let it happen. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, 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, the NDO Fairness Act is a significant step in addressing the government's overreach and abuse of nondisclosure orders, also known as gag orders.

All too often, the government obtains a court order to secretly demand the communications of American citizens from third-party tech companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Verizon. Through these orders, the government blocks these companies from alerting their customers or users that the government is looking through their emails and phone records. In other words, you don't get to know.

The frequency with which the government uses these orders to demand information is shocking. One company received 2,400 to 3,500 orders every year between 2016 and 2021. That is 7 to 10 orders every day-- every single day. Some of those orders do not contain an expiration. That means the government is authorized to spy on Americans' private information indefinitely.

Think about that, Madam Speaker. You may never know that the government accessed and snooped on your most intimate information.

More astoundingly, these nondisclosure orders are often approved by a rubberstamp process for routine investigations without any real showing of the need for secrecy.

This bipartisan bill ensures that our rights enshrined in the Constitution are protected from government overreach. The bill requires courts to issue written decisions as to why orders are necessary. It sets a 60-day limit for such orders and allows providers to challenge unjustified orders in a court of law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the bill is simple. Under current law, it is a crime to issue threats against former Presidents' immediate family and certain other persons.

Specifically, this bill replaces the words ``wife'' and ``widow'' with ``spouse'' and ``surviving spouse.'' Both major parties have had women run for President, and this change makes sense.

But while we are dedicating floor time to consider this minor technical change, President Biden's inflation has hit a 40-year high; his border crisis has left our Nation woefully unsecure; and leftwing defund the police actions have

contributed to a crime wave that is plaguing our cities.

Of course, this bill makes sense. It should be a crime to threaten the President or First Family. No one disagrees with that. But this body needs to get its priorities straight. Where is the legislation to address the crisis at the border, or address the crime wave, or to do anything meaningful about inflation or the price at the pump?

The bill is fine, but I hope that House Democrats will spend some time addressing the real issues that face the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

The Active Shooter Alert Act is unnecessary. It gives more authority to the Biden Justice Department, the most political Justice Department in history.

States already utilize emergency alert systems to warn the public about natural and human-made disasters, extreme weather events, active shooter situations, and other emergencies. Federal, State, and local officials already use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System to send emergency alerts to mobile devices and to alert media platforms.

According to a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office, every State has at least one alerting authority, and there are more than 1,400 alerting authorities across the country.

If the States are already using an alerting system to notify the public about imminent threats, what is this bill really doing? What is this bill really about? This bill is creating a new Federal job at the Biden DOJ to encourage State and local governments to issue public alerts any time a firearm is used to threaten anyone anywhere.

Don't take my word for it. During the markup, Congressman Jones admitted that:

This bill would be most effective at reminding us that the

threat of gun violence exists all around us, but it does

little to actually protect us from it.

That is right. This bill is about Democrat fear-mongering that guns are ever-present threats, and we cannot be safe until Big Government rounds up every last gun.

In fact, Congressman Jones went further and called on the committee to consider another bill that would ban assault weapons. The Democrat chair of the committee followed up by voicing his support for that very concept.

No wonder the Democrats want to push forward a bill that will create a reminder that ``the threat of gun violence exists all around us.'' They want to create a culture of fear so they can achieve their ultimate goal, which is getting rid of the Second Amendment.

If they really wanted to improve emergency alerts for active shooters, we would be moving a bill to improve the IPAWS wireless emergency alerts that are sent to mobile devices.

In a recent report, GAO stated that local alerting officials had expressed concerns about the inability to target WEA alerts with accuracy, which made local officials reluctant to even use the system at all.

They have got a system out there. Let's improve the system and alert people to emergencies, not have legislation that is about ultimately undermining the Second Amendment.

We could have had hearings. We could have received expert testimony. We could have been able to fully vet this initiative. This legislation is simply another failed attempt by Democrats to ``do something'' about the surge in violence and crime across the country.

If we need to do something, we should start by supporting law enforcement and the rule of law instead of demonizing our police and actively encouraging illegal entry into this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would point out, we are not trying to hide behind the Second Amendment--we are trying to defend it. We are defending it.

It is an important part of our Bill of Rights, an important part of our Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), no better defender of the Second Amendment, and the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Speaker, such irony. Democrats lecturing Republicans on law enforcement and respect for law enforcement. This from the party who spent an entire summer talking about defunding the police, who had elected officials in this body, Democrats in this body, raise money to bail out the rioters and looters who they called peaceful protesters who were attacking police, and now he is going to lecture Republicans on respect for law enforcement. I mean, you can't make it up. This is how the Democrats operate today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

First, as the gentleman from North Carolina said, this bill is redundant. There are 1,400 alerting authorities across the country that already alert citizens in those communities to an active shooter, so it is redundant.

Second, it does seek to undermine the Second Amendment. Don't take my word for it. Take one of the Democrat supporters of the legislation on the Judiciary Committee. Here is what he said:

This bill would be most effective at reminding us that the

threat of gun violence exists all around us, but it does

little to actually protect us.

You have to view it in context. Remember, the last 4 weeks, all Democrats have talked about is taking away people's Second Amendment liberties.

We have this huge debate going on in the Senate right now, red flag laws where you have no due process. Someone who doesn't like you comes and says, ``We are going to take away so-and-so's firearm,'' and goes to a judge or law enforcement to take away their firearm. There is a hearing you are not allowed to be at. They take it away, and then you have to go get it back. Your fundamental liberty, taking your property, your rights from you, this is the context with which they bring this legislation.

The third reason, I don't know who in their right mind would want to give the Department of Justice more authority in light of what we have seen from this Department of Justice. Frankly, I don't know why you would give any Democrat-run Department of Justice more authority after what we have seen from the Obama Justice Department and now what we see from the Biden Justice Department.

The Obama Justice Department spied on Presidential campaigns. The Biden Department of Justice is treating moms and dads as terrorists, using domestic terrorism, counterterrorism measures, the PATRIOT Act, against parents, for goodness sakes.

We know that because we have had multiple FBI agents come forward as whistleblowers and tell us about the

over two dozen investigations into parents. One of those parents was investigated simply because they owned a firearm. That is the context and why we have concerns with this legislation.

I hope we vote ``no'' on this. More importantly, I hope the Senate doesn't pass this package they are talking about, which would certainly undermine liberties of law-abiding American citizens.

Madam Speaker, 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, why did it take so long? Why did it take so long to bring this legislation to the floor? It has been over a month since the leak of the draft opinion, over a month of threats on Supreme Court Justices and their families, over a month of protests at their homes. Why did it take so long? I mean, the protests at their homes are a direct violation of the law, 18 U.S.C. section 1507. Over a month.

It has been over a week, or actually a week, since an assassination attempt on a Supreme Court Justice, on Justice

Kavanaugh. Think about that for a second. An assassination attempt on a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice.

And what did the Speaker of the House say last week? No one is in danger. No rush on this legislation. No concern here.

The Senate passed this bill a month ago. Why hasn't the House? Why did it take so long? I think the answer is obvious. Because they have always wanted to intimidate the Court. That has been their goal since the get-go. Their goal was to intimidate the Court. That has been their objective all along.

Think about the history first. We had the Kavanaugh confirmation mess where the left has made up things about Justice Kavanaugh and his family. Then we had the leader of the Senate, the Democrat leader of the Senate on the Supreme Court steps say to two Justices, Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Gorsuch: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.

Last April, the Democrat chair of the Judiciary Committee introduced legislation to do what? To pack the Court, to add four Associate Justices to the United States Supreme Court. Why four? Why not one? Why not two? Why not three? Why four? Because four would give them a majority on the Court.

Then there was the sustained attack on Justice Thomas and his wife over the last several weeks. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee even had hearings about Justice Thomas.

Then, of course, there was the leak of the draft opinion itself, something that has never happened. And then there were the protests at Supreme Court Justices' homes, again in direct violation of the statute.

And then, finally, there was the hearing the Democrats had in the Judiciary Committee about the abortion issue while the Dobbs decision is pending in front of the Court. You remember that hearing. That was the one where the Democrat witness said men could get pregnant. That is the history here.

And then, of course, last week, we had an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh. Intimidation is their goal. It is the same reason the Department of Homeland Security stood up the Disinformation Governance Board. It is the same reason the Department of Justice is targeting parents who have the nerve to show up at a school board meeting and speak up for their kids. It is all about intimidation. That is how the left operates, and we have seen it play out now against the Supreme Court.

But the good news is, finally, this bill is going to pass and give the Justices of the highest Court in our land the protection they and their families deserve. I say better late than never. We support this legislation. It should have passed a darn long time ago.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, that is why Republicans have condemned violence every single time it happened. We condemned it when it happened on January 6. But guess what? We also condemned it when it happened in the summer of 2020.

It hasn't been a few weeks since the leak of the draft opinion. It has been 6 weeks. The Senate passed this legislation unanimously, and they wouldn't bring it up. They wouldn't bring it up. In fact, the Speaker of the House, as I said before, the Speaker of the House said last week there was no need to bring it up, but now we are going to. Thank goodness for that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

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

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

Let me say this. Reading from a headline here, this group, Ruth Sent Us, ``. . . hinted at targeting Supreme Court Justice Barrett's children, church.'' Let me read the headline here. ``Group gave details on Barrett's routine, her children's school, and family's spiritual life.''

In plain English, this group was saying where Justice Coney Barrett goes each day, where her kids go to school, and where her family goes to church. They gave those details.

Last week, the Democrats said no one is in danger. After an assassination attempt on Justice Barrett's colleague, Justice Kavanaugh, they said not to worry. Everything is fine. We don't need to pass this legislation after the Senate had done it unanimously. That is the position of the Democrats in this body.

That is why we are saying: Why did it take so long? Six weeks ago was when the draft leak happened, and the protests started at Justices' homes almost immediately after the leak of that draft, that unprecedented leak of that draft opinion. They have been doing it now for weeks and weeks and weeks.

Here is the email from this organization, this Ruth Sent Us organization. Here is one of the messages: ``If you are in the D.C. metro area, join us. Our protests at Barrett's home moved the needle to this coverage. Falls Church is a People of Praise stronghold. She sends her seven kids to a People of Praise school that she sat on the board of directors for. She attends church daily,'' as if that is bad to go to church daily. I think that is a good thing. But this is what they are saying, this group, giving the details of where her kids go to school, where they go to church, and her daily routine.

And the Democrats said: Nothing to worry about.

That is our concern. So thank goodness this bill is here.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We condemned what took place on January 6. It would have been nice if Democrats would have done the same thing in the summer of 2020 or passed this legislation 6 weeks ago or a month ago when the Senate passed it.

Let me just recite a few things here that have been said by our colleagues on the other side.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2018, at a campaign event in Georgia, to kick Republicans. ``No. No. When they go low, we kick them.'' That is what this new Democratic Party is about.

It sure is. It is all about intimidation: intimidating the court, intimidating parents who have the nerve to show up at school board meetings, setting up a Disinformation Governance Board to intimidate free speech rights of all Americans. That is what the new Democratic Party is about.

We have seen it time and time again. In the summer of 2018, we saw one of our colleagues from California, a Democrat Member, say: Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from the Trump Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, out in a crowd, you create a crowd and push back on them, and you tell them--think about this. This is a Member of Congress saying this to a Cabinet member--you tell them they are

not welcome anymore, anywhere. A Cabinet member of the administration not welcome in their own darn country? That is what a Member of Congress said on the Democrat side.

We had another Member of Congress on the Democrat side say this: There needs to be ``unrest on the streets,'' calling for unrest on the streets while there was unrest on the streets in the summer of 2020.

That is why this legislation is so darn important and why we cannot figure out--the gentleman just said something that wasn't accurate. The Speaker of the House last week said no one is in danger. I just read you what they are posting about Justice Coney Barrett and her family and where they go to church and where her seven kids go to school. Of course, this is in the context of everything they have done to intimidate the Court and an assassination attempt on another Justice, Justice Kavanaugh.

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

Madam Speaker, the employees of the Supreme Court are already protected. This is about protecting the Justices' families, and we know that is needed based on the headline I read and the email that Mr. Bishop just talked about.

The gentleman said that Democrats condemn violence. No, they don't. No, they don't. They called rioters and looters the entire summer of 2020, they called them ``peaceful protestors.'' And that same summer, then-Senator now-Vice President Harris raised money to bail those rioters and looters and people who went after the police out of jail. So you have got to stick with the facts here, and that is just not accurate what was stated earlier.

For all the reasons we have highlighted, Madam Speaker, we are glad this bill is finally going to pass. We just wish it would have happened when it should have, weeks and weeks ago when this threat was first present for Supreme Court Justices.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a talking point? The left is telling people where Justice Barrett's kids go to school. That is not a talking point, that is a fact. That is one of the craziest things I have heard said on this floor.

A talking point? Every single Senator voted for this package. That includes Democrats. Every single one.

A talking point? You have got to be kidding me.

They are reporting where a Supreme Court Justice's kids go to school, where her family goes to church, her daily routine, and the left calls it a talking point?

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have heard time and time again that the Democrats say this is not a violation of due process; not a violation of our constitutional rights. It most certainly is.

Remember the basics here. Someone doesn't like you. They file a complaint. There is a hearing within 24 hours, a hearing that you are not allowed to attend, you are not allowed to be there to face your accusers. The government takes your gun or guns. Several days later there is a real hearing--well, a real hearing with a lower standard. The burden of proof for the government is not beyond a reasonable doubt to deny you your constitutional right. It is a clear and convincing standard. So a lower standard to take away your fundamental liberty when you didn't commit any crime. If that is not a violation of due process, I do not know what is.

Title I of this bill, it will all be administered by the Biden administration Department of Justice, the same Department of Justice that got a letter from a leftwing political organization and, 5 days later, sent a memorandum to every single U.S. attorney in this country saying this: Set up a dedicated line of threat communication on parents; use counterterrorism measures against moms and dads who had the nerve to show up at a school board meeting and speak up for their kid.

Then, 16 days after that memorandum went out, the FBI sends an email out and says: Put a threat tag, a designation, a label, on moms and dads who did show up at school board meetings who someone filed a complaint about on that snitch line, and investigate them. That same Biden administration Justice Department will be administering this law.

That is why we are so against this measure and why it is so darn dangerous. They can say all day long it doesn't violate due process; it most certainly does, and it is going to be administered by a Justice Department that has already proven they are willing to go after parents who speak up for their kids.

That is why this bill is so terrible, why Republican Senators are pushing this and, as Mr. Gaetz from Florida said, trying to bribe States to implement this when we have the history of the Biden Justice Department and know what this thing is going to look like and how it is going to violate due process. That is what is wrong with this legislation and why Republicans are so darn against this thing.

I hope they will come to their senses, stand up for the law-abiding American citizens and their fundamental liberties, and vote this thing down.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Madam Speaker, 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.

What happened in Uvalde, Buffalo, and Tulsa is as wrong as wrong could be, and our hearts go out to those communities and those families who have been impacted in such a terrible way. The answer is not to destroy the Second Amendment, but that is exactly where the Democrats want to go.

Don't take my word for it. Just look at what they said. The President of the United States said last week that he wants to get rid of the most popular handgun in the country. Michael Moore, a Democrat--not a Member of Congress but a Democrat--said it is time to repeal the Second Amendment.

During our 10-hour markup last Thursday in the committee hearing, Representative Jackson Lee said if this bill passes, we are not finished. Representative Jones said if this bill doesn't pass, we will end the filibuster; we will expand the Supreme Court; we will do whatever it takes to get law-abiding citizens' guns.

Today, we have this hodgepodge of six bills thrown together. Many of the elements in these bills are unconstitutional. Even the Ninth Circuit has said it is unconstitutional what they want to do on the age limit. These bills would say when you can buy a firearm, what kind of firearm you can get, and where and how you have to store that firearm in your own darn home.

Of course, tomorrow, they are bringing the so-called red flag law to the floor. Someone who doesn't like you can file a complaint. Within 24 hours, there is a hearing that you are not allowed to be at--you can't confront your accuser--and they can take away your Second Amendment liberty. That is the bill they are going to pass tomorrow.

Frankly, this shouldn't surprise us. For 18 months, Democrats have assaulted the First Amendment. It shouldn't surprise us now that they are coming after the Second. Every right we enjoy as Americans under the First Amendment--your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition your government, freedom of the press--heck, some of them call for outlawing certain networks.

And freedom of speech, just a few weeks ago, the Biden administration tried to put together the Disinformation Governance Board. Oh, my goodness.

The attacks on the First Amendment have been sustained. They have been going on for 18 months, and now here they come, going after law- abiding citizens' Second Amendment liberties.

The Speaker started by saying this bill is about protecting our kids. That is important. Sure is. That is what she said, protecting our kids is important. Yes, it is. But this bill doesn't do it.

What this bill does is takes away Second Amendment rights, God-given rights protected by our Constitution, from law-abiding American citizens. That is what this legislation does, and that is why we should oppose it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Madam Speaker, the previous speaker said ``nonsense.'' It is not nonsense to defend the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects our God-given right to protect ourselves, our family, our property, and our freedom. That is not nonsense. That is essential is what it is, and it is a critical part of the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

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 yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

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 yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).

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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

Madam Speaker, I continue to 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, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

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

Representative Massie was right on target when he said red flag laws take all guns from some people and they do so without due process. This bill takes some guns from all people. But Democrats say, don't worry. We are not out to get the Second Amendment. Really?

Here is what Representative Cicilline said in committee last week: Spare me the B.S. about constitutional rights.

Here is what Representative Jones said last week in committee: If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand. We will not rest until we have taken weapons out of circulation in our communities. Each and every day, we will do whatever it takes; whatever it takes.

They are out to get the Second Amendment.

The right of the American people, the right of we, the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. That is what bothers them. They don't trust we, the people. They are smarter than us. They are better than us. They don't trust law-abiding American citizens. They do not trust them.

And that is what is so wrong with the direction we are going with this legislation and the legislation they are going to bring to the floor tomorrow.

We have seen they don't trust Americans to exercise their First Amendment liberties. Now they are going after their Second Amendment liberties. And that red flag law they are going to bring up tomorrow goes after the Fifth Amendment due process rights that we enjoy as American citizens. That is why we should oppose this legislation and the legislation tomorrow.

And I hope, as my friend from Florida said, I hope the United States Senate doesn't go down this red flag trail that they are now on and further take away liberties from law-abiding 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.

I just want to read from the title of the bill.

``H.R. 350, 117th Congress, 2d Session. To authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent terrorism.''

Well, we already know what this looks like. We have already seen this happen. The Department of Justice went after parents who showed up at school board meetings to voice concerns about what was happening in their child's school.

Never forget what they did. They put in place this apparatus to report, to snitch, on parents.

The timeline here, I think, is so important. September 29, last fall, the leftwing political organization National School Boards Association writes a letter to the Biden administration asking exactly what this bill does. It says: Use domestic terrorism/counterterrorism measures against parents.

And guess what. Five days later, the Attorney General of the United States writes a memorandum that does just that, again, what this bill would codify and put into practice. He sends out a memo to every single U.S. Attorney around the country. In that memo, he says: Set up a dedicated line for threat reporting, a snitch line on parents.

And guess what happens after that. Sixteen days after that, the FBI sends out an email to agents all across the country saying: When you investigate these parents, when you are doing this, parents who reported on the snitch line the Attorney General established, put this designation, this threat tag label, on their name. All of that happened, and we know it happened, because whistleblowers came forward and told us about two dozen cases where this took place.

This bill is going to codify exactly what they have been doing. That is why this bill is so harmful.

One of the situations, one of the cases, a mom who showed up at a school board meeting was reported, and the person who filed the complaint said: Well, she is in the group Moms for Liberty, and she owned a firearm. Imagine that, a mom who cares about freedom and actually exercises her Second Amendment liberties.

Now, what happened in Buffalo we know is as wrong as wrong can be, but this legislation wouldn't prevent the terrible crime that took place there. This bill is the same bad bill that Democrats pulled 2 weeks ago because a few of them actually had concerns about First Amendment protected activity and what this legislation could do. Again, specifically, it says it wants to create new offices to investigate folks in our armed services, in our military, and in our law enforcement for the possibility of infiltration by white nationalism.

But, of course, it says nothing about threats from the left, threats like antifa. We know what happened the summer of 2020. It says nothing about that.

This bill is dangerous because we have already seen the weaponization of government. We saw it in the IRS a few years ago. We have seen it in the FBI,

as I just pointed out, most recently the Department of Justice working with the FBI to go after parents. This bill formalizes what we have already seen. That is why it is so dangerous.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we don't give cover to anything. White nationalism is wrong. We have always said so. Everyone knows that.

But I tell you who does give cover, when the chairman of the Judiciary Committee says that antifa is a myth, that is giving cover. That is a statement made by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee after we had testimony from FBI Director Wray talking about the dangers of antifa, after Attorney General Barr told us that antifa was involved in instigating and participating in violent activity. Talk about giving cover. Give me a break.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, is it legitimate political discourse what is going on in front of the Supreme Court Justices' homes all last week, maybe even as we speak? Was it legitimate political discourse what took place over 100 days straight in Portland, Oregon, where antifa attacked a Federal court building? Was that legitimate political discourse as well?

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader of the House just said we don't condone violence by anyone. That statement is just not accurate.

The entire summer of 2020, folks in the Democratic Party said rioters and looters were peaceful protestors. Republicans have condemned violence every time it happened. When it happened on January 6, we said it was wrong. When it happened in the summer of 2020, we said it was wrong, but they didn't.

The Democratic chair of the Financial Services Committee said to the rioters and looters that summer ``get more confrontational.'' The Vice President of the United States supported the effort to raise money to bail those rioters and looters out of jail.

We should condemn all violence, and we should prosecute people who commit crimes. We shouldn't be raising bail money to get them out of jail, and we shouldn't be encouraging with the comments people make as happened all that summer from the Democrats and from the left.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop) to control the balance of my time.