Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, there was a quote from John Adams, as a follow-up to what my friend from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) was saying. He had great exchanges with his friend, then his enemy, and then his friend again for the rest of their lives, Thomas Jefferson.

John Adams said there are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword; the other is by debt.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend for yielding. This will likely be the last speech that I will be able to give from the House floor. I can imagine there are people clapping all over that are watching C-Span.

It has been a tremendous honor to serve in this hallowed body. It just has.

This was not something that I aspired to from my earlier days, and in fact, I really didn't want to be a judge. After my mother got over the disappointment of my choosing not to apply to med school, and then got used to the idea of having an attorney, she ended up, through the eighties, she knew she had a brain tumor that was going to ultimately take her life. They had done what they could at Mayo Clinic in surgery. They could do no more.

She was brilliant. She put herself through Baylor in 2\1/2\ years, while she was working full-time, most of that in the registrar's office.

My brilliant mom taught school as an eighth-grade English teacher for so many years and taught Sunday school for most of her years.

She would say: Louie, you would make a great judge.

I would go: Mother, I don't want to be a judge. There are some lawyers I would hate to sit there and listen to all day. Besides, I make more money than a judge does. I have no interest.

We lost her in January 1991, and after that, I had been thinking about what my brilliant mother used to say. A few months later, I had a judge call me and ask if my female client would go out with him before her trial. It was a civil trial on a breach of contract. I told him, basically, that I couldn't help him, but I knew we needed a new judge.

I tried for months to find somebody that would run against him and talked to all kinds of Republican lawyers that I thought had been considering it. Nobody would step up.

By Thanksgiving--I had to file around the 1st of December--my wife and I both just had this peace that this is what I was supposed to do, is run for judge. So, I did.

As the most politically astute person in our county--Republican, that is--told me the night before the primary election, he said: Nobody gave you a snowball's chance of winning because this guy was the first Republican elected in the county.

In fact, I had Republican leaders that said: Look, we know it is not great, and there are some issues there, but he was the first Republican elected in our county. We just feel like we owe him the job.

Well, nobody is owed a public service job. By Thanksgiving, we had this peace that this is what I am supposed to do, win or lose. I ran and ended up not just squeaking by, as was predicted the day before in a 50/50 chance of winning. I won with 70 percent of the vote.

After years on the bench, I just had this feeling--I applied the law as it was, whether I liked it or not--but that I need to go change some of these laws, try to change some of them.

Then, I had the invitation from Governor Perry to an appointment to be chief justice of the court of appeals there. I thought, well, perhaps this is a way to finish my career on the bench. My wife thought so after we prayed about it, contemplated.

Then, when I finished that term, Governor Perry wanted to provide another appointment to the appellate bench. I said no, I think I am supposed to run for Congress. I did and got elected. I won with 70 to 80 percent of the vote ever since.

What I thought was, this country is in trouble, and maybe I can go help get this country on track. Maybe I can make a difference.

After one term, Newt Gingrich--we lost the majority, November 2006, after I had been here 2 years. I was talking to Newt Gingrich about it. He said: I have heard you. You ought to be on the floor every day talking about these issues. We have 2 hours of Special Orders every day.

I thought, maybe so, and I took it to heart. Since then, yes, I have given a lot of Special Orders, talking about the issues that I think are critically important.

When the Democrats took the majority back, my Democrat friend--I hope that doesn't hurt his re-elect,--John Garamendi said: Louie, we just voted on the new rules of the House and passed the Gohmert resolution.

I said: What does that mean, John?

He said: It means you can no longer have multiple Special Orders in 1 week. You can only have one. That is the new Gohmert rule. Informally, that is what some of us call it because we don't want to hear you every night.

I had told the Cloakroom years ago, look, if nobody is going to take our time to talk about these issues--there is usually not much of anybody around here on the House floor, but as Newt said, you may have 200,000 to 4 million people watch C-Span at different times. You never know how many are going to watch, but you can make a difference if you talk about what is important.

I told the Cloakroom years ago, look, if somebody is not going to take our time, I will get my tie back on and

come back over there and take it. So, that is what I have done.

Eighteen years later, this country is in deeper trouble than it was when I got here. I know, having gotten my degree in history, and having never stopped studying history, so many great stories, profound stories, about our history.

I know my daughters have suffered abuse from people because they were my daughters, not that they agreed with me on everything. In fact, we have disagreements. I love them, and I never meant for them to suffer.

Recently, I read a sermon that was prepared by Pastor Tommy Nelson in Texas. There was a Governor, Thomas Nelson, of Virginia, who was a commander back during the Revolution. In 1781, Yorktown is surrounded. General Lafayette comes over and says: General, Governor, where should we fire first with our cannons?

Governor Nelson, General Nelson, he knew that the British command was in his home. They had taken his home. They made it their command center. He told Lafayette: Right there at my house.

There were some, reportedly, that said: We don't want to fire at that. It is your house.

He said: That is where the enemy is. That is where you have to fire.

Cannonball after cannonball went through his home.

The Founders suffered so much, gave so much, many with their lives. You look at the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, they suffered immeasurably. Many of them forfeited their lives for the cause of freedom.

But John Adams, in one of his letters to Jefferson, toward the end of his life, he said: ``The general principles on which the Fathers''-- talking about the Founding Fathers--``achieved independence'' were ``the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.''

John Jay himself, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, a Supreme Court Justice, our Nation's first Chief Justice, he wrote in his own handwriting: ``The Bible is the best of all books for it is the Word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue, therefore, to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.''

Back to John Adams. He said: ``The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.''

Boy, he was so astute and wise.

He said: ``Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes, and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure.''

It is so true. He saw what happens even in the few democracies or republics that have ever existed. I think ours is not just a republic, but a form of democratic republic where we elect our representatives instead of like ancient Greece, Athens, where they actually had everybody participate in the big decisions.

I do have a heavy heart. I see what is going on. We had a hearing today regarding mass shootings, witnesses from Sandy Hook, from Uvalde, and they are saying we have to get rid of the guns, like getting rid of spoons would get rid of obesity.

The problem is not with our Second Amendment right. It is exactly what John Adams pointed out. He said: ``We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.''

Then he said: ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''

Our problem is very clear to me. It is not with weapons. It is with the lack of morality. It is exactly what President Adams said over 200 years ago. He saw it. If you are not teaching children that there is absolute right and wrong--there may be gray areas. There are, as every lawyer would tell you. But there are some absolutes that are right or wrong.

Those of us who believe the Bible, God made clear that the children of Israel were to teach their children: Keep the verses of scripture all around all the time, put them on your doorposts. And I knew that; I had seen the scripture.

But the first time I was at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, I said, What are these little tubes on the door?

Well, they were verses of scripture. They took it literally.

You need to have those verses everywhere. Teach your children. And we have not done that.

So after people like Bill Ayers, Weather Underground, violent hippies, after they had tried to push us into a Marxist country or make us one and they had no success whatsoever, the violence didn't help, they realized the way to go is to go into the universities, get tenure, and in the meantime be teaching future teachers that Marxism is a good idea. Whether you call it socialism, progressivism--not change the name, call it progressivism. It is still Marxism.

But as Dostoevsky said in response to this nut named Marx in the 1800s, The problem with Marxism is not economic. We know that is a huge problem. It is always going to fail. But the problem with Marxism is atheism because the government has to become God. That is what he was meaning. That has, for so many people, become God.

I came here thinking, gosh, if we could just get enough Members of Congress to stand up for what is right and preserve our freedom--I ultimately have realized, Congress--as upset as people are at Congress, and we rate very poorly in the polls--Congress is a reflection of this country. You don't like what is going on in Congress, well, it is a reflection of what is going on in the country.

This House is the only elected body that I am aware of in the whole country where you can only get there by being elected. If a Senator leaves or dies, they can be appointed or elected, either one, but normally appointed to fill until the election. This body, you can't get in here as a Member unless you have been elected.

Adams said, ``Cities may be rebuilt and a people reduced to poverty may acquire fresh property, but a constitution of government, once changed from freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the people once surrender their share in the legislature and their right of defending the limitations on government and of resisting every encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.''

If we want Congress to be better, the country has got to become better, because we are headed toward Marxism. Many realize that. If you looked at the original Black Lives Matter--and it was never about Black lives. It was about moving toward Marxism. One of their tenets--they took it off. One of their goals was eliminating western-style marriage.

Western-style marriage? We don't have western-style marriage.

Moses said God told him a man shall leave his father and mother, a woman leave her home, and the two will become one. That is marriage. It was for procreation of the Nation of Israel and for the people. And civilizations that lasted have based their growth on that societal building block, the family.

Then you had Jesus. When asked about marriage, and particularly divorce, He quoted Moses verbatim: A man shall leave his father and mother, a woman leave her home, the two will become one flesh. And He is the one who added, and let what God has joined together, let no one put asunder, or separate.

But this body, just this month, we come in here, now that we have a majority that is much wiser--it is a bipartisan majority that is wiser than Moses and Jesus--said no, no, no, we will tell you what marriage is.

So churches that supported that, they are going to find out you either become woke or the United States Government is going to come destroy your entity, church, or school. That is where we are heading. Perhaps the Supreme Court will protect us. Maybe it won't.

But I still hear Justice Scalia. We were having lunch, and he said, you guys have the ultimate power. You can stop anything. You have got the power of the purse. You don't like something;

you can kill it. Just cut off all the funding. So don't come running over across the street to us just because you don't have the nerve to do what you think should be done. Come run to us? You didn't do what you have got the power to do.

We haven't done that. Easier to hope maybe the Supreme Court will take care of it.

Adams also said, Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never democracy or a democratic republic yet that did not commit suicide.

He said, Be not intimidated nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice. I mentioned this when I was reading Tommy Nelson's sermon.

But Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s and 1840s, he said: ``Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.''

He talked about our Founders. Forget 1619 or whatever. He says--he is talking about the Founders. They brought with them a form of Christianity. Yes, some people pushed slavery. But Thomas Jefferson, in that original Declaration of Independence, one of the grievances was against King George for ever allowing slavery to get started, because he saw the damage it was doing to America and to the people that were involved.

But Alexis de Tocqueville said about our Founders: ``They brought with them . . . a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. . . . from the earliest settlement of the immigrants, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved''--until recent history. He didn't live to see what is going on now.

Look, some of us get beat up. We do believe a woman has every right and should make all the decisions concerning her body. She does. She should. That is the way it should be. She has every right to make decisions for that unborn child that she is carrying. But if a decision is made to kill that other body, that is normally when government gets involved, because we are supposed to protect the most vulnerable among us.

Some people continue to try to say, gee, we didn't see Christianity mentioned in the Constitution. Of course, the Declaration of Independence mentions our Creator and also nature's God. But actually if you look at the way the Constitution was signed, it was signed ``In the year of our Lord 1787.'' Yeah, that is the way they dated it. I mean, it is amazing. Some people say it is unconstitutional to sign anything with that date if it is government. Well, if it is signed like the Constitution is signed, I don't see how it could be unconstitutional.

But there was the First Presbytery of the Eastward, a group of clergy from Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and they wanted Christianity to be mentioned in the Constitution. They wrote a letter and they declared that as they see, because of Washington's piety and his support for Christian morality--which really is Judeo--but that morality that they see, means we are in good hands.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for his kind comments. The truth is, he is one of the reasons I am comfortable leaving.

There have been times when I was extremely concerned about people standing up for what is right; whether it was standing up to our own leadership or leadership of the country, including the White House, leadership of our own party, or the other party. But I have been encouraged; that is why I was willing to take a big chance on running for office statewide, even though I got in so late.

That was a matter that I will not be able to save Texas from suffering; but I have got great comfort here.

What does concern me greatly about our country, I think the bill that was just--we took up the rule on just now, concerns me.

As I know my brother, Mike Johnson, knows and believes, as one of the leaders I know here on the floor, Moses, we believe, got word directly from God, and Moses passed that on, saying that a man shall leave his father and mother and a woman leave her home and the two will become one.

When Jesus was asked a question about marriage and divorce, he quoted Moses verbatim. Jesus, of course, some people say, was a great teacher, taught a lot of great things. But as C.S. Lewis pointed out, he said he was God. He said he was one on with the Father. He said so many things like that, it is very clear, he didn't have a choice to say he was a good teacher because he was either a liar, a lunatic, or he was Lord, as he said.

But the Founders, the huge majority of the Founders were not only believers

in what Moses and Jesus taught, but they were strong practicing Christians.

Nowadays, school children are taught, Ben Franklin was a deist, someone who believes, basically, that some deity, something, some force, created the universe, and if that deity, thing, force, whatever, still exists today, it never interferes with the ways of men.

But if you go back to the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin gave a speech when things looked like they had come to an end; they were going to go no further. There was so much yelling and disagreement.

Ben Franklin was recognized by the President of the Convention, President George Washington, and he pointed out that they had had so much disagreement over everything, and he said--he pointed back to the Continental Congress, and he said: In the beginning contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered.

That is not a deist saying those things. But he went on to say--and these are His words. We know because the speech was so profound others there asked him for a copy, and he sat down and wrote the speech and everybody that heard it looked and said, yeah, that is exactly what he said.

He went on to say, we know: I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth. God governs in the affairs of men; and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible a nation could rise without his aid?

He said: We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writing, that a nation cannot rise without his aid; a home will not rise without his aid. And he assured that this nation could not be built without his aid.

In this book, ``Wall of Misconception,'' by Pastor Emeritus, former head of the Presbyterian Seminary in Philadelphia, Peter Lillback, a great historian, he points out that President Washington, in his first inaugural address, frequently referred to the Almighty. His very first act as President was to pray. Washington prayed that God would secure the liberties of the new Nation.

He went on to say that no one should be more grateful to God than the people of the United States of America in light of what God had done for them throughout the war. Although the new nation had just gone through the tumultuous time after the revolution of creating a new civil government, the process fraught with sectional rivalries and tensions was accomplished in a peacefully unique way that called for pious gratitude--those were his words--since this implied even more divine blessings to come.

The implication Washington drew from all of this was that America could not expect the continuing ``smiles of heaven'' if the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained were disregarded.

We must remember that when Washington attended the Anglican churches of his day, he, along with the congregation, recited the Ten Commandments from the list behind the altar.

In Washington's historical context, ``the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained'' could only refer to the Ten Commandments, given that this was the belief of almost every American in Washington's day who read or heard his inaugural address.

Along with his solemn inaugural address that graced America's first auspicious pageant of civil religion, Washington's inauguration contributed other religious precedents.

He was sworn in as President with the use of the Bible. This Bible has been sacredly kept by the Masons of New York City. The page where Washington placed his hand for the oath of office was marked by the turning down of the corner of the page. Interestingly, the marked page is Genesis 49, the chapter where Jacob, the father of the sons of Israel, bestows his blessings upon them.

By this time, Washington had long been called the ``Father of His Country''. The parallel of the text in the inauguration was not accidental.

Tradition has that he said, so help me God. That was not a written part of the oath. Then he bent down and he kissed the Bible.

But the religious elements of Washington's inauguration were still not complete. Next, he led the Congressmen and everyone else across the street from Federal Hall to St. Paul's Chapel for a 2-hour service of Christian worship to commit the new nation to God.

According to Mrs. Alexander Hamilton, she knelt with President Washington as they received the Eucharist together. This is part of our history. That was the very beginning.

It is interesting to note, as Jonathan Cahn did, that on 9/11, the one building that was considered part of Ground Zero was not broken, cracked, damaged whatsoever, was that very St. Paul's Chapel, where our Nation was committed to God during that period in which all of the Members of Congress, the President, Vice President Adams, they were all there participating in that time of prayer and committing this Nation to God, to the Almighty.

On visiting there, I was informed that the graveyard that is right behind the chapel on the side facing the Twin Towers, that when they fell, a huge tree, sycamore tree, at the back of the cemetery was completely uprooted. Jonathan Cahn pointed this out.

But there, the proprietor, the caretaker said that tree fell across all those graves and not one gravestone was cracked, broken, harmed in any way, nor was the chapel, not even a window cracked. It was seen to be a miracle the way that building where our Nation was first committed to God was so very protected. Amazing, the history.

I know that there have been civilizations throughout history that have recognized same-sex union. But if you do enough digging, you find that when it came to actual marriage, that that was considered part of having children and a family, as God had said, go forth and multiply. That was considered--marriage was considered for having children and building a family.

Yes, of course, you can build a wonderful family by adoption. Now we are told that men can get pregnant. We wonder, you know, with the incredible advances of medicine, just how much man will take on the role of being his own God. It is a very dangerous thing because every time a nation has gotten to that point, they didn't last much longer.

If you want to attribute that to just nature or nature's God, as our Founders did, then you have your choice, but it did not bode well for such a Nation.

Now, back when the United States was a majority, a vast majority, of strong Christians, leaders of the country could appeal to the Judeo- Christian beliefs and the teachings of Moses, of the prophets, of Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament. Those things could be appealed to in the hearts of most Americans, and they would find great reception.

Now, the polls, studies, and surveys indicate that a majority of Americans do not attend church and do not seem to believe in a loving God. The appeals, therefore, of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Christian pastor, who appealed to the better nature in America, that love was stronger than hate, and love could overcome hate, and love would bring the Nation together.

But since there are so few now, most don't seem to have a common agreement about the Judeo-Christian teaching that once overwhelmed the Nation at a time early on, when Harvard was established, Yale was established, basically to teach Christianity and educate people for a great future.

In fact, if you go back and look at the pledge that students had to make about their devotion to Jesus Christ, it is really staggering. But that is how things were started. That was an amazing start for this country.

Only a country that had turned its back on the teachings of Dr. King and the person that Dr. King called his Lord and Savior could become so hypocritical as we have as a Nation. We think, too often, we are God; we know better than God; we know better than Moses.

I expect sometime that his bust depicted in the middle of this Chamber as the greatest lawgiver of all time, somebody will complain that needs to be taken down. Never mind the fact that

there are great lawgivers, like Hammurabi. Some have been talking about the Code of Hammurabi and the Justinian code. Those are people who are up there.

Most people are not aware Napoleon was a lawgiver through the Napoleonic Code. Thomas Jefferson is up there. People hopefully are aware he was not at the Constitutional Convention; he was representing us in Europe. But he did help with the Northwest Ordinances and was in Virginia. He helped with laws that became a helpful framework for our Constitution and our laws.

Democrats preach long and loud that George W. Bush was not a legitimate President, that he stole the election of 2000 and stole the election of 2004. For that reason, they then objected to his election on the House floor on January 6 not of 2021 but of 2001. Then there was objection on this floor January 6 of 2005.

Although we sat here and waited for our chance to vote on the counting of the electors, no one in here realized that, according to so many Democrats today, when you object to electors, you are an election denier, treasonous, and guilty of sedition. None of us suspected that at the time that objections were made on the other side of the aisle.

In fact, on January 6, 2017, when we had 11 different objections from Democrats saying that Trump stole the election, we didn't realize that, according to the Democrats, the Democrats that objected were guilty of treason and sedition and that they should really be run out of public altogether and should not be allowed to participate in government. In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to actually be seen out in public. It was so despicable that their neighbors should reject them and run them out of the neighborhood.

None of us on this side of the aisle--I remember--in 2005 and 2017, we didn't realize what the Democrats are now telling us, that those were acts of sedition and that they were showing themselves to be election deniers. We thought that because the Democrats were following the procedures that were set out in the Constitution, they were following their beliefs and their constitutional rights. We didn't dream that they were committing sedition and treason, as they are now saying that apparently they were doing.

It was shocking to me that Democrats were alleging that Donald Trump stole that election and that he stole it with the help of collusion with Russia. We heard those claims. It took a while longer, after a multimillion-dollar investigation that found nothing of the sort. Gee, it turns out, as the investigation has gone on, that actually the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign, members of the FBI, members of the DOJ, and the intel community were working in conjunction first to prevent Donald Trump from getting elected and then also working after he was elected to have him removed from office.

Now, most of us were upset on this side of the aisle with the continued, ongoing, never-ending efforts to remove Donald Trump from the office to which he was duly elected. But we didn't realize that the Democrats' actions, according to their explanations now, amounted to sedition, treason, a coup d'etat, and all of these other things we have heard in the last 2 years.

It is shocking because I don't know of anybody on our side of the aisle who realized that what was going on, on the other side of the aisle, was actually an attempted coup and seditionist treason. We didn't realize that because we hadn't heard from the Democrats until the last 2 years that to raise such issues was exactly what they were saying.

Now, they have even hypocritically turned to the government, billionaire businesses, banks, and individuals to get them to go against Republicans and start letting some Republicans, like the President of the United States, know: ``We don't like your politics, and we will never allow you to do business with our banks and our businesses. We are going to try to break you, bankrupt you.'' We didn't realize that those were helpful things to do on behalf of our Nation.

I don't think they are indicative of what Dr. King, the reverend that he was--he had studied the Bible. He had even studied Gandhi's life and how peace was the way to make progress, peaceful protest. He preached against going after your enemies, going after your opponents, trying to destroy them. He preached what he knew, and that was Christian love.

But what we have illustrated here is a Nation that has turned from God and, to borrow from Longfellow, to allow hate in this country to be strong and mock the song of peace on Earth, goodwill toward men.

Overall, this Nation was one in which the people could be appealed to on the basis of a loving God who through, we believe, the Savior pointed out the two most important commands, to love God and love each other, and on those two hang all the law, all the prophets.

Actually, if you were to do an outline and put love God and love your neighbor, you can put all the laws from the Ten Commandments and most laws today under one of those two.

We have been so blessed in this country. Our Founders, nearly all of them, believed it was because they were trying to pursue freedom.

Historically, as an old history major, as somebody who has never stopped reading and learning history, we look back, as so many historians have, at the American Revolution. Many believe that the American Revolution came about because of the great Christian awakening that occurred in the 1700s, when most of the Nation repented of sins, of wrongdoing, and asked for forgiveness. What grew was a love of liberty and a love of freedom.

Historians have looked back and said, wow, that war ended, and it ended in the Treaty of Paris, 1783. I was surprised to see an exact duplicate of the Treaty of Paris, 1783, because of the huge words that started the Treaty of Paris. I did not realize that they were so big, and I didn't realize that is how it started. But if you think about making a treaty with the biggest, most powerful country in the world in 1783, what would you put on the document to scare Great Britain, with the biggest Army, biggest Navy, what would you start it with to make them afraid to break their oath? Well, the Founders started with the huge words: ``In the name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity,'' Trinity talking about the Father, Son, Holy Ghost. ``In the name of the most Holy and undivided trinity,'' that is how that started.

They thought that is powerful enough that even the British will be afraid to break that oath. That is what they signed.

Others pointed out that, in the 1800s, there was a great awakening, and that same yearning and love of freedom led so many to say that slavery must end, that we cannot continue.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson, of all people, put that as the biggest grievance in the Declaration of Independence, that King George ever allowed slavery to begin. Those who would say that the Nation started with slavery; no, Jefferson said it started in spite of it, that it was a blight on this country, and blamed King George for ever allowing it because it was damaging the country and would damage the country.

But in the 1800s, after the Nation's second great Christian awakening, we had a Civil War, and 500,000 Americans were lost, 500,000 casualties lost in that fight, but we emerged stronger out of it.

It took a while, but there were people who had the love Lincoln had developed. He started out in his twenties bragging that he was an atheist, but by the time he was President, as Stephen Mansfield points out in his book, ``Lincoln's Battle with God,'' he knew there was a God. He knew God was at work, and he knew that they should have love for people even with whom they disagreed.

But our country has abandoned the teachings of Moses, of Jesus, of Dr. King. I have idolized the ``I Have a Dream'' speech for nearly all of my life. It is so profound. It provokes tears. It is so powerful.

But that part of the dream where people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, we were so close. Now, this country has been fundamentally transformed, and, now, teachers are telling children to judge people by their skin color.

What has gone on? We have colleges that say that they are so omniscient that they know the way to go is to have segregated dormitories.

What happened to the dream? It has turned into a nightmare. How could this happen? Perhaps if there was a third great awakening, many believe, we could get back on track.

Why was the American Revolution successful? We didn't kill a lot of people after the American Revolution. We signed a peace treaty. We asked them to leave us alone, and we would leave them alone. So, why did the French Revolution end up with--you can find, I have seen estimates, some people say as few as 13,000 heads cut off with a guillotine. Some say 44,000 heads chopped off.

We didn't have that after the American Revolution. Why was that? Some historians say because ours was about love of freedom and liberty, as the Bible taught, and the French Revolution was about a love for revenge. We are seeing that vengefulness play out.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. As the preacher said--and I know in the 1960s Lyndon Johnson was given credit, but Dr. L.L. Morris said it back around 1950 before I was born, said it to my parents: If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.

I have said that in deacons meetings at our church when people say we all ought to have exactly the same idea. No, it is good--since we are all human, nobody is perfect, and nobody has 100 percent lock on God's wisdom--that we exchange ideas, and we argue. It is okay to argue.

When I talk about a battle, I am talking about a battle of words. Some people in here are unarmed in a battle of words, and some are quite armed in a battle of words. But that is a good, healthy thing, to disagree. Otherwise, we would only need one dictator.

I am afraid we have been moving in that direction. So many of the things Orwell talked about are happening. We have people on the other side of the aisle who basically want a ministry of truth that will write down what the truth is, and anybody that disagrees with that will be guilty of a crime.

I haven't heard anybody on the other side of the aisle talk about the enforcement mechanism. That was called the ministry of love. They would pick you up, torture you, and keep you in the basement of the ministry of love, torturing days, weeks, years, whatever it took until you would repeat whatever they told you was the truth. It is the kind of thing that would kill a Galileo for saying that Earth was not the center of our solar system.

We need to have open minds, but it is important to learn from history because when you don't--everybody knows the saying--you are destined to repeat it.

We have a chance, and I believe with all my heart that it is because God is a merciful God. He has been mocked. We have his name right up here: In God We Trust. I know lots of people have been trying to get that down, but it is still there, and I know it will still be there for the next 2 years.

But we have to get over this thing of being vengeful. Even Federal judges here regarding January 6, like I have said before, people that committed violent acts, people that did destructive acts to this building, they deserve to be severely punished, but there were some that walked into the building and seemed to be welcomed. People say they are terrorists, and Federal judges have called them all kinds of names, called them seditionists, called them all kinds of things when they weren't rioting. Some were, and they need to be punished, and they have been.

But to have Federal judges throw the Constitution out the window and say: I haven't heard the evidence, but you are a seditionist, and you are dangerous. We need to make sure you are punished. You are a threat to the country--when there was no evidence of that for the individual before the judge.

The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), one of the great constitutional scholars in this body, and my friend, he really does understand the Constitution. One of the things I hope happens is that we will start subpoenaing judges. We impeached two Federal judges early on when I was here. It is time to bring them in and find out if there is a basis for impeaching them.

Are they going to continue to want to punish people in pretrial confinement, even though that is unconstitutional?

Are they going to continue to judge people and issue rulings when there is no evidence whatsoever on which to base the vile things they are saying about the individuals before them?

We need to know because if they are going to continue to be like Judge Roy Bean in his courtroom, which too many Federal judges are these days, it is time to stop it. Make them accountable. Let them know that there are checks and balances, and they are not God.

They took an oath, and they will be judged by that oath. If they are not following it, remove them. I hope that will happen, a shot across the bow.

I am grateful to have served in this body. I was hoping that, when I left, I would feel confident that our freedom was preserved for the next generations, at least the next one or two. I don't know. I see too many disturbing issues.

But I believe God is merciful, and he has given us a chance. I will be hopeful, and I will be praying for my colleagues that will be here next year. Let's get back on track. Let's don't do things out of hate. Let's don't do things out of revenge. Let's do things for a love of freedom so we don't have 44,000 people get their heads chopped off because people were overwhelmed and just insatiable wanting revenge.

I am very grateful to my friend for yielding to me today. He is a true--I started to say ``patriot,'' but I know some judge chastised someone for being a patriot; wanted to punish him more heavily.

So, hopefully, we can get back to a day when loving the country patriotically is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to my fellow Texan, and I am not saying that lightly, dear friend, with whom a lot of battles have been fought for organizing this Special Order. And I can also honestly say that in my 18 years here I have never been more uncomfortable on the floor than I have been listening to these comments. I had no idea--I never asked--I had no idea how much time I have spoken. Is that really right?

When I came to Congress I had seen that the country was in trouble and having been a history student and having loved history, I knew no republic lasts forever. I knew we were about to the extent of the length of time that republics come and go. I didn't expect to be here 18 years, but I had hoped that when I left I could feel we had perpetuated that liberty for at least another generation, hopefully, much more.

As I sat here listening to the gracious comments, I was taken right back to Ben Franklin's speech in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 after they couldn't agree on much but his words: ``I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire could rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that `except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it.' ''

It just seems to me that we have much less concern or desire overall for having the Lord help build the House. I know historically what that means.

I have been deeply encouraged on seeing the people that have come in since I did, and especially in recent years, and I am taking great heart from the fact that we have got some fighters that have come in. If I have helped inspire some, as they said, that is something I can take with me, but I will continue to follow what goes on here and help in any way I can. I am very grateful.

I see my dear friend from Louisiana is here, and I thank God that He brought him through his brush with death because we have been better for him being here. I thank all of those who have spoken tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to reflect that after 5 years or so of cooking ribs on the gutter or balcony or whatever you want to call it of the Cannon Building, the Architect of the Capitol decreed I couldn't do that anymore and found a provision that indicated that. But it was Steve Scalise of Louisiana that went to bat with the powers here that ultimately allowed me to start cooking ribs again. I will always be grateful because that is maybe the only time I ever left a good taste in people's mouths. So I am very grateful to Steve for helping make that happen. You were the one that facilitated that, and I am grateful.

Obviously, the people whom I have to thank in addition to my family, Kathy is--well, I don't think I could have gotten elected without her help both running for judge and then for Congress. My girls have put up with so very much. They have taken abuse for my positions and things I have said, done, and fought for.

But I have always felt that I was the most fortunate Member of Congress because of whom I got to represent, the people of east Texas. We are so blessed in Texas. I am really blessed they took a chance. Nine of twelve counties had not elected a Republican for Congress, and I am grateful that they took a chance on me. So I will always be grateful to the people of east Texas. My service is not over, it will be in a different capacity.

One of the things that has really bothered me during my time is other Christians saying: Louie, we don't have to worry, God is in control.

That is so frustrating.

I love what my friend, Pastor Tommy Nelson says:

Just because God is in control doesn't mean He wants us to

lean on our shovel and pray for a hole because He gave us all

tools and expects us to use the tools while we are praying,

that is fine, but use what He gave us.

We have heard from people who have done that. There are so many more that are tied up other places. But it really has been an inspiration to me to see the people who are coming in, who have come in, like those we have heard from; they are smart, ethical, and care deeply about America and about America's future. So that is an encouragement to me. I am so glad I got a glimpse of that.

Actually, when I decided I had to at least try, as late as I got into the race for Attorney General, I knew, I had seen, I had heard, and I had become friends with people whom I knew were going to be fighting for what is right. We don't have to agree on everything.

It was an honor for me to know Bobby Rush. Even though some gave me grief because I did not vote initially for his Emmett Till bill; I was for it, but then when they cut the maximum sentence back to 10 years, that was just such a shortchange. As a former judge, I couldn't imagine being limited to 10 years in sentencing somebody involved in some conspiracy like that, to do something as horrible as that. So I was very pleased--because of Congressman Rush's constant never giving up and continuing to push--when we got a bill that was more deserving of his name and Emmett Till's name.

There have been great opportunities. I know there are good people here. I will continue to pray for this body. I am just thankful that I got to serve with the folks here.

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate my friend, Congressman Al Green. We are friends. People have said: ``What do you have in common with Al Green?'' Well, actually, he is my brother. We are Christian brothers. He adds significantly to this body, and I am proud to be his brother.

Slavery does shock the conscience, and, I agree, it is really a crime against humanity. And it is still going on. It is happening across our southern border. It is horrendous what is happening to some of the people who are being sex trafficked.

We saw it in Nigeria after the 250-plus girls were kidnapped by Boko Haram from a Christian girls school and handcuffed to beds and, according to some of the stories from the girls who had escaped, repeatedly raped day after day. Just horrendous conditions.

I had been asked to fly over to meet with some of the parents of the girls who were kidnapped. We had to go out a few hours from the city to a safe house. We met with no fathers, all mothers. I asked the pastor who was there with them during a break in our meeting, ``Where are all the fathers?'' He said that is part of the tragedy. The fathers don't feel like they did their jobs as a father since their daughters were abducted and, they knew, were being made to perform acts, chained and handcuffed to beds, being raped every day repeatedly. The fathers didn't feel like they had done their job or that they deserved to have a home and a bed, so they went out into the bush. As I understood, later on, many of them had died out there.

It is tragic. It is a form of slavery. Horrendous. To think that is still going on, I was totally shocked.

I thought humanity had advanced so far, yet during the later years of the Obama administration, we learned that, in the world today, there are currently more slaves than ever in the history of the world, with over 40 million people in slavery while the United States is a superpower.

I know the people in Nigeria told me they had word from the Obama administration that if Nigeria would legalize same-sex marriage and would legalize and provide abortions, then the United States would help Nigeria defeat Boko Haram. But as a very scrupulous, caring Catholic bishop in Nigeria said, our Christian beliefs are not for sale to the United States, to President Obama, or to John Kerry. We are not selling our Christian beliefs.

That seemed pretty tragic, too, that we would basically try to compel people to go against their Biblical beliefs so that they could get help removing children from sex slavery.

I was surprised many years ago to find out that as a history major--I was with the Army 4 years, so I was going to be going there. I loved math; I was good at it. Biology was very interesting. Not as interesting to me was botany. I loved history, and I majored in it. It turned out that when the horrendous mistake, crime against humanity, whatever you want to call it, it was horrendous, that first ship brought slaves to America, it turns out they weren't the first slaves to North America.

There were numerous cases of Indian tribes that would war with another tribe. They would kill many of the braves, the males, and often take women and children as slaves. That is something for which mankind should not be proud at all. There are even references in the Bible to people selling children to pay off their debts. It is just tragic.

Hopefully, in the days ahead, we can do more to alleviate this crime against humanity that has grown substantially in the world today.

I saw this article from The Washington Times: ``DHS released unvaccinated Afghans while threatening to fire unvaccinated Border Patrol agents.'' That seems grossly unfair to American law enforcement, kind of a war against law enforcement. We are going to force you, even though we know that the vaccinations don't actually prevent the spread of COVID.

That is science now. That should be clear. Even Fauci and President Biden have admitted that what they thought was originally true was not. It doesn't prevent people from getting COVID. We are told, ``Oh, it keeps it from being as serious,'' unless you happen to get myocarditis or one of the other terrible side effects that have been found to occur.

Then we got Secretary Mayorkas maintaining the border is secure. While he is saying the border is secure, we have had millions of people come across illegally just since President Biden has been in office.

Then a big headline recently has been the big Democrat donor Sam Bankman-Fried, SBF some call him, the founder of FTX, the second largest contributor to the Democrat-affiliated political action committees. The company he founded dealing in cryptocurrency, FTX, has gone bankrupt, and he has gone out of business. We have a letter that was prepared by one of our Republican colleagues to Secretary Blinken.

It points out: ``It has come to our attention that millions of taxpayer dollars sent to Ukraine to assist with their war efforts were potentially invested in a crypto exchange that then made massive donations to Democrats in the United States during the 2022 midterm elections.

``In March 2022, the Ukrainian Government officially--and for the first time--partnered with crypto exchange FTX Trading Limited to launch a crypto donations website, `Aid for Ukraine' ''--it was called--``within days of President Joe Biden pledging billions of American taxpayer dollars to assist the country with war efforts against the Russian invasion.''

It goes on to say: `` . . . the Ukrainian Government also invested portions of the $54 billion of U.S. economic assistance into FTX to keep Democrats in power.''

Madam Speaker, this is just incredibly outrageous.

So their answer is being demanded, and Secretary Blinken will need to respond. I feel sure that he will be called as a witness shortly after the first of the year.

I hate to think that with all the suffering going on in Ukraine that some of that money intended to help them ended up helping FTX before it went broke, and, obviously, some of his money went to the Democrat campaigns. So we will see what is going on there.

I have made a dear friend since I have been in Congress, and he has been co-chair of the Thursday Morning Prayer Breakfast. He is a friend, and he is a fine person.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).

I thank my friend, and my apologies if calling the gentleman my friend gets him in trouble.

There is an article in The Epoch Times by Joseph Hanneman titled: ``Judge's Latest Refusal to Grant Bail Looms Large for January 6 Defendant Maced Twice by D.C. Jail Guard.''

Having been a felony judge in Texas handling how many thousands of felony cases, nobody gets more incensed than I do when judges abuse their position. I recall having a bailiff. I found out that during recesses he was trash-mouthing, talking terrible to people who I was sentencing. When I found out, I called him in and said, look, I am sentencing these people to prison. We are supposed to show the example of civility. When you trash-talk somebody when they come into court, it builds up hatred and anger. They seethe during the time they are in prison, and it makes them more likely to come back and recidivate. There is no reason to do that. We are going to treat them civilly and fairly and make sure they are not abused verbally and physically.

Yet, I see Federal judges who seem to have the attitude of gee, I am confirmed for life, so once I am confirmed, I will do as I please and as I think I can get away with on appeal. It is outrageous.

So I am encouraging my friends on the Judiciary Committee that there is such abuse by Federal judges, there is such abuse by the Department of Justice, and by the FBI adopting gestapo tactics.

They didn't used to act like that. I heard so many FBI just tell me, you remember how it was in the eighties and nineties? We didn't go break down doors of people we knew would show up voluntarily if we just told them when and where. We didn't do it in the middle of the night to scare families and drag them out in their underwear and alert the news media so they would be there to humiliate them. Yet, it has been going on.

People say January 6 and think that justifies the worst criminality by the Department of Justice and even Federal judges. Because I do believe it is a breach of a Federal judge's oath when they ignore due process requirements and they take the position, I am not going to do anything about somebody that is being abused in jail until I am told to by an appellate court.

So I am hoping that the Judiciary Committee will even be subpoenaing judges to find out--not belabor specific cases--but to find out what their judicial philosophy is that allows them to avoid due process and to allow prisoners to be punished in pretrial confinement against the constitutional rights they have, and what allows and provokes a Federal judge to act like a dictator in their courtroom?

Here are some examples: I would not know U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan if he was here in the room, but I have read and heard firsthand from people who have had to deal with some of the injustice of him.

And I know the Federal judge that refused to recuse himself so he could sentence Dr. Simone Gold, even though he dated her, and she wouldn't date him anymore, so he looked forward to abusing his position to sentence her as the first woman with no criminal record and only guilty of a misdemeanor trespass. He got to sentence the girl that quit going out with him--the woman, the brilliant lawyer and MD--to a maximum security facility down in Miami.

He needs to come in and answer about recusal and who he thinks he is, above the law. It is in the law that a judge must recuse himself or herself if there is even an indication there might be some impartiality there.

We have got a lot of cleaning up in the Federal system to do, and I am glad that Republicans will be able to do that.

The article points out:

``Despite audio and video evidence showing former Tennessee sheriff's deputy Ronald Colton McAbee did not assault a police officer on the Capitol steps on January 6 as alleged by prosecutors, a Federal judge again refused the defendant's motion to be released from the District of Columbia jail pending trial.

``The issue took on added urgency on September 5 when McAbee, 28, was twice assaulted with chemical spray by a guard in the District of Columbia jail for not wearing a COVID mask, his wife Sarah told The Epoch Times.

`` `This is just inhuman,' Sarah McAbee said. `It doesn't even matter what your political beliefs are. You should never treat somebody that way. Are we living in the same universe?' she asked. `This is not the America I once knew.'

``McAbee is charged by Federal prosecutors with seven January 6- related crimes: assaulting, resisting, or impeding a Federal officer; two counts of civil disorder; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon; engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon, and committing an act of physical violence in the Capitol grounds or buildings.''

That sounds horrible. But then when you find out that actually--if you listen to the audio as you watch the video, Madam Speaker--you find out he was helping a Capitol policeman who was down. Yet, this judge has the audacity to say, we are not listening to the audio, so he could hear that evidence.

Why wouldn't you listen to the evidence as well as watch a video that gives a false impression?

Why?

Then to chastise this guy and punish him even more because he was law enforcement, he should have known better than to assault a police officer, but he wasn't.

The judge doesn't want the facts to get in the way. He is too busy being a tyrant and punishing January 6 defendants while they are in pretrial and punishing them with pretrial.

People need to answer for the tyranny of our justice system as it has become.

I have no problem--and I didn't as a judge--punishing people who deserve

the punishment. There were people on January 6 who deserved to be punished. But it sounds like that corruption continues to grow in the Department of Justice, the FBI, and even in our judicial courts, Federal courts.

It is tragic. He had been pepper sprayed in the jail twice and was not allowed to clean it all off. It was a threat to his health.

By the way, this request for bail sat in front of the judge 117 days. In our State courts, we make sure somebody has a hearing--we used to, I am sure they still do--within 48 hours. If they had other evidence to bring in, then we would set a hearing and have that.

But this judge had this matter sitting in front of him for 117 days while the prisoner was being abused in the D.C. jail where there was a deputy warden that had tweeted out, F the supporters of Trump.

Well, she made sure what she tweeted was what was being done at the jail.

Judge Sullivan took 69 days after the hearing to issue a ruling on whether somebody should stay in jail or not. What kind of judge is that? And then he dismissed the new video and audio evidence, calling them ambiguities the Court could not resolve.

Well, apparently the only reason he had a hearing in the first place was because the U.S. Court of Appeals was going to require it if he didn't do it. So he did it, begrudgingly.

This matter had gone before a U.S. magistrate in the Middle District of Tennessee, he heard the evidence and saw the evidence and he ordered McAbee to be released to home detention pending trial after hearings were had in August and early September of 2021.

That judge said, ``I do not believe that Mr. McAbee poses a future danger to the community if he were to be released between now and the time that he resolves this case. And the government, despite my request that they provide me any evidence that he's presented any sort of a danger to the community, have been able to point to absolutely nothing beyond the events around and during January 6.''

Well, prosecutors knew they had to get that matter away from the judge in Tennessee where there was more evidence of who McAbee really was to the core. So they got it up here to Judge Sullivan, who immediately rescinded that order and kept him in jail as punishment, despite the requirement to the contrary by the U.S. Constitution.

It really is outrageous. If a judge were deciding whether Judge Sullivan breached his sworn oath, that judge could say exactly what Judge Sullivan said to McAbee. Judge Sullivan said, ``Someone tasked with enforcing the law has shirked that responsibility, and that is why they are dangerous.''

Well, it sounds kind of like that is where Judge Sullivan is. He has shirked his responsibility to the law and the Constitution, and that is why he is a dangerous judge. I hope they will have hearings and get to the bottom of what his problems are with following the Constitution.

Last summer, there were a number of times, I met Pastor Tommy Nelson of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas. I listened, years ago, to hours and hours of Bible study he did. I am very impressed with him, and I love the fact that he loves history so much. He uses that as he speaks.

I heard him online doing sermons to his church, and he would kid and say: I am going to include that when I get to speak to Congress some day. I talked to Tommy, and I said: Look, you know, you are not going to be able to come in and talk to Congress as Tommy Nelson, but I can pass on your messages, we quote people all the time. Put together what you think would be good to have Congress hear and I will deliver that.

Tommy provided me this information. ``His father was born in 1914''-- and these are Tommy's words. ``If you had asked my father if one should steal, kill, cheat on his taxes, commit adultery, or lie, he would have said `Absolutely not'. If you had asked him, `Why not?', he would have said, `Because it is wrong'. If you responded, `Says who?', he would have said, `God'. If you said, `Where does God say it is wrong?', he would have said, `The Bible'. If you asked for an explanation, `How do you know it is true?', he could not have given much of a defense of Biblical authority. But his world view, like most of his generation was of a Western or Judeo-Christian world view. He connected all the dots of diversity within the unity of an infinite personal God who had spoken truly to all mankind through His word, the Bible, and had intersected man through the Bible's chief idea, the incarnation of God in His son, Jesus Christ.''

The God we speak of, actually, I am glad to say, is the one mentioned right up there: In God we Trust; because we used to.

Tommy said: ``If you had said to any of that greatest generation, `Truth is something relative to what you want it to be'. Or `There is no final truth', not only would there be wonderment at you, but anger. They would have seen you as a threat to their day.

``Wisdom to that generation and every generation of Americans before them was to know the truth and to follow the will of God as truth was not simply the way that was true but the way that was best. Truth that carried them through the hardest century of our history.

``Now? That former view is seen as antiquated, as though greater minds have progressed beyond that. That former view is now seen as that which holds back the growth of society.

``But the belief in `oughtness', in moral truth, is the marvelous byproduct of belief in the true God.

``It was Plato who said, `In life we must seek the best opinions of men and hold to them as to a boat in a storm unless we have a more certain word of God.' The idea of God, the Bible, Christ the Redeemer is the highest dream of the hopes of man. We can know what must be known to truly be mankind. Morality, marriage, the home, the dignity of man, the meaning of love, right and wrong, all are revealed on that which was the foundation of our civilization, Bible.

``It brought a world view which was light and salt to our culture and our country. It brought law and order and dignity. It served as a point of integration to which all answered. Our only problem was our refusal to live in keeping with it.

``But our day has cut off the limb upon which we were sitting in our rejection of God, banning school prayer, permitting the murder of children in the womb, and abolishing traditional marriage.

``Modernism is the belief that God can be rejected and yet be replaced by the reasoning and science of man. Post-modernism is the recognition that modernism will not work. Because post-modernism states that there is no such thing as absolute truth and with God refused, society as we have known it `dis-integrates'. The earthquake beneath our feet began in the country's shift in the 1960s. The tsunamis followed and with each year more and more devastating. We are now worse than in the jungle. The jungle has natural law which governs it. But the law that governs man is God. Man as in God's image chooses. He can be angelic or demonic based on those choices. Without God and His word to guide man his fallen nature is unleashed. And unlike nature, man has become more and more immoral, violent, ignorant, and cruel. And that is the horror that is sweeping our country day by day. And as it has laid waste to Europe, it is about to eliminate the greatest culture in the history of man, the Western culture, the Judeo-Christian world view that sees all of life through the perspective of the God of the Bible which we, the leaders of the United States as a body have renounced.

``Washington's last words to us were to beware of following the path of Europe. A path that began in the exaltation of reason and science in the Enlightenment. We have not heeded his words, and now Europe's inhumanities of the 20th century have become ours.

``I need not spend much time on the violence, contempt of authority, breakdown of the home, violence in our cities, decay of our educational system, the division of our leaders and citizens, pornography, STDs, 65 million dead through abortion, gender confusion, illegal immigration, drug addiction, opioids, loss of constitutional freedoms, the homeless, the increase of mental illnesses, pedophilia, gun control, racial tensions. Not to speak of the economy and COVID.

``And yet in all this plethora of dysfunction, the terms `God, righteousness, sin, repentance, Jesus Christ, the

Bible, and salvation' are forbidden terms. We cry over `what ain't right' and yet offer nothing but Band-Aids and tourniquets.

``Man must be changed. His heart must be changed at the deepest level. He must have a new birth. He must be born again as a child of God. He must as Nineveh in the days of Jonah, repent and heed the warning of God that destruction awaits.

``Our country and its leaders must `humble themselves and pray and turn from their wicked ways that God may hear our prayer, forgive our sins, and heal our land.

``We must be reconciled to Him who is our life and being. It starts with us, the God-ordained leaders.

``Sadly, repentance cannot be legislated.

``It begins in revival. It begins in the yearning of individuals who have cast off the blinders of modern man and face the truth that their can be no truth, right, love, or life without the unique personal God of the Bible.''

Tommy Nelson referenced a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville. I want to provide some, with thanks to William Federer's research and publication, there is much to be learned from Alexis de Tocqueville.

He was born July 29, 1805. He was a French social scientist, he traveled the United States in 1831, and wrote a two-part work ``Democracy in America,'' 1835, and then the second in 1840, which has been described as ``the most comprehensive and penetrating analysis of the relationship between character and society in America that has every been written''.

In it, de Tocqueville said: ``Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things, to which I was unaccustomed.

``In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America, I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country . . . ''

He also said: ``They brought with them . . . a form of Christianity, which I cannot better describe, than by styling it a democratic and republican religion . . . ''

``From the earliest settlement of the emigrants, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved.''

That was Alexis de Tocqueville's note back in the 1800s. He said: ``Religion in America . . . must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it . . . This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or party, but it belongs to the whole Nation.''

De Tocqueville says: ``The sects that exists in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship that is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God . . .

``Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.''

De Tocqueville also said: ``In the United States the sovereign authority is religious . . . there is no country in the whole world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence than in America . . . ''

Inserting parenthetically, that drove and led to the Civil War. There were so many people that were going, wait a minute; we can't treat brothers and sisters with chains and bondage. Yes, I understand some fought for States' rights. But let's face it, it was about slavery for most.

De Tocqueville said: ``In the United States the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people . . . Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent . . . ''

He is talking about America. He said: ``The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.''

In Book Two of his Democracy in America, de Tocqueville wrote: ``Christianity has therefore retained a stronghold on the public mind in America . . . in the United States . . . Christianity itself is a fact so irresistibly established, that no one undertakes either to attack or to defend it.''

Wow, things have changed.

Tommy Nelson points out: ``Remember the words of the atheist, John Paul Sartre, without an infinite reference point by which all things are judged, all singular points are meaningless. Without God, all of life disintegrates.

``It has always amused me that in 1789 two historical events occurred simultaneously. The American Constitution in Philadelphia and the French Revolution in Paris, both representing opposite world views. The American Constitution though not uniquely Christian reflected the historic Christian world view of `nature's God' and the `inalienable right' of life and liberty. It gave birth to a culture that France honored in their sending us the Statue of Liberty because our country was successful. Not because of our revolution but because of our Constitution. Revolutions are relatively easy. They are simply tearing down. What is difficult is rebuilding. The French had their revolution, but their replacement was not a document that reflected the Bible. It was a culture that reflected French enlightenment; atheism that replaced God with nature, science, and unaided reason. With no divine standard it collapsed into a socialistic bloodbath that prompted a new term, `guillotine.' All of Europe would follow and by 1848, the year of revolution, all European monarchies were gone.

But in France without the God of truth their replacement failed only to be conquered by a dictator to bring order, Napoleon, who plunged Europe into darkness.''

And let me add, I agree with historians that have said the major difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution was the American Revolution, like Tommy Nelson points out, it was about liberty that stemmed from biblical belief, whereas the French Revolution was about revenge. And we see how that worked out.

``The same would happen in Russia who exchanged the church for the communism of Marx and Lenin and, finally, the horror of Stalin.''

Tens of millions killed.

``Germany had Hitler; China had Mao; and Cuba had Castro.

``But as a Russian pastor has said: `Russia is a nation of darkness looking for the light. America is a country of the light searching for the darkness.' Our search has sadly been successful.

``The Christian philosopher and author Francis Schaeffer said: `Where there is no absolute to govern society, society is absolute.' There is nothing magic about democracy or `government of the people, by the people, and for the people'. It assumes that the majority of the voting public has the wisdom and character to place worthy men and women in places of authority. Should that society over time abandon their historic world view and adopt a modern one where truth is shaped by individual opinions . . . or should that society reject God and enthrone man, then absolute divine law will erode with each generation until the tyranny of the majority removes the freedoms enjoyed by the past. And considering the influence of modern media the majority will be controlled by the few. And the America of history will be just that . . . past history.

``To abandon God is to disintegrate.

``Imagine, if you will, a great metal machine operated by a man. The parts are sharp and pointed, moving with great speed and perfect synchronization. Anything that would get caught in the machine would be ground into nothingness within seconds. As long as the man operating the machine is careful to stay outside of the machine, he is safe. But should he catch a shirt sleeve in the gears, he will soon disintegrate. Such is man and the universe. As he stands unique in God's image outside of nature, man can observe the machine, use it and marvel at it. But should he become part of the impersonal, he is ground into mulch.

Such is man and nature. Though part of the creation, man stands infinitely distinct from it as in the image of God. As distinct from the impersonal machine, man maintains his glory but to be merely part of nature, all of the glory of man, mind, reason, conscience, soul, and will, merely become biological phenomena. The loftiness and magic of `man' is lost in the machine of nature.

``King David wrote, `When I consider the heavens and the works of Thy hands what is man that Thou art mindful of him? Yet Thou has made him for a little while lower than the angels. Thou dost crown him with glory and majesty and Thou dost appoint him over the works of Thy hands.' And these are the `hands' that America has rejected.

``Man without God is a cosmic orphan with no one who gives him meaning, care, or hope of redemption or life after death. There is no way, truth, or life without God.

John 3:16 evaporates in that circumstance. ``For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.''

``Man may `act' atheistic, wise and secular, but he cannot `react' as an atheist. As soon as he is sinned against and done unjustly, he becomes a Puritan longing for an injustice to receive absolute retribution. Without God the only thing man can feel guilty about is guilt. Guilt assumes transgression, and transgression assumes law that assumes God. Without God there can be no final law, guilt, or true government. No civility to build a civilization. No `cult' or religious rules to build `culture'.

``We cannot legislate a return to truth. One hundred and fifty years of governmental, academic, artistic, scientific, philosophic, moral, domestic, medical, education, and judicial denial cannot be naturally fixed. We are beyond hope for a return. We are too stubborn, and too proud, and too self-centered, and too indulged.

``Our only hope is the divine reprieve of Nineveh in the day of Jonah. A prophet who rose from the dead promised life or destruction in 40 days upon their response to his prophecy of destruction. From the king to the people and even to the animals, a fast was called for and all wore sackcloth. The disaster was averted, and so it is now. Prophets who rise from the dead after 3 days and nights are not to be disregarded.

``If indeed man, has judged rightly for 20 centuries that there is an infinite and personal God who has revealed Himself in the Bible, the foundation of history's greatest culture, who raised His son from the dead to offer man repentance and salvation, and if he is indeed a God of wrath upon those countries who hold Him in contempt . . . then our country revels today in the shadow of Vesuvius.

``Jeremiah 48:42, `Moab will be destroyed from being a people because he has magnified himself against the Lord'.

``Icarus may fly high with his wings of wax, but should Hubris carry him too high, his wings will melt, his feathers fly to the wind, and he shall come to a violent end.

May those who have ears to hear, take heed, repent and reform accordingly.''

Tommy Nelson has profound truth that he has provided, but that is because it comes from truth beyond him, which he readily acknowledges.

Dostoevsky was quoted by Solzhenitsyn. I had not seen the quote before Solzhenitsyn used it in The Gulag Archipelago. Dostoevsky was taking on the crazy ideas of this nut named Marx, a sad man, sad family, who couldn't even foresee the formation of unions.

Dostoevsky said that the big problem with Marxism is not economic. Obviously, that is a problem. They always go broke eventually. The problem with Marxism is atheism.

I hear some of my colleagues talk about how wonderful progressivism is. That is the new term for Marxism; how great it will be when everybody shares and shares alike.

But as Khrushchev found when he set up a commission to come up with a plan of how you move to true communism, where there is no government, everybody shares and shares alike, he ended up disbanding the commission because there is no way to ever get to a place; until the Messiah comes, it won't happen because you have got to have a totalitarian government that takes away everybody's rights and tells them what they will be allowed to do and not do, and that government becomes the God. That is what Dostoevsky was saying.

So, I won't be back next year. I will be back in 2 weeks and the week after that.

Madam Speaker, I continue to have hope that springs eternal in the human breast that we won't lose the greatest freedom, the greatest country, the greatest gift of a country any people has ever received, that it will not be our generation that sees it lost.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

We had a bill we took up the last vote of the day before we are out for October, and it was strange because this bill got rushed to the floor. I can't find anybody on our side of the aisle who had any idea this was coming until yesterday afternoon.

It is interesting, though. It is titled Fairness for 9/11 Families Act, and it makes $2.982, right at $3 billion, available for 9/11 families.

There has been a lot of money provided in the past, but it is interesting because just last week, I was talking about this article from September 12 by Daniel Greenfield about what the Biden administration was doing in battling against 9/11 victims' families in court.

There was $7 billion of Afghanistan assets, bank funds, liquid money funds in the bank in America that were frozen after 9/11 when we found out who was responsible.

The 9/11 victims' families sued, and they had gotten a judgment against the Taliban, al-Qaida, and Iran for $6 billion.

As this article points out, White House Democrats have a history of fighting against terror victims who are suing Islamic terrorists.

The Obama administration battled American terror victims suing the PLO. In 2015, after they won a $218 million judgment against the terror group, Blinken, then only a Deputy Secretary of State, intervened, claiming that the lawsuit threatened ``several decades of U.S. foreign policy.'' In other words, he took up for the terrorists against the victims' families.

The article points out that now the Biden administration is fighting 9/11 victims on behalf of the Taliban. At stake are billions of dollars being held by the Afghan central bank fund in the United States.

Further down, it points out that since Afghanistan has assets in this country, the United States, including $7 billion in bank funds, it is now entirely possible for the victims to collect that money.

Biden officially announced that he was splitting the $7 billion between the families of the victims and a trust fund to provide ``humanitarian aid'' for the people of Afghanistan.

For those who don't understand international relationships, when the Biden administration says it is for humanitarian aid, what it means is they have to give that money to the Taliban and trust the people who have lied and killed Americans and killed 13 Americans on the very day that the Biden administration had that ridiculous, hasty retreat. You are going to trust them? Are you kidding me? It is just so outrageous.

The article points out that $3.5 billion was placed in a separate trust that would be separate and distinct from around $800 million the Biden administration has already spent on aid to Afghanistan.

It wasn't enough that this administration left $85 billion worth of military equipment that they could use to attack us later, but they have been sending millions of dollars over there, like that is going to really go to help the people.

The article points out that what Biden actually did was take money off the table for the 9/11 victims, and it got worse. On the same day as Biden's executive order reserving $3.5 billion for the terrorists, his Justice Department filed a statement of interest in court arguing that the judgment for the victims of terrorism here in the United States was too large and that actually turning over the money to those victims in America would interfere with the Biden administration's foreign policy in Afghanistan, like we have a foreign policy in Afghanistan. Who believes that?

This administration tucked tail and ran, and ran so fast, it exposed our military, our people, our allies to death. Policy in Afghanistan, for heaven's sake.

The article points out that now a magistrate judge has repeated back much of the Department of Justice's arguments and ruled for the Biden administration that the 9/11 families who were laying claim to the other half of the $7 billion, that $3.5 billion, were not entitled to it.

If it weren't for the Biden administration going to court and fighting against the 9/11 victims' families, there would have been $3.5 billion, and this is not just some speculation. That is money in the bank. This is liquidity. This is money that is there.

The Biden administration has been fighting them in court to keep them from getting that $3.5 billion with a b that the Biden administration wants to give to the Taliban for ``humanitarian aid.''

Now, the Taliban is more likely to torture and kill, as they have done, anybody who was our ally than provide true humanitarian aid. To them, humanitarian aid is treating women like property, preventing them from having an education, which was improving, and killing those with whom they disagree. It is just tragic.

If there is any doubt about who would get the money, the deputy governor of the bank that this will go through is a Taliban leader who we have listed specifically as a global terrorist. That is who the Biden administration wants to help.

It shouldn't have been a surprise. I talked about this here on the House floor last week, that the Biden administration was fighting our own 9/11 victims, trying to keep them from getting reimbursement from the terrorists.

So, what happens? The last thing, here we come, running in here. Oh, we don't want the 9/11 families too mad at us. Let's take $3 billion that American taxpayers have paid and give that to the 9/11 victims instead of the $3.5 billion that belongs to the Taliban, we are told, by this administration.

Well, I think most Americans, if they knew that this had gone on, would say this is crazy. Do you actually want to give the people responsible for killing 3,000 Americans $3.5 billion so that you

can take taxpayer money from Americans and give that for the damages that the terrorists did?

That makes no sense, but it does explain why the last bill for the next month and a half was $3 billion of taxpayers' money that the Biden administration wants to use instead of the $3.5 billion that they say they need to send to the terrorists, the Taliban, in Afghanistan.

It was bad enough that this administration deserted our allies in Afghanistan and left them to be massacred by the evil within the Taliban, but now they want to give the terrorists even more money?

I mean, at least you would have thought somebody in this administration would have said: Do you know what? We left them $85 billion of military equipment. I think they can get $3 billion out of that.

That would pay the victims of 9/11. But this administration--$85 billion of equipment they left with them--has added $800 million of American taxpayer dollars sent over there to the Taliban for humanitarian aid. Now, they want to give $3 billion more of taxpayer money, instead of terrorist money, to 9/11 victims?

I think there were 30 or so Republicans who voted against this. Anybody who tries to say they don't care about 9/11 victims is a liar because they do, and that is why we have appropriated billions of dollars for them.

But in this case today, I can't help but think if everyone on both sides of the aisle--well, I know some would have known. If they had known there was $3.5 billion from the terrorists' own money in our banks that we could give to the 9/11 victims, then they would say that is probably a better idea than taking it from American taxpayers. That is outrageous.

Now, shifting to what is going on in our Department of Justice. We have been seeing these tactics that have been coming for some years, and people know that there was some corruption within J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. People should have gone to prison within the DOJ for what they did to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to the point not only did they harass him, spy on him illegally, but even send him messages that he needed to kill himself.

We know it has been bad in the past, but most of us felt like there have been great strides forward to the point that in the 1980s and 1990s, if you asked people around the world, they would say the FBI is probably the greatest law enforcement entity in the world.

That is not the case anymore. Some of the first people that will tell you that are people working for the FBI, but they have to be very careful. I have heard from FBI agents, former FBI agents, people that have been around awhile, one of them said, you remember the way it used to be? The FBI was a class organization.

We knew if there was a defendant who was nonviolent that--and I remember this happening before I went on the bench as a judge, and then during my years on the bench as a district judge. I knew of cases, where the FBI knew they were nonviolent, white-collar crimes, and even though they were very, very serious felonies, they would call the guy's lawyer, and say, you need to show up at the jail at this time, you have been indicted or you will be indicted. They knew they would show up because otherwise they might come knock down the door. That was not what they did. That was not their practice. They believed in civility and humanity.

I have been thinking about the intimidation tactics that have been used by the FBI, and it was for no other reason but intimidation. I think Merrick Garland, through some of the things he and Christopher Wray have said, they made it clear, they are out to intimidate conservatives, and they have done a good job.

Many are afraid to speak up about the improprieties that are going on within the FBI and the DOJ, even to the point that the head of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General himself, who was nominated for the Supreme Court--thank you, God, that he is not there--but he is in a place he can do a lot of damage to people's rights, and he has. He issued an order that DOJ and FBI, they were not to speak to a Member of Congress or the Senate without going through the FBI.

I have heard from people that have complained about what is going on in DOJ and FBI. They have talked about how Christopher Wray has talked repeatedly using this line, protect the brand. Protect the brand.

From the things that he would say, they tell me, he made it clear, we are not asking you to be honest and truthful. We are asking you, when you find something that is criminal or a wrongdoing within the FBI, don't tell anybody, just pass it up the chain of command. Let's keep it inhouse because if people find out about corruption inside the FBI or the DOJ, then it hurts our brand.

Christopher Wray and Merrick Garland apparently don't understand the damage that they have done to the brand of the FBI and the DOJ.

The Attorney General knows the Constitution and knows this body's right of oversight and knows that everybody inside and outside the Department of Justice has a constitutional right to talk to their Member of Congress without going through Merrick Garland's screeners. Yet, he orders that they don't have the constitutional rights they have got because he thinks his orders take precedence over the U.S. Constitution.

Why wouldn't he think that? They have been giving orders that take precedence over the Constitution.

I have been thinking, there is so much in the way of intimidation tactics being utilized by the FBI and the DOJ, that is exactly what the tactics were of a group that people understood they were all about intimidation. We hear comparisons, people say, oh, Donald Trump is like Hitler.

Really?

He wants more participation. He wants to have more rights back in the States. He wants to spread out the power of the government.

And that the left thinks is like Hitler?

No, that is not.

When you have a so-called Justice Department that is using the exact same tactics as the gestapo--you need to understand your Republic, a democratic Republic as it is often referred to, because we elect Representatives and then have Representatives represent us. They are servants of the people. So it is a Republic, democratically elected, it is in jeopardy. And ours is in jeopardy when the DOJ gets this powerful.

Now, there were some that were extremely upset about what happened on 9/11, like all Americans were, but they were concerned about what they saw as infringements on liberty within a month after 9/11. They have been talking about those for years now.

It has really come into focus in recent days as the FBI has knocked down doors, leaked information to media so that they are there to film people when they drag them out in their underwear. In some cases, not even giving them a chance to put on clothes.

Contrast that to the same treatment they would have gotten back in the 1980s or 1990s of telling them they need to report to the jail on a certain day and a certain time. I don't use the term ``gestapo'' lightly.

And why is our Justice Department feeling like they got to be like the gestapo?

I greatly admired the FBI when I saw the way they worked in the 1980s and 1990s. They were so professional.

Then along came Mueller in 2001 as the new director of the FBI. He started a policy that allowed the FBI to run off thousands and thousands and thousands of years of experience because he wanted nothing but young, yes-people working at the FBI.

So over the years, those people that would have said, excuse me, I know you think that is a good idea, but let me tell you what happened when we tried that before, or let me tell you where that is going and why it is not a good idea. They didn't want those people there.

If they wanted to go after a candidate like Donald Trump, they wanted people around them that would say, okay, here is how we can do it. We can do this secretly and we can do this and that. If it violates the Constitution, we don't care. We need an insurance policy to keep Trump from getting elected. If he gets elected, we need to violate more rights and we need to have people working for the Justice Department that will lie in an affidavit.

I am telling you, that is why when I saw the lack of response, or appropriate response from the FISA court, when they found out that the FBI and the DOJ lied to them, and then kept filing for a warrant every 90 days, basing it back on a lie, those FISA judges should have been outraged. The Chief Justice across the street on our Supreme Court should have been outraged. They weren't. They really didn't do anything.

The State district judges I know and the former Federal district judges I practiced in front of trying cases, I couldn't imagine them not calling a lawyer in and finding them in contempt because it was done in their presence and sending them to jail for 6 months before any criminal prosecution even took place, and then demanding that there be a criminal prosecution. That didn't happen.

So it tells you something about the FISA courts. We learned, I believe it was 2007, that the National Security Letters that give the FBI the ability to just send a letter like a warrant saying, produce all the records you have on this individual, that individual. And, by the way, it is a Federal felony if you tell anybody that you got this letter.

The IG did an inspection and ultimately said, oh, there are probably 3,000 or so National Security Letters that were sent out by the FBI when there was no case, there was no probable cause, they were just doing fishing expeditions. That is unconstitutional. We would have hoped that that got cleaned up, but we had an FBI director named Mueller that kept adding to the problems.

Instead of punishing the FBI agent that fabricated a case against Ted Stevens, a Republican Senator, the one that brought forward the fraud by the FBI, he gets run out of the FBI. The one that was involved in the fraud got a promotion and got a better job. So that tells you even back not long after Mueller took over at the FBI, he was involved in intimidation.

Really, I felt that ever since--we know that William Jefferson was a criminal, committed a crime, and was punished as he should have been. But when the FBI under Mueller made it clear--this is intimidation to Congress--you better not mess with me or counter me or have legitimate oversight over what I am doing, or I may just come search your office. Well, they did. It had never been done before that.

It was all about Members of Congress concerned about what was happening at the FBI, the abuses of our Constitution. So he shoves it right back in our face. It is intimidation. These are gestapo-type tactics.

There was an article that was written in the ``Eurasia Review'' back on September 1 of this year, and it expressed the concern I have. It is titled ``The FBI's Gestapo Tactics: Hallmarks of an Authoritarian Regime.''

It talks about, ``With every passing day, the United States Government borrows yet another leaf from Nazi Germany's playbook: Secret police. Secret courts.''

We have FISA, and I am fine if we get rid of them. We had national secrets that were kept before FISA. But the abuses and the lack of concern about the abuses by the judges tell me we need to get rid of them.

It says, ``Secret government agencies. Surveillance. Censorship. Intimidation. Harassment. Torture. Brutality. Widespread corruption.''

Look, if that power is there and the Republicans take over and put staunch conservatives in there, you know, we still would need very, very stringent oversight, so that nobody did that to the Democrats because when it happens to one side it should concern everybody.

I got really upset when I found out about the abuses of the National Security Letters, and that was under the Bush administration. I was calling it out. I was angry about it. And I am not hearing any Democrats concerned about the abuses of the Constitution that have gone on. The intimidation, borrowing pages directly from the gestapo.

This is how you intimidate people. This is very serious, and I don't have time to go into all of this. It is a good article from the Eurasia Review, but it goes and documents what the Gestapo did and what the FBI is doing, and it is scary.

I hope that if Democrats are not willing to address this issue now then, surely, they will be when we have a Republican administration because the abuse needs to stop.

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

So, Mr. Speaker, we are hearing that we have got to give DOJ and FTC all this authority to supervise and make sure that Big Tech is properly investigated. But our committee has oversight over the Department of Justice, and we have not done oversight as a committee to stop what has been going on.

I understand Heritage Foundation and some of these others, they haven't seen the whistleblower complaints that Jim Jordan and I have been seeing. I have gotten double-digits now myself that were not counted in the 14 that the committee got.

It sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah up there. We have gotten complaints this week about sexual harassment and about sexual improprieties on the top floor, the seventh floor--where the headquarters of the FBI is--and all the favors and all the intimidation that goes along with sexual improprieties.

Then you want the DOJ--the people who told the Big Tech that story about Hunter's laptop, that is Russian disinformation, which they are good at saying because they passed that on about Russian collusion, and any time that President Trump or people in his administration said anything, here came the DOJ whispering in people's ears: That is Russian disinformation.

These are the last people whom we need to trust with reining in the Big Tech because we have seen the techniques. I have got to give them credit. Although there is apparently a tremendous amount of corruption at the FBI and the DOJ that has not been reined in, I have to give them credit. When it comes to intimidation and manipulation, they are right there--and I don't say this lightly--they are right there with the gestapo.

I have had FBI agents talk to me about, remember when we used to call the attorney of people whom we knew were not violent?

Even though they committed very serious felonies, we would tell them when to report, and they reported.

We didn't use the gestapo tactics of going in in the dark, beating down doors, and dragging them out in their underwear to parade in front of cameras that they inappropriately leaked information.

Mr. Speaker, this is a different DOJ. They don't need more money. They need less, until they are made to and until they are helped to eliminate their corruption and they start cleaning up their own act which Christopher Wray and, unfortunately, Merrick Garland have not done.

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a segue here between things you were talking about earlier in the last half hour and all three of you have been mentioning, and that is when you talk about the $70 billion that has been provided to Ukraine for the war with Russia, if you look at the amount of increase in fuel costs that this administration caused, it drove up the price of oil, the price of natural gas so much that Russia made, last I saw, over $60 billion more than they had before.

This administration is really responsible for funding both sides of the war between Russia and Ukraine: The $60-plus billion that Russia got because Biden's actions increased the cost of fuel, and then the $70 billion that we appropriated to Ukraine. You go, this is nuts that they would be doing that.

Then you look at who is getting hurt, and you mention the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is down to its lowest point in decades because this President was trying to cover for his disastrous energy policy. So the millions of barrels that the Trump administration put in there so we would have it for an emergency, like a hurricane and other things, that is all gone, trying to cover for Biden's own disastrous policies.

The American public, they see the price of gasoline coming down some, but people need to understand what this is all about. It is what it has always been about, power in the hands of a small group of elitists and everybody else, like in the Middle Ages for many ages. The wealthy ride, the poor walk. That is what this energy policy of theirs is really all about.

I saw a picture just before I came over, John Kerry on his private plane flying, using that energy, because he is important, because he is the elite. But everybody else is going to need to give up their cars.

As our friend Thomas Massie has pointed out, plugging in a car overnight is like plugging in 17 refrigerators.

And everybody won't be able to do it, but if everybody would go to an electric car, then people aren't going to have power. And then they will have to rely on their buddy, their Big Brother Government to say, Okay, some of you can plug in these times.

What about when we were independent, and we didn't need the government to tell us when we could move about?

This is where it is headed. The green is really a brown policy, and it is going to be really unpleasant.

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

Brain Aneurysm Awareness Month

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for those words and comfort that they will hopefully bring.

I think most Americans, especially those that knew anybody who fought for our country in Afghanistan, are aware of how poorly things went a year ago when the Biden administration, it appeared, tried to emulate the disastrous leaving of Vietnam when so much was left behind, including our allies.

Like in Vietnam, allies were left there, many of whom were killed. Of course, 13 of our servicemen were killed that never should have been and did not need to be if we had left properly, as some of our Northern Alliance allies, a part of the Afghan people who fought for us and with us beginning in October 2001, about a month after 9/11--many died fighting for us and with us.

We helped provide them weapons, and we had about 300 or so Special Operations people who were embedded with them, and they took the fight to the Taliban. Within 6 months, there was no organized Taliban left in Afghanistan. Some of them fled to Pakistan or other surrounding countries, but they had been defeated with the great help of General Dostum, who was the commander who was the overall commander of the Afghan forces fighting against the Taliban.

President Biden and his advisers, for whatever reason, decided it was better to leave tens of billions of dollars of equipment and weapons for our enemies to use against our allies and probably one day use against the United States itself.

We saw this kind of disastrous exit from Vietnam. An estimated 2 million or so people who helped us and were sympathetic to us were killed in Southeast Asia. I just thought surely we would never be that stupid and that callous to allow allies to be harmed like that.

I met with some of our Northern Alliance allies, along with a few other Members of Congress, numerous times. Of course, there was the great Afghan hero of the war between Afghanistan and Russia. Unfortunately, our intelligence agencies here in the U.S. did not pick up on the importance of Shah Massoud, Lion of Panjshir, being assassinated by the Taliban within a day, day-and-a-half or so of 9/11 about to occur. Had they been awake and not asleep at what was going on, they would have anticipated the Taliban was about to do something to cause great harm to the United States.

They knew once we realized that the attack originated from Afghanistan that we would be coming and looking for allies, and we would certainly want Massoud and his brother and all those others who wanted the Taliban gone, we would be using them and working with them to eliminate the Taliban. So, the Taliban eliminated that great Afghan hero before 9/11.

In numerous meetings with our Afghan allies for a decade or more, going back to the Obama administration days, they were telling a few of us: Look, we know you have to leave at some point. We know that. But what we are begging is that you help us amend the Constitution that you forced on us. We like it; it is based on sharia law. But this is a country that is perfectly suited for the federalist system where you have so much power in your country in the States and our country, they said, in the provinces. But right now, the Constitution that you gave us, forced on us, the President appoints the governors, the mayors, the chiefs of police, and it is a system made for corruption.

It sounded to me like the way things were going over there, the times I went to Afghanistan, and you are hearing the reports of what was going on, whether it was Karzai or Ghani, that they may well have taken a great deal of money, like the old Roman days, and whoever gave the most money would get the best governorship.

They were appointing governors that didn't even live in the province that

they were going to be governor over. They were not allowed to have militias like they wanted, as Zia Massoud told me more than once in trips to meet with them.

In fact, the Obama administration did not want me meeting with our allies. They did what they could to keep me from meeting with our allies, even though the Obama administration basically threw them to the curb and was anxious to work deals with the Taliban.

In fact, the colonel there at the Embassy in Afghanistan, I told him that I have a meeting with Massoud, Dostum, numerous of our allies, and he said: We can't let you do that.

I said: I am not asking you for a ride. Massoud is sending a vehicle, and they will make sure that I am protected. They are not going to let me be killed because they want to protect the relationship.

The colonel said: Well, we are not authorized to let you do that.

I said: You see the gate over there? When the car gets here, I am going to get in that car, and I am going to go meet with our allies. I know the Obama administration has rejected any type of relationship with those people that fought for us and with us, who lost family members, but I am going to go meet with the allies that have sacrificed so much to help us, help both of us.

Well, they ended up getting a car, and I was told before the vehicle that Massoud was sending: Will you let Massoud know we are going to bring you there?

Michele Bachmann went out there with me. She had not met them before. Mike Burgess went out there.

But all they wanted was for us to help them fix the Constitution we forced on them. They needed a federalist form of government, and that is what they said: If you will help us get that, we can elect our own governors, and we can elect our own mayors, pick our own police chiefs. Then, each province will have a militia because when you leave, the Taliban is going to try to take back over, and then they will eventually want to hit you again. But if we are allowed to elect our own governors and mayors, we will be able to have a militia in each province. So, when you leave, then we will be able to band together and whip the Taliban again. But if you leave it like it is and keep negotiating with the Taliban--which the Obama administration had been doing basically the whole administration--then we are all going to be killed. Then they will hit you again, and then you will want to come back to Afghanistan and try to find allies, but we will all be dead, and no one will be crazy enough to help you again. So, just help us elect our own governors.

I said: What makes you think we can help you get your Constitution amended? It is your Constitution now.

He said: You are paying most of our government's annual budget, so if you say the Constitution needs to be amended or we are not going to pay this year's budget for you, then it will be amended, and we will be able to protect ourselves from the Taliban whenever it is that you leave.

I know Secretary Pompeo also negotiated with the Taliban, but there is no way President Trump would have ever allowed our troops to leave and leave tens of billions of dollars' worth of equipment for our enemy to someday use against us. He wouldn't do that.

And on the other hand, the Taliban knew that if they did anything to our folks during a projected move of coming back to the United States that President Trump would bomb them back to the Stone Age so they would not have done what they did. They perceived America to be weak under this administration, and we lost 13 soldiers, military members that should never have been lost.

So as if that wasn't enough damage, I see this article, I just saw it today, it is dated September 12 by Daniel Greenfield. It says: ``White House Democrats have a history of fighting against terror victims suing Islamic terrorists. The Obama administration battled American terror victims suing the PLO. In 2015, after they won a $218 million judgment against the terror group, Blinken, then only a Deputy Secretary of State, intervened claiming that the lawsuit threatened `several decades of U.S. foreign policy.'

``But now Biden is fighting 9/11 victims''--that is American victims--``on behalf of the Taliban.''

We have this administration helping the Taliban fight in court against 9/11 victims. The rhetorical question arises to the Biden administration: Whose side are you on? You are helping the Taliban.

The article goes on: ``At stake are billions'' of dollars ``being held by the Afghan central bank fund in the United States.

``A decade ago, 9/11 families sued the Taliban, al-Qaida, and Iran. The court found that the Islamic terrorists were responsible and a judgment of $6 billion was handed down.'' That is for the 9/11 families.

``The verdict was described as `symbolic' at the time. CBS News commented that `it would be near impossible to collect any damages, especially from the Taliban or al-Qaida.' But that was before Biden turned over Afghanistan to the Taliban. Since Afghanistan has assets in this country''--in the U.S.--``including $7 billion in bank funds, it's now entirely possible to collect that . . . `' $7 billion, or it would be if the guy who let the Taliban take over wasn't also in the White House.

``Biden officially announced that he was splitting the $7 billion between the families of the victims and a `trust fund' to provide `humanitarian aid' for the people of Afghanistan.''

In other words, we are going to help the Taliban out to make the people of Afghanistan feel better about the Taliban being in charge. That is what is going on here.

Biden officially announced that he was going to make that split.

``The $3.5 billion was placed in a separate trust that would be `separate and distinct' from the around $800 million the Biden administration has already spent on aid to Afghanistan. Officials admitted that the money could actually be used for matters other than `humanitarian aid.'''

In other words, it could be used to help the Taliban itself, the people that killed 3,000 or so Americans on 9/11, the worst attack on American soil in American history, and this administration is making sure they get billions of dollars.

The article goes on: ``The media headlined it as, `Biden frees frozen Afghan billions for relief, 9/11 victims.' But a Biden official admitted that it was done to stop 9/11 families from getting access to the money.''

``As a Lawfare blog post noted, `the administration's . . . `'-- talking about the Biden administration's--``' . . . plan would insulate nearly half of the Afghan assets at issue from these attachment efforts.

``What Biden actually did was take the money off the table for the 9/ 11 victims. And it got worse.

``Secretary of State Blinken claimed that the administration `will continue to support these victims and their families, recognizing the enduring pain they have suffered at the hands of terrorists, including those who operated from Afghanistan prior to the September 11 attacks. These victims and their families should have a full opportunity to set forth their arguments in court.''' This article says: ``Blinken, like his boss, lied.''

``While the 9/11 families would have their claims `heard in court,' neither Biden nor Blinken mentioned that the administration would be advocating against . . . `' these 9/11 victims.

``On the same day as Biden's executive order reserving $3.5 billion for the terrorists, his Justice Department filed a statement of interest in court arguing that the judgment for the victims of terrorism was too large and that actually turning over the money''--the $3.5 billion--``to them''--or all $7 billion to them--``would interfere with the Biden administration's foreign policy in Afghanistan.''

Like we have a policy in Afghanistan? No. All the rare Earth minerals, the things that could have paid us back for ridding the Afghan people of the Taliban, well, not only were they allowed to come back and take over, but they made deals with China to let them have the rare Earth minerals. In other words, this administration just exponentially magnified the loss in life, assets, and money that they lost for America.

``Now a magistrate judge has repeated back most of the DOJ's arguments, ruling against the 9/11 families

who were laying claim to the other half of the money. Judge Sarah Netburn's arguments closely mirror the contradictory positions of Biden and the DOJ. And they reveal the underlying corruption behind the ambiguous status of Afghanistan's central bank.

``Netburn, like the Biden administration, contends that the Afghanistan bank enjoys `sovereign immunity' because the country itself was not sanctioned as a terrorist state, only the Taliban were. And that the Taliban once again control Afghanistan is irrelevant, according to the judge, because Biden hasn't recognized the reality that this is actually the case.

``Banks don't enjoy `sovereign immunity' and neither do the Taliban. Netburn and Biden act as if there were some entity representing Afghanistan that is not the Taliban. That position might make sense if they were backing a resistance movement to the Taliban. But they are not.''

It was sad enough that this administration's mishandling of negotiating--we should have been negotiating with our allies to leave the country in their hands with an amended constitution. Instead, we left it in the hands of our enemies.

As some of our allies there have said, the day will come when the Taliban will hit America again. Next time it will be harder. They have got more money. They have got tens of billions of American assets to utilize or sell and use the money, but the difference will be this time after America loses thousands of lives at the hands of the Taliban and America comes to Afghanistan seeking allies to help them defeat the Taliban, as we did in 2001 and 2002, we will all be dead, those of us who were America's allies, and no one will be stupid enough to trust the United States again. What a tragic, horrific blunder by this administration.

Now, the exit was the blunder, but turning against the 9/11 victims' families, that is not a blunder. That is very intentional by this administration. Being much more helpful and sympathetic to the Taliban, who were terrorists that hit this country, and have never apologized and will never apologize, instead of standing against them and making sure they never commit terrorist acts again, this administration wants to be sure they get billions of dollars; like the Obama administration was ensuring that Iran got the largest state sponsor of terrorism. So I guess at least we can say that is a good thing. This administration, the Biden administration, is at least being consistent with the Obama administration.

The Obama administration helped the Taliban. The Obama administration did not help the 9/11 families. Now, the Biden administration is working against the 9/11 families, and they are actually helping the Taliban with more money than the Taliban has ever had. An amazing development.

If things don't get turned around soon where we have a wiser administration next time with Republicans in the majority come January that helps get back to using more common sense, then this will be a horrific chapter in the book rise and fall of the United States of America and how we helped our enemy ultimately destroy ourselves because of some misguided, hairbrained idea that you can give your enemy billions of dollars, give them tens of billions of dollars of military equipment and weapons and think you were going to come out just fine on the other side.

I want to address some energy issues. This article from NPR, August 25, reports that ``California is poised to set a 2035 deadline for all new cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in the State to be powered by electricity or hydrogen, an ambitious step that will reshape the U.S. car market by speeding the transition to more climate-friendly vehicles.''

It is a long article, but it does not deal with the reality that we are already seeing take place as this administration and people in some States are demanding to get rid of all fossil fuel immediately and quickly, but China will continue to own hundreds of coal-powered plants. Unfortunately, China doesn't utilize the scrubbers and things that allow American coal plants to have much more clean operation in producing electricity.

In fact, I have heard experts and people with whom we have consulted say there will be so much pollution coming from China that even if the U.S. totally eliminated every single coal plant, the air would not be improved because of all of the pollution that will be coming our way from China.

My good friend, Thomas Massie, has more patents than anybody in the House or Senate. Even though he got an MIT education, he is a brilliant guy. Thomas Massie has pointed out that actually plugging in one electric vehicle is about the equivalent of plugging in 17 refrigerators, and this administration wants everybody to start buying electric vehicles, so everybody has electric vehicles and the sooner the better.

But the fact is that even if half of the cars that run on fossil fuel now were replaced immediately with electric vehicles, then first of all, we would end up causing no telling how many children around the world to be used as slave labor more than are being used right now in order to gather and mine the lithium and the things that are needed to produce electric cars.

And we won't even bother to talk about right now the massive problem in dealing with that many batteries with all that lithium and what will be done with all of that. We don't know. We are just going headlong into trying to have all electric vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, you can't make an electric vehicle right now--not one that is any good--unless you use fossil fuel. And you have to have natural gas as feedstock to make so many of the products that are used in the vehicles. I guess you could do like Fred Flintstone and have one made out of stone and wood.

Why would this administration want to take us back to the Stone Age?

It seems some of these policies are determined to do that.

In fact, here is an article from The Epoch Times: ``States to Ban Gas-Powered Cars Despite EVs' Human, Environmental Costs''.

It was written by Katie Spence on September 12.

She points out some of these hidden costs that I have been alluding to, she says, ``According to politicians like Newsom and President Joe Biden, electric vehicles, or EVs, are `zero emission' because they use lithium-ion batteries--consisting of lithium, cobalt, graphite, and other materials--instead of gas.

``Thus, starting in 2035, California will ban gas-powered vehicle sales, while several other States plan to follow suit, citing that as a goal and `critical milestone in our climate fight'.

``Additionally, according to a statement from Biden, banning gas- powered vehicles will `save consumers money, cut pollution, boost public health, advance environmental justice, and tackle the climate crisis'.

``John Hadder, director of the Great Basin Resource Watch, disagrees, pointing out to The Epoch Times that `industrial' nations might benefit from the transition to EVs, but it's at the expense of all others.

`` `This expansion of [lithium] mining will have immediate consequences for front-line communities that are taking the ``hit'' '.

``For example, Copiapo, the capital of Chile's Atacama region, is the location of one of the world's largest known lithium reserves.

`` `We used to have a river before, that now doesn't exist. There isn't a drop of water,' Elena Rivera Cardoso, president of the Indigenous Colla community of the Copiapo commune, told the National Resources Defense Council.

``She added that all of Chile's water is disappearing because of the local lithium mine.

`` `In all of Chile, there are rivers and lakes that have disappeared--all because a company has a lot more right to water than we do as human beings or citizens of Chile.'

``In collaboration with Cardoso's statement, the Institute for Energy Research reports that 65 percent of the area's limited water resources are consumed by mining activities.

``That's displacing indigenous communities who have called Atacama home for more than 6,000 years, because farmers and ranchers have cracked, dry soil, and no choice but to abandon their ancestral settlements, according to the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development.''

Now that is so interesting.

But where is the compassion?

We are so determined to have electric vehicles so that we can say to the world that we are cleaning up the world when we are not cleaning up the world. We are making the world a disastrous place so that woke liberals here in America can think that all is right with the world when actually they have put children into slave labor by creating this market causing countries to dry up like Chile.

It is rather tragic, and people who mean well and think they are doing great need to understand the damage they are doing to the planet and to people who don't live in Martha's Vineyard.

Another issue that is particularly troublesome, Mr. Speaker, we have had a bipartisan effort in this body to work and to fight to stop genital mutilation. Yet now, after years of working together and trying to stop such a horrendous practice, we now have people who claim to be exceedingly liberal and caring, and they are pushing to have little children's genitalia mutilated, cut off, and eliminated and have those children take puberty blockers that will likely stunt their growth, make them infertile, and destroy the wonder that would have been their lives without the so-called caring people pushing them to destroy their bodies.

According to the most extensive study ever done by people who have been through sex change surgery, the Swedish Institute followed people who had been through sex change surgery for 30 years. And what was the most disturbing to me of the result of that 30-year study was that if you have sex change surgery, Mr. Speaker, you are 20 times more likely to kill yourself, to take your own life.

We had a press conference.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has a bill that would stop this kind of outrageous abuse of children.

You see, Mr. Speaker, my background, I have been a prosecutor, and I have been a litigator. I have been a felony judge and a chief justice before coming to Congress. I am quite familiar with the laws of Texas and Federal laws. Most States have very similar laws because we have advanced so as a people that we have understood that children need to grow up in innocence. It is so much more productive.

Some have felt that it may well be that Americans have been the most ingenious and most productive in creating new inventions and that our patent system before it got screwed up in recent years by Congress encouraged individual inventors to come up with new things. But I have read indications that some people believe it is because we encourage children to use their imagination in growing up, and they have developed more imagination.

Now we have got some people who think they are do-gooders, but they encourage genital mutilation of a child that can never be fixed. Oh, Mr. Speaker, you can do a transition back, but it is so devastating. It is horrific.

That is supposed to be an advanced civilization doing this to children?

The studies, and Dr. Paul McHugh--who was the head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, which is the first hospital in America to do sex change surgeries back in the sixties--points out that it is child abuse to give puberty blockers because of the adverse effects on the body to then do gender mutilation.

Mr. Speaker, I presided over criminal felony trials. Even if someone underage, a child, or a minor consents, the laws have made clear we recognize they are not mentally and judgmentally mature enough to give consent for anybody to do anything with their private areas.

I have sent lots of people to prison. So if an adult takes advantage of their immaturity, people have been sent to prison for that all over America. And the huge majority of Americans agree that it was the right thing to do when they sexually abuse a child, even if the child consented, because we know they are not mature enough to give legitimate consent.

Yet we have adults who should be mature enough to say, you are not going to touch this child's body.

They have to come of age, the age of majority, and make their own informed decision and give their own informed consent.

No one else should ever be able to do that in their place because these kids are the ones who have to live with their bodies for the rest of their lives, even though they are 20 times more likely to kill themselves because of what the adult gave consent for them to do.

I am hoping at some point there will be laws in every State and through Congress that we will do, as we have done with sexual assault of a child laws, where most States, if not all, that I am aware of, say we are going to extend the statute of limitations to a certain number of years past the time when they would become adults.

So that if any adult gave permission for someone to have perfectly functioning organs removed, changed, puberty blockers, and the child later feels that was an assault, then let them sue within those extra years of statute of limitations. I think it would be a good idea to do something like that.

Adults should not have the right to consent to destroying or harming a child's body, and especially when it makes it 20 times more likely they will take their own life because of what some adult did on behalf of the child.

Well, we had a young lady named Chloe Cole, a beautiful person, she is 18. Actually, this article by Christine Buttons from The Daily Wire, September 20, talked about the press conference we had.

It says: ``An 18-year-old detransitioned woman gave a powerful testimony on Tuesday against the `gender affirming' model of care that led to her irreversible medical transition as an adolescent.

``Chloe Cole spoke at a press conference in front of the''--it was in front of the Capitol--``in support of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene's new bill, the Protect Children's Innocence Act, that aims to shield minors from assessing the permanent body- and life-altering medical treatments that they may later come to regret.''

Chloe said: `` `How did we get to the point where nearly every pediatric institution in the country considers it best practice to remove the healthy breast tissue of children while administering drugs typically used to chemically castrate high-risk sex offenders?' Cole said of the widespread acceptance of radical gender theory in medicine driving `gender-affirming care,' which effectively puts children in the driver's seat to dictate the terms of their own sex change.

`` `I believe Americans deserve to know the truth about this radical and perverse ideology, marketed as necessary and ``live-saving'' healthcare,' said Cole. Cole opened her speech with a chilling statistic.''

She said, `` `Over the past decade, there has been as high as a 4,000 percent increase in children being referred to so-called ``gender clinics'' across the United States. I was one of these children.' A recent UCLA survey found that the number of trans-identified teens has doubled in the last 5 years to about 300,000 in the United States, while the rates of adults identifying as transgender have remained the same. According to the Gender Mapping Project, only a handful of pediatric gender clinics existed in the United States a decade ago. Now over 200 have spawned to meet the growing demand of adolescents who identify as transgender seeking medical transition.''

I read an article that the former head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins had written, pointing out that 80 percent of children, boys and girls, who identify or seem to have gender dysphoria--is what it is now called in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual-V.

Dysphoria--if you look it up--it means confusion, sort of an antonym to euphoria. People are encouraging people to become more and more gender-confused.

Dr. McHugh pointed out about 80 percent of those who have confusion about their gender growing up, if they never have counseling, they never have some do-gooder adult encouraging them to have their genitalia mutilated and their life shortened, and perhaps most likely a good chance of infertility, that if they are just left alone, go through childhood, 80 percent transition into exactly what they are biologically without any problems whatsoever.

Yet, we have people in this country that want to create laws against anybody allowing a child to go through

childhood and then adjust, and not have the physical horrors that these surgeries cause.

I was deeply moved by Chloe Cole. She is a beautiful person. She was very unfortunate in having people think they knew better and encouraging her to take steps that she should not have taken, as she will tell you now.

We are supposed to be the ones that are mature and help children avoid going through horrors, and, yet, we have even got States passing laws--don't you dare help this child. Let's help the child go through genital mutilation, even though it will be his or her body.

As Dr. McHugh has pointed out and studies have pointed out, you can go through sex change surgery or gender reassignment surgery--whatever you want to call it--DNA-wise, biologically, you are still the same gender you were before the surgery, and your DNA will remain the same.

Now, who knows, I read a Swedish study this year about the mRNA vaccines. It was interesting, it says there is radiation at the point of the injection, and more radiation found in the liver after the vaccination with the mRNA vaccines. But the study documented that they found that the mRNA ends up going to the liver and rewriting the body's DNA for them. We don't know where all that is going to end up, but it certainly doesn't appear to be going a good direction.

I have got no problem with people continuing to get the vaccinations and the boosters, I think that is fine, so long as the wonderful doctrine that we developed making healthcare better than it has been in the history of the world, called informed consent.

That doctrine that requires that a physician or healthcare provider advise the patient of all the potential risks of a vaccination, treatment, surgery, whatever, and then letting them talk to their doctor and making their own mind up about whether or not to go through with it.

If we could do that, and I would submit, also allow the healthcare providers and the pharmaceuticals to be liable for any damage that they cause if they don't allow informed consent and allow the individual to make up his or her mind, unless it is a minor. We don't allow minors to make decisions normally unless it is in the sick area of genital mutilation that I was just talking about.

If pharmaceuticals are that excited about continuing to make tens of billions of dollars providing vaccinations, vaccines, great, just stand good for whatever damages you cause. It sure seems like that would be the right thing to do.

I won't have time to get to it, but this article from Jennifer Margulis and Joe Wang, The Epoch Times, September 10, the headline is, ``'Unethical' and up to 98 Times Worse Than the Disease: Top Scientists Publish Paradigm-Shifting Study About COVID-19 Vaccines.''

It points out the boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented. So for each hospitalization prevented, they are saying 18 to 98 actual serious consequences to the body will result.

It is going to be an interesting week next week. I look forward to seeing what more damage that Congress can do to our economy, to our country. I hope that people, Mr. Speaker, will let their Members of Congress know what they agree with and what they disagree with.

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

Mr. Speaker, these are the times that try men's souls.

We have heard so much in recent days about the raid by the FBI in Mar-a-Lago. I have continued to hear from FBI agents and former FBI agents. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have, as my friend Jim Jordan has pointed out, received, I think, 14 complaints from people within the FBI about very serious problems. I have had several that I have received personally that were not included in those 14. I understand Senator Grassley has also gotten some.

There is a systemic problem at the FBI. Christopher Wray was appointed to clean up the FBI. As I told President Trump later on: You have asked me about a few of your appointments; I wish you would have asked me about that one, because I could have told you a great deal, going back to the days of Mueller as director of the FBI. Director Christopher Wray learned some of those techniques.

Director Mueller, even going back as far as Boston, tried to keep two people who were innocent of the murder of which they were convicted-- they were set up by FBI agents--and Director Mueller continued, even after it was clear they were innocent, to try to keep them from being released from prison.

Then along came Comey. He has had serious issues with truthfulness and yet does a great job of trying to play the victim.

I had one FBI agent, who had been around a long time, say: You remember back to the 1980s, 1990s, at the FBI? We were completely professional. If someone had a nonviolent background, we were just about doing our job. We would notify the--especially if we knew the person had a lawyer, we would notify the lawyer that your client needs to appear, is being indicted or has been indicted, needs to appear at this or that jail at a certain time. And, of course, if the person didn't arrive, they knew they would be picked up. But they were given a chance to voluntarily surrender. Normally, that went very well, quite professionally.

But what we have seen arise with the Department of Justice and the FBI is absolutely disgusting. I mean, I was a law-and-order felony judge. I have sentenced people for felonies, everything from probation to the death penalty. I know what it is to wrestle over the issue, presentence reports, evidence at sentencing, and what appropriate sentences are.

We expected local, State, and Federal law enforcement that came before me to be professional, and they better not lie or there would be consequences and there were.

But this FBI, this DOJ is so far out of control, and Christopher Wray took his appointment as Director--at a time we needed the FBI cleaned up--as a directive to sweep everything he could under the rug.

FBI agents have told me, from different places in the country that I have talked to, you know: What Director Christopher Wray keeps telling us constantly is nothing about being honest. Be truthful about everything you say and do. But his big line, they tell me, is ``protect the FBI brand.''

And they make clear, they say he makes clear, and they follow up by their actions making it clear, that if there is somebody in the FBI doing something wrong, you better not report it to anyone but your supervisor.

I am not going to get into some of these because I haven't had an opportunity to properly go through them to exclude identifying information, but those that complained to their supervisors that I have seen the complaints, they are retaliated against.

So it becomes very clear to honest, honorable law enforcement people working at the FBI, at least many of them, that when Christopher Wray says, ``protect the FBI brand,'' he means don't you dare report anybody anywhere except to your supervisor, and that way we can get rid of you, we can make your life miserable, we can get you out of the FBI, so it is only people who won't complain about lies, dishonesty, corruption, because the message seems pretty clear: We want people that will help us convict the people we want convicted, whether they are guilty or not.

I am not going to get into all of the complaints that have been provided to me, the information; but I want to concentrate on one issue since Mar-a-Lago, the raid there by the FBI, again, they jumped the gun. Never, ever before has a former President had their residence raided. And it is very clear that with Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland, here is the deal: If it is a supporter of President Trump, let's go after them, make their lives a living hell. Let's send the message out far and wide, you better back off supporting that guy, that former President Donald Trump or we will come after you. We will come after your friends.

Instead of doing what was done with people working with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who were given immunity agreements that would even include stuff like, we just want to see your laptop, and here is the deal we will make with you. Instead of getting a search warrant, grabbing the laptop of Hillary Clinton's assistants, they made a deal. We just want to look at your laptop, and here is our deal: We will not use anything we find in the laptop against Secretary Clinton, against you, against anybody. We just need to see what is there. That is all we are going to do. We are not going to copy it or anything, and we promise we won't prosecute you.

I have never, ever seen a deal like that. Who would make that kind of deal except corrupt people in the Department of Justice and the FBI?

Because what you do if you are law enforcement, you get the warrant, you seize the laptop, and if there is evidence of crime on there, as you believe there is, then that can be used to prosecute the people instead of giving them an immunity agreement that you will not come after them at all.

There were incredible deals made to protect Secretary Clinton and the people who worked for her and to make sure they had no reason to testify against their boss. Because typically law enforcement all over the country, all over the world, knows if you are going to make a case against somebody at the top, whether it is the mob, whether it is the State Department, wherever, you make a case against the people below, and you say: Okay. Here are 20 violations; you are looking at 5 years, you are looking at 100 years. But we will make a deal, we will only pursue this charge that carries a 2-year sentence if you will help us on the people above you. And you work your way up the food chain.

That is the way great prosecutions have occurred against mob organizations, and it works the same way with any organization, except that the DOJ and the FBI chose to treat conservatives, chose to treat all of Donald Trump's friends, people that might have information against him, they were all treated very differently because there are two types of justice. Justice is no longer wearing a blindfold in Washington, D.C.

From some of the complaints I have seen, I used to think the problem was here at the national headquarters, but apparently it is not just the field office or the headquarters here because there has been so much corruption, it spread all over the country.

So there is all the indignation from the FBI and the DOJ about documents that were held in Mar-a-Lago. Now, I haven't talked to anybody with President Trump's team, with President Trump. It has been months. And the last time I talked to him, he was just calling, surprised that I was running for Attorney General in Texas, and it was a very short conversation. So we hadn't talked about any of this. But I understand his frustration because I have seen the way evidence was created to pursue two impeachments of Donald Trump.

I have seen the evidence, at least some of it, of the way the FBI and the DOJ falsely convicted Senator Ted Stevens immediately before his election. I think they tried him 2 weeks before his election, and he lost just by very little. Then he was exonerated when one FBI agent who believed in truth signed an affidavit establishing that there was exonerating evidence, exculpatory evidence that they did not provide to Senator Stevens and that they forced a witness to say what he had made clear was not true, and they convicted him.

That seems to be a pattern. These kinds of things appear to be going on in different places. Oh, yeah, they are convicting some guilty people, but it makes it very difficult to know which is which when you have an organization that plays fast and loose with the rules and plays fast and loose with the truth.

So you have got people who have made complaints, and just like the FBI agent who had a conscience and reported the fraud in the prosecution of Ted Stevens by the Department of Justice and the FBI, he was run out of the FBI, and the one that was engaged in the fraud, according to the FBI, was reassigned and then promoted.

How do you have a national law enforcement entity that keeps integrity when integrity is no longer the key word? Oh, yeah, I have heard Comey and others talk about integrity, that the FBI, the ``I'' stands for integrity. Not anymore.

No. It is all about preserving the brand, which means you can't allow any information about corruption within the FBI to get outside, or we will use our ability to be corrupt to come after you for filing or making a complaint or reporting dishonesty.

Every American has a constitutional right to communicate with his or her, or whatever your pronoun is, your Member of Congress. It is a right.

And not only that, it is a constitutional right that those communications can be privileged and protected, which is why when William Jefferson, Congressman William Jefferson, who did have $90,000 of cold, hard cash in his freezer--and I read the affidavit that was used to get a warrant to search his congressional office--and there were people that were on TV saying, gee, there are people like Gohmert that are saying they had no right to raid that office.

Well, those individuals are just ignorant of the Constitution. But the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was not. And they made clear, look, even though the Department of Justice in that case--and I had no problem with him being convicted. It appeared to me from the affidavit, holy cow, if this is accurate, they didn't need to raid his office. In fact, by raiding the office and violating the privilege, they put their case that was rock solid in jeopardy.

I remember being an assistant district attorney, right out of law school, ready to go pursue justice, and let's get the bad guys. And it always helps to have somebody that has been around a while, say wait a minute, think about this. What you are proposing to do to get evidence, it may violate the Constitution. It may not. But you have got

a rock solid case here. Why risk it being thrown out trying to make some point and get some little piece of evidence you don't need? You have got enough to convict. So don't create a possible error pursuing evidence you don't need. Just get the conviction. Don't get into the murky areas that may reverse your case. You will get the conviction, and you will keep the conviction. It won't be reversed on appeal.

But they put that case at risk because all those years before--and I did happen to be in the room. It was the conference room of the Speaker. His legal team, House counsel, White House counsel came over, DOJ counsel came over, and there was a lot of fury because of what the FBI under Mueller did, raiding that office, because in the past if someone had a warrant, like to search a congressional office, well, the DOJ knew, FBI knew there is privileged material in there. In fact, I am sure I am not the only one who has had FBI agents provide information about wrongdoing within the FBI.

Well, when the Founders set up these three branches of government, as Justice Scalia once explained to some friends from my old town, the reason we have more freedom than any country ever in history--at least we used to have it--was because the Founders did not trust government. So they made it hard for any one of the three branches to abuse people and abuse their power. And the only way the Department of Justice--that was created and financed by Congress--the only way to keep them accountable--or the intel community--is to make sure Congress does proper oversight. And you can't do proper oversight unless you are allowed to have people come to you privately and say, Here is the problem, and know that they are not going to have reprisals.

That is why we have the whistleblower laws that many are apparently using now. So the way it was done beforehand is you come to House counsel. We have a warrant. House counsel, who is familiar with the privilege of Congress to keep certain things private and other things not, would then go through everything that was specified, because you have to have in the warrant, you have to state with particularity the place to be searched, the things to be seized.

They would go through those, and they would put aside anything that was privileged and then give the things that were not privileged that matched what was in the warrant, give that to DOJ. But Mueller wanted to send a message to everybody in Congress, Democrats and Republicans. I don't care about your constitutional rights or privileges. We are going to go heavy-handed, and I am going to send a message to every single Member of Congress: You don't mess with me, or I will come search your office. And I will send a message to every FBI agent: You better not complain to Members of Congress because I can go raid their office, and I can find out who you are, and I can destroy your lives as well.

That was a message very clear. And the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said, Wait a minute. So the DOJ says, okay, we will take the stuff from the Congress Members' office, and we will have some people that won't be involved in the prosecution that work in our office. They will go through it and anything that is not privileged, they will go ahead and give that to the prosecutors.

And the Circuit Court is going: You can't do that in the same office. Come on. That has to be somebody different that makes sure that it is secure.

And we saw the FBI, all these years later from that, basically doing the same thing with Mar-a-Lago. You have Presidential executive privilege. You have attorney-client privilege. Apparently, that doesn't mean much anymore at the DOJ, but it still means something to those of us that care about the Constitution.

And yet, they set up their own department to go through--we will decide what you can claim as privilege and what--no, you don't get that right.

So what do they do? They hurry through it. So they have already been through everything before the Court could appoint a special master. And from what we saw in Ted Stevens' case and other cases, you can't be sure stuff won't disappear.

Look at what we just found out. All these years later, going back 6 years, that the FBI has covered up for 6 years that they employed the Russian. The FBI was colluding with Russia. The DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, they were all colluding with Russia to try to destroy Donald Trump. That is why the FBI hired Danchenko. That is why the DNC and the Clinton campaign hired Christopher Steele.

And what we are hearing on the news the last day or two is that at the time they went before a judge and swore an oath to keep getting the warrant to spy on the Trump campaign and on President Trump, they knew their basis was a lie. They committed fraud upon the FISA court.

And apparently, there are people in the DOJ that don't understand the F in FISA--that F word that is the first word in FISA is not what they apparently think it is. It stands for foreign. And they committed a fraud upon the Court and got a warrant for the first time in the history of the country.

They helped their political campaign by spying on a political opponent. Even the DOD, the Department of Defense got involved. They hired the professor. And, in fact, we had someone who was a whistleblower. He went and said, Look, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid to this professor in London, and we got nothing in return for it. This is a problem.

So what happened? They fired him because he found where the DOD was helping go after, at that time, candidate Trump. They fired him. He is still trying to get his job back. He hasn't gotten justice yet.

But how can people in America have any confidence in the Department of Justice when they think--when there are so many people, apparently, who think it is okay to go commit a fraud on the court even at the highest level of the DOJ and the FBI. It is not okay.

Yes, every organization is composed of people who are human and make mistakes, but for goodness sakes, when you have top people who flaunt the law and think they are above the law, and that if they want to go after somebody, then they are Almighty God, and their judgment is tantamount. And if you ever report them, they are coming after you because they are God-like in their own minds.

Look, the FISA court is being abused so badly, we know now--and I've mentioned before--but that Verizon order that was leaked, I couldn't believe it. A judge signed that. Had the judge not read the Fourth Amendment? You have to describe particularly the place to be searched and what's to be seized.

And what the government, the FBI, the DOJ said is, you know what? FISA court, we need every bit of information this cell phone company has on everybody. American, foreign--we don't care. We need every bit of information they have on every single customer.

And the judge looked at it and went, Oh, okay. They need every bit of information that Verizon has on every single customer. Sure, I will sign that. Where is the particularity? Where is the evidence that any of these people have committed a crime--or ``probably'' committed a crime? You have got to have probable cause. Where was that?

And where is the indication that there was evidence in what was being seized to prosecute those people for committing--there wasn't any. No, they just wanted everything on everybody, and they used the FISA court to get it.

When I saw that, I am going, oh, my gosh. I mean, I have signed so many warrants over the years as a judge--I have turned many down. Wait, you don't have probable cause in here. You can't just plead conclusions. You have to assert specific facts in your affidavit that supports the application for a warrant so that, as the judge, I can find there is probable cause a crime was committed and probable cause to believe there is evidence that I am going to specify they can be found at this specific location. Being abused like crazy.

So here is a letter from--and this is from the attorney, Kurt Siuzdak. It is my understanding he is a former FBI agent. He sets out to Director Wray:

Under 28 CFR Part 27, you are advised that an anonymous

employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is making a

protected disclosure to the United States Congress and House

of Representatives.

The anonymous employee is reporting to you and Congress

that executives in the Federal Bureau of Investigation have

been violating FBI security protocols that have been

implemented to ensure the security of classified information.

Since you have been Director of the FBI, many Senior

Executive Service (SES) officials have been wearing their

cell phones into SCIFs.

That is the secure compartmentalized facilities. It is like a room that they can ensure is totally free. It can't be bugged. It has not been bugged. There is nobody with any electronic devices that could be hacked so that people can listen.

I asked one of our intelligence people one time about a show that I saw, a movie, where a cell phone company required everybody at meetings to take their battery out of the phone: Does that keep a phone from being compromised during a meeting? He said, no, because even if you take the battery out--which I don't know how you do that with an Apple phone--but even if you take the battery out, there is another residual power so that your information is there when you put it back in, that we could still get in and we can listen to you. We can access the camera. We can watch.

That certainly didn't make me feel very secure about things as long as there are phones around. And he said other countries are really good at hacking. There are some that are great at it.

So if somebody has a phone in a meeting, we can listen, we can watch. So that is why you have a SCIF. And we have a couple of SCIFs here on Capitol Hill. You can't go in there--you can't even get near being in the SCIF with a cell phone. No Member of Congress is allowed. They are very strict. No Member is allowed to have a cell phone, a smartwatch-- those kind of things.

The letter goes on and points out that:

These violations have occurred at the SCIFs (special

compartmentalized information facilities) in field offices

and at a facility known as LX.

The anonymous employee worked at LX and several field

offices. The anonymous employee had visibility of

counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and field office

executives. Although all FBI personnel are prohibited from

bringing electronic devices into SCIFs, FBI Senior Executive

Service personnel openly and notoriously wore phones into

SCIFs in ways that have made it apparent they were

demonstrating their power and authority to subordinates.

These executives would walk into and out of the SCIFs

multiple times wearing their cell phones on their belts and

never stop to secure the cell phone prior to entering the

SCIFs. When the phone rang, some executives would exit the

SCIF and answer the phone, but others would start talking on

the phone prior to exiting the SCIFs.

Depending on a particular cell phone's settings, apps, and

vulnerabilities, eavesdropping using a cell phone's

microphones may be considered a trivial cyber hacking exploit

for advanced persistent threat or hostile nation-state

actors. Some executives wore multiple holders which would

indicate they were also wearing their personal cell phones in

the SCIFs.

As a result, FBI executives have willfully compromised the

security of FBI SCIFs since your time you became Director and

potentially many years prior.

Additionally, the anonymous individual is reporting that

FBI executives who are involved in preparing daily briefing

materials for you or participating in FBI headquarters daily

briefings have brought classified materials to their homes to

ensure that they are prepared to answer questions for the

next day's briefings.

Why, that is worse than what they are accusing President Trump of.

Although certain executives may have courier cards that

allow them to transport classified materials, the classified

materials in question were certainly not properly packaged,

and the courier cards do not allow FBI executives to store

classified material in their homes.

The anonymous employee advised that although the FBI is

investigating individuals not currently employed by the FBI

for mishandling of classified materials, the anonymous

employees cannot recall a single FBI Senior Executive Service

official who was even reprimanded for these violations unless

it involved incidents in which the classified material was

found in public. In contrast, DOJ has prosecuted non-SES FBI

employees for mishandling classified information.

One reason for the failure to hold FBI executives

accountable is that field office security officers generally

report to the special agents in charge or assistant special

agents in charge in the office. FBI special agents and

employees do not stop these notorious security violations

because reporting the misconduct of these executives would

certainly result in retaliation and would be professional

suicide.

Please note the DOJ OARM has determined that anonymous

reports of serious misconduct can be protected disclosures.

Although the Department of Justice Office of Attorney

Recruitment Management has in section 5, subsection C of its

procedures for FBI whistleblower reprisal claims brought

pursuant to 28 C.F.R. of part 27 stated that it is not bound

by any ``case law of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board,

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and any

other Federal court of appeals deciding a whistleblower

appeal from the MSPB.''

They have made clear they are above the courts and above Congress. They are above everything. They will do what they please.

Wow. And they are in charge of justice.

You should also be aware that one of your Office of General

Counsel attorneys advised me that she would not accept 28

C.F.R. part 27 disclosures because it wasn't part of her

current caseload. Under that standard, OGC has completely

insulated you from receiving protected disclosures from

outside attorneys and thwarted Federal whistleblower laws and

regulations.

Well, that is apparently because he is head of the FBI, and as head of the FBI, he is above the courts, and he is above Congress. He can do what he pleases.

We saw that Merrick Garland, our Attorney General, issued an order to the FBI that they are not to contact any Member of Congress. So much for the Constitution and your constitutional rights. I am the Attorney General, he is saying, and I can override the Constitution, the Supreme Court, court of appeals, and the President. I am God when it comes to you, is the message. We Americans have a serious problem with a Director and an AG who are acting like that.

Because after that came out about saying there were phones especially in the Director's and Deputy Director's SCIF, the Director sent out their media person to say it is a lie, that there have not been any cell phones allowed in or around the SCIF. Then that triggered a number of complaints and people coming forward to set out that the Deputy Director's denial was a lie.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.

I needed to know the time because I have to play by the rules. I can't act like I am the Attorney General or FBI Director and just ignore the rules and law.

So here is this letter again:

Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. part 27 and the FBI's Dodson rule,

you are advised that an anonymous individual from the FBI is

making a protected disclosure.

It goes on. This individual was an executive who recently worked at FBI headquarters. The person had work-related reasons for being in the Director's and Deputy Director's office areas on the 7th floor of the Hoover Building.

While working in the 7th floor SCIF areas, the individual observed numerous security violations involving the presence of personal electronic devices such as cell phones, smartwatches, and wireless sports bands. The individual recently read that the FBI publicly denied the security violations at FBI SCIFs and specific violations by Deputy Director Abbate.

The individual is reporting this issue because the FBI's denial casts doubt upon the credibility of the FBI employees who made the initial disclosure related to Mr. Abbate. This individual advised that the SCIFed areas where Director Wray and Deputy Director Abbate currently worked had multiple people wearing or displaying electronics that are prohibited in the SCIF.

In fact, the FBI has explicitly limited the smart bands and watches in non-SCIF areas because the devices pose such a serious security threat.

There is a little more. But then there is another to Mr. Abbate:

Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a ``categorical denial'' about your failure to follow proper SCIF protocols to protect national security.

Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, these are the people who are

condemning former President Donald Trump because they weren't

sure the padlock they said they had to add on top of the

locks he had already was good enough.

Frankly, if I were President Trump and I had seen and heard about wrongdoing at the top of the FBI, and I had seen the gestapo tactics they have used to go after nonviolent people who used to have their lawyer get a call saying

that he needs to report at a certain time in a certain place and they would do it, he had seen on the news how they would leak information whether it is CNN or some other liberal media so that people could be there when they knock down the door or drug people out of bed in their underwear and took them outside--the FBI didn't used to do that. Now, the gestapo used to do that. That is what they would do because they were about intimidation, threats, and torture if necessary.

But when somebody is nonviolent, no criminal history, and they are obviously not a threat, you are going to bring a full SWAT team so you can drag them out of bed?

One family reported that her 18-year-old daughter was grabbed by the hair and drug upstairs to show where something was.

For heaven's sake, what happened to the professionalism at the FBI and the Department of Justice?

Anyway, this letter says:

You also seem to have decided that ``good of the Bureau''

equates to the good of Paul Abbate. It does not. The FBI lied

to the American people to protect you, which is shameful.

By issuing an absolute denial of your misconduct, you also

implicitly claimed that the two individuals who reported the

misconduct made false statements. This assertion is also

false. Thinking back, you are certainly aware that many of

your subordinates saw you wearing the phone in the SCIF. Now,

your subordinates are coming forward, and their reports are

far more damning to you and Mr. Wray.

You, Mr. Wray, and the employees on the 7th floor violated

national security because you were all too lazy to secure the

devices.

He put our most precious and most confidential secrets at risk because of his arrogance.

When SSA Schoffstall--he is a special agent in charge out

West--emailed you requesting that you rescind the reprisals

by Salt Lake City's SAC Dennis Rice--special agent in charge.

Wray's and your replies to Schoffstall were ``deleted, not

read.''

They didn't want to know about reprisals for doing his job and protecting the brand.

This supervisor refused to allow his subordinates to be

pressured to lie, and you refused to help him.

That was what he did wrong. His subordinates were being pressured to sign a lie under oath that they knew was a lie, and they wouldn't sign, which would be a crime to swear under oath to something you know is not true. They were being demanded to sign a lie under oath. They wouldn't do it. When their Special Agent in Charge Schoffstall defended them and said: No, you can't make my agents sign a statement that they are telling you is a lie. Sure, we understand you want those things in there because you need them to have probable cause, but we are telling you they are not true.

So, the supervisor was punished for protecting the honesty and integrity of his field agents.

What do Director Wray and Deputy Director Abbate do about it? We don't want to hear about it. We would delete it, and we didn't read it because we don't want to know about the pressure on agents in the field to lie on affidavits.

Who is going to investigate that? Oh, the DOJ. The DOJ has a little group of lawyers. They will look into it.

What a ridiculous system. They need oversight, and this Congress sure isn't going to have oversight because they want them to keep coming up with stuff to go after Donald Trump.

The letter goes on:

This supervisor refused to allow his subordinates to be

pressured to lie, and you refused to help. If you want to

understand how that feels, just ask the media representative

who issued the denials about your personal violations in the

Madam Speaker, this is the bill, 728 pages, that we got from the Senate this week. Has anybody read it?

Come on. That is over a billion dollars average per page. That ain't gold; that is fool's gold.

Look, more IRS agents, as Art Laffer said years ago, that is not going to increase the amount of revenue to the government, and, in fact, when you say it is going after the ultrarich, what happens is the ultrarich are the only ones that can avoid paying taxes. They can hire attorneys, accountants. They can move, change their business structure. It comes right back to the middle class every time.

These same policies are the reasons that the average Black household in the 8 years of Obama lost 30 percent of their net worth.

We keep hearing from the other side that there is this runaway inflation, and this ugly bill is going to stop it. Well, our President said it is zero percent inflation. Somebody is lying. We will find out who.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the previous assault weapons ban that was referenced by our Speaker, I just want to make sure our record is actually correct. The FBI that kept the data had to admit that, as sympathetic as they were to an assault weapons ban, actually, it doesn't appear to have really made any difference.

If we want to talk about crime since then, we can talk about the big cities that have come under the control of Democratic authority, who have pushed for things like no bond.

John Adams had it exactly right. This Constitution is intended for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other. So, we are either going to have to get rid of all of our constitutional rights--we can't even allow freedom of an assembly or speech, much less the Second Amendment, if we are not going to teach moral right and wrong.

What are we finding? We are finding in our schools, of course, that they are not teaching the Ten Commandments. Instead, they are teaching to envy. Look around, covet, see who has something more than you, and you should envy and covet.

Just keep in mind, under the big city laws now, if you get violent, we will give you no bond. We will let you right back out.

Do you want to know what would do more right now than banning AR-15s? It would be to ban Democrat thinking in the big cities that is allowing the crime rates to just explode.

We have always had guns in America. That is why there is an America. But we never had a time like this when we were teaching our children everything but the moral imperatives.

That is why this bill needs to go down, and we need to go after the causes of our violence.

Mr. Speaker, a law today that I was not aware of is 2 USC 1979, Release of Security Information. And section (c) says, ``Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the ability of the Senate and the House of Representatives, including any Member . . . to obtain information of the Capitol Police regarding the operations and activities of the Capitol Police that affect the Senate and House of Representatives.''

Mr. Speaker, they have thousands and thousands of hours of video, and I have seen what notice was given to one of the January 6 defendants. It said, You will get this section, this section. That is what we will use to prosecute. They were not given any of the exculpatory evidence.

So today, we requested this information--all the video--from the Capitol Police, and it is worth fighting for because we need to know all the truth.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor and a privilege to have a chance to address the House. There is so much that is so critically important going on these days, especially this week, and I wanted the chance to address those.

I have a friend from Texas who hopes to address the House, and I advised him I would yield him such time as he may consume. So my friend--people say that a lot, ``my friend.'' But Randy Weber is a dear friend, and I think he will be out at any moment.

In the meantime, I think we had an 11- to 12-hour hearing yesterday in the Committee on the Judiciary, and I will get into that momentarily.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), my dear friend from southeast Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend bringing that to our attention. That was a great tribute to a great man from a great man.

I did attend and help things out at Gilley's on a number of occasions there in Pasadena--Pasadena, Texas, that is--not far from downtown Houston.

I don't know. I guess I had the look that I could ride a bull because they turned it up as high as it could go wheeling, and it was something. I got better at it, but that was tough when they put that thing on full speed, yanking back and forth. I just knew I wasn't going to ride a bull in the rodeo.

Rather prophetic, too, was Mickey Gilley with one of his biggest hit songs, ``Don't the Girls All Get Prettier at Closing Time.'' Quite an astute observation. But we were young then.

It was interesting, hearing the colloquy exchange between Representative Scalise and Leader Hoyer, the discussion about inflation.

I remember vividly the years under President Gerald Ford, and he adopted WIN and had WIN buttons, which stood for ``Whip Inflation Now.'' The failure of the policies at that point to whip inflation, along with Watergate, helped elect President Jimmy Carter, and things just got worse and worse. We lost our international standing. Countries did not respect us.

Beginning in 1978, I was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia. As I have said before, we weren't in combat during my 4 years on Active Duty, but I still have deep regrets that President Carter did not respond more appropriately when an act of war occurred in Iran, in Tehran, when our Embassy was attacked and over 50 employees taken prisoner.

We were put on alert. That went up at Fort Benning, and people weren't sure who all was going to be going if a group was sent.

But I still believe, having lived through those days, watching every development, that if President Carter had made clear to the Iranians, you will either release--initially, I think they started out around three days. The spokesman for the Ayatollah kept saying the students attacked the embassy, the students took the hostages.

I mean, I was young, but I wasn't stupid. And it appeared pretty clear to me that the spokesman for the Ayatollah was giving himself a back door: The students did this. That way, if President Carter reacted, as he should have, and said you will either release those hostages, get them released from the students, play around with the ridiculous thing that we are saying, if you don't get those released within 48 to 72 hours, something like that, then we are sending as many people as it takes to get our people back, and to stop the active war you started.

But if it is the students, you can just take care of that quite easily. But, again, if you don't release them, see that they are released, we are coming. And if you harm one hair on their heads, then we are going to take everyone associated with the Ayatollah Khomeini, including the Ayatollah Khomeini, out. They will not exist after we come.

I really felt if President Carter had taken that strong position, they would have been released. He couldn't bluff; he had to be serious about it. But if he had said he wasn't bluffing, then I really felt like they would have been released. And nobody was dying to go to Iran at Fort Benning, but everybody I knew was willing to go and give up their lives, if necessary. That was part of being in the service.

But that never happened. And it took getting a new President, Ronald Reagan, in office, before people around the world began to take the United States seriously. But some in this body have talked before about, Oh, no, we don't want to give the radical Islamists something to recruit with.

Well, one of the best things they ever had to recruit with was President Carter and his unwillingness to take a stand and make a difference. And as a result, it is my belief that--having studied history my whole life, majored in it in college, never stopped studying it--that we lost thousands of American lives because we didn't have a President in President Carter that engendered respect. And respect carries a little element of fear. We didn't have that. And as a result, for decades, Americans have suffered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my friend.

Democrats' Leftwing Agenda

Mr. Speaker, when Mary Miller tells you something, you can count on her being truthful about it.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we had many hours of hearings in the Judiciary Committee on a couple of bills. One of them, the Democrat majority and leaders in the Judiciary Committee and the Democratic Party were saying repeatedly that no one has gotten immunity from liability like the gun manufacturers. And that was said many ways, many different times, vilifying gun manufacturers.

What it boils down to is in the Second Amendment, it makes very clear, in operative part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, it has been infringed many times. The Supreme Court has had to strike things down many times. So the effort to eliminate the Second Amendment through the courts has not occurred.

You can be smart and not have commonsense, but we are dealing with some smart people here who have figured out, Okay, we have tried every which way to get rid of the Second Amendment. If we are ever going to get to the progressive, socialist, communist dream--whichever one of those you want to use, it is all pretty well the same thing these days--you are going to have to get rid of the Second Amendment.

The left knows that. And they have made some strides. They have made some dents into the Second Amendment. But this is going to make use--if they get it passed into law--not of warfare but of what has come to be known as ``law fare.'' It is where you overwhelm someone or some entity with so many lawsuits that they cannot continue. And if it is an entity, you put them out of business, not because they are liable, but it is because they can't handle that many lawsuits. It just undoes them and puts them out of business.

And if you look historically where that would take us is to the medieval-type thinking where you had this small group of elites. They rode everywhere they went, and us peasants would walk everywhere we went. Maybe there was a big wagon that would carry the peasants at times. But the ruling elite--which is what you get with socialism, progressivism--this tiny veneer of ruling elite that billionaires in America think, mistakenly, that they will be part of if they help get to that socialist utopia, being ignorant of the fact that every time a Nation moves to socialist utopia, once they are there, they thank the gazillionaires for all the money. They helped make the socialist dream come true. And then they either kill them or send them to a gulag and take all of their money.

So these billionaires that are pouring in money, the socialist leaders are saying, Thank you very much; oh, we appreciate you so much. But if they get to that socialist utopia, those billionaires that made it possible will be dead, or wished they were, because they were in some prison, some gulag somewhere, doing work requirements. So that is historically what we are talking about.

But I keep coming back to that vision of what is being pursued and what will the outcome be. Once you either eliminate the Second Amendment or you eliminate every entity that makes guns, then the ruling elite can get closer to their dreams of being the ones riding in private jets, in Suburbans, up-armored; being the only ones in America who have guns for their security forces while all the peasants, the masses, the unwashed--all of us--would have nothing. And we would have to kowtow and bow.

Now, I got a little taste of that the summer I was in the Soviet Union as an exchange student back in the 1970s. And I thought it was crazy. We were told there were eight Americans allowed in on this program. We were told in orientation, Look, you have got to understand in a communist society like the Soviet Union, only the elite have cars. Everybody else takes mass transportation or walks.

In the United States, pedestrians generally have the right-of-way. But don't think for a second we were told anywhere in the Soviet Union that you have the right-of-way of a pedestrian, because only the ruling elite have the cars. And it is a game to them. They will try to hit you because they know, as the ruling elite, if it ever came to court or there was some question about you as a pedestrian being hit, the ultimate result would be a ruling that you should have seen the car coming and gotten out of the way. Because these are the ruling elites and you are the peasants. Great socialist utopia. That is where we are headed if these kinds of bills get passed.

If you can't get rid of the Second Amendment, their strategy that we lived through hours of yesterday, bankrupt the gun manufacturers. And then we will be on our way. And that way, only the ruling elite will have security forces with guns and everybody else will either walk or take mass transportation. The ruling elite gets the private jets.

And it is okay to just have massive amounts of carbon emissions and private helicopters, private jets, big Suburbans, like Al Gore used. I read where he was seen having an entourage of big jets--this was long after he was out of leadership as Vice President--but they would all be sitting there, cooling for the Vice President--or former Vice President. So that is the kind of thing that will continue.

The ruling elite, they get to pollute like crazy. Their yachts, their private jets, those will continue. In fact, there will be a lot more of them. And you see people like the Biden family--Hunter Biden that got close to oligarchs in Russia, in Ukraine--and made money off the Chinese Communist Party because they were in charge in China, let's face it.

But isn't it interesting that if you look at the policies and the things that this administration has done, who has benefited?

Yeah, they talk a lot of trash about Russia but at the same time, by President Biden basically going to war with energy companies in the U.S., he has so driven up the price of oil and natural gas that Russia's been able to fund their invasion of, and war with, Ukraine.

We got $13 billion passed in this House. Another $40 billion. I voted for 13; I didn't vote for the 40 because it didn't appear to me there was enough restraint on what President Biden could do with the money.

It made big headlines in the last few weeks when the Biden administration announced: Gee, we are going to provide $820 million to Ukraine. Well, you have $53 billion to work with and you are trickling out $820 million while Russia is making big advances in Ukraine? For heaven's sake, that is one of the reasons I didn't vote for the $40 billion because I figured that the Biden administration would find other things to do with it.

Apparently, they want to have a lot more sex change surgeries in the military. They cost a lot of money--it doesn't cost $40 billion if you had a sex change for everybody in the military. By the way, that does put our military members in a category where they are not able to be utilized for military services. Last I saw, they stayed in that category where you couldn't deploy them until such time as a psychiatrist could certify that they were comfortable in their new gender. Amazing. No wonder we are losing respect around the world when we are not spending defense money on defense, we are spending it on social experimentation.

We see these bills coming. We see what is happening. All you have to do is look from a historical perspective. The discussion about gasoline is actually cheaper now than it was at the end of the Bush administration. My gosh, we just went through TARP being passed, $700 billion--well, yeah, that is going to cause some inflation.

Along came the Obama administration--the Obama-Biden administration-- and they got another $900 billion on top of having a majority of the $700 billion still to spend. They were throwing money at things right and left that would help them get reelected. So I wouldn't be bragging about a whole lot.

In fact, I have seen an article indicating that during the 8 years of the Obama-Biden administration, the average Black household in America during the Obama-Biden 8 years, the average Black household lost 30 percent of their

net worth, which really helped bring a great deal of light and emphasis on candidate Donald Trump's question to a large Black audience:

What do you got to lose by voting for me?

What do you got to lose?

You just lost 30 percent of your net worth under the Democrats. Lo and behold, the average gained net worth under the 4 years of President Trump.

So people, I think, are starting to look at those kind of numbers again, and I think it is important to do so.

Back to our hearing yesterday. They kept saying that gun manufacturers were given immunity like nobody else in America. It was my honor to get to illuminate that issue for those that hadn't thought through what they were saying and didn't realize that it was not true.

First of all, a very timely topic that many of us think has long outlived its usefulness is the massive immunity that has been given to the pharmaceutical industry for the vaccinations that they have made tens of billions of dollars just in a year--they have made so much money off those.

So much so that they looked around--most people have gotten the vaccination. I hate to see somebody have natural immunity from having COVID because they are not as vulnerable to getting COVID again as apparently people are that have had the vaccinations and all the boosters.

So what do you do?

Oh, let's go after the young people under 5 years of age. These are people that statistically, you would say, don't even have a statistical chance of getting COVID and passing away. They were the least vulnerable among us when it comes to COVID--and that is who they want to give a jab to and boosters--even though we are seeing more and more indications that immunity ends up being compromised in many people who get the boosters. It doesn't seem to help with immunity to new strains of COVID.

The Democrats were more than thrilled, it seems, to give them all kinds of immunity. When I saw the huge, unfolded warnings that come with the vaccination, I said to the pharmacist: Where are all the warnings?

They know about a lot of things that go wrong with these. We know about it from the VAERS reports of so many things that have gone wrong, starting with blood clots and going from there.

He said: No. It says up there because it is emergency use authorization, not only do they have complete immunity to any lawsuit for damages or deaths they cause, they don't even have to warn you of all the damages that they know can result from the vaccinations or the boosters. They don't even have to warn you.

My friends in the Judiciary Committee yesterday--because they kept saying, you know, nobody else gets this kind of immunity, they just weren't aware--I know the rules, we are here in the House of Representatives, you can't intentionally lie to anybody. That is why I am sure they just forgot or weren't aware of all the immunities that they provided to other entities--the pharmaceutical.

They don't even have to warn you or give you a heads-up of what is coming potentially with the vaccination or booster. Then you got social media. Section 230 has allowed some of the richest companies in the world and individuals in the world to completely escape liability. They should be made to answer in court for fraud and for so many of the things that they have done--for censorship, for taking away people's rights that they were told they had under the social media.

Anyway, even though I know that my Democrat friends were not talking about section 230 immunity--there it is. Of course, they don't want to bother that because that allows all the Democrats controlling these massive social media giants to censor and help at election time and help Democrats get elected.

They want to leave that immunity in place when it needs to go. We need to just eliminate section 230. We were told, well, that was important to have to allow them to get started. Listen, they are started, and they are some of the most powerful companies in the history of the world--some would say more powerful than the U.S. Government itself because of all the information they have. It is time to get rid of their immunity from liability. Even fraud--you can't even sue them for fraud.

Diamond and Silk, they were telling me how they had paid in order to have their name come up more often. Not only did it not come up more often, an algorithm was used to send it to the bottom. That is called fraud. They took money from them under fraudulent circumstances. They can't even sue over that.

I am for getting rid of that immunity. I know that people knew, so they must have just forgotten. Members of Congress have immunity from being sued. You can come down here, you can accuse President Trump of all kinds of crimes--colluding with Russia, when it turned out that was not Trump, that was the Hillary Clinton campaign that was doing the colluding with Russia.

You can accuse him of all kinds of crimes. You can call Trump guilty of all kinds of thing, and you can't be sued for it--for things you say and do here in the House. We have got that immunity.

Heck, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris got the same kind of immunity. Even though we have lost more than 100,000 Americans in 1 year from fentanyl and drugs that have come across our southern border illegally, if they didn't have the immunity that my Democrat friends in the Judiciary Committee said doesn't exist, then they could be sued for their negligence or intentional failures.

They both took an oath to uphold the Constitution. So allowing a completely porous border--that is not upholding their oath. Over 100,000 people have died just from the illegal drugs that have been allowed in by this administration.

If not for the immunity, President Biden could be vulnerable to lawsuit. Even with all the money that Hunter has helped bring in, it wouldn't be enough to pay all the judgments if it weren't for the immunity. Maybe somebody might--if they were not immune--somebody might try to allege that it was negligence and purely stupid to put someone in charge as border czar who would never go to the border to even investigate and see at the border what was going on. That would make her vulnerable to liability as well, except for the immunity.

Those are rather important ideas to remember. Republicans didn't give gun manufacturers some kind of exclusive immunity. They are liable. If they are negligent--they even have strict liability. If there is a defect in manufacturing or design, they are liable. In one case, they paid out millions of dollars because they had advertised and targeted a specific audience they shouldn't have.

They clearly have liability. That was just a lot of information that was not accurate that was being tossed out yesterday as a reason to get rid of all guns except, of course, mark my words, if they were ever successful in doing that, that little veneer of ruling elite, their security would have the guns, and we the peasants would have no guns and no way to defend ourselves.

Of course, we are seeing the abuses of law enforcement. We have had hearings on that before, massive abuse by law enforcement. With the bill yesterday, they were providing an exemption from getting rid of guns to bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture and in the Department of Education. Bureaucrats, these weren't even the police force, were going to be exempt from the new laws the Democrats in the Judiciary Committee wanted to get passed.

We said: Wait, it is probably just an oversight because you have given an exemption for law enforcement, but you have no exemption for military or veterans.

The chairman of the committee--a Democrat chairman--said basically that, well, you have to keep in mind that they get PTSD, and they have all kinds of problems. We don't want to give that kind of exemption to carry guns to people who have been trained with them and who serve or have served in the military.

This is just a real slap in the face to people who put their lives on the line defending our country.

Do you want to dismiss them? Well, they have PTSD. They have all kinds of problems.

It is a shame that those people who are the reason that we are allowed to be here and talk, they put their lives on the line for us and our freedoms, and then they just get dismissed.

Bureaucrats in the Department of Education, who may not have ever been trained with weapons, are more important to give exemptions to than these current military or veterans. That is a mentality that is hard to understand.

We look at Indiana, at the shooting in the shopping mall. It is incredible that a person with the right to carry, within 15 seconds, the guy coming out into the mall with an automatic weapon, and this guy, as I understand, at 40 yards and with a handgun--I mean, I had to qualify every year with a handgun and with an M-16--at 40 yards put 8 out of 10 rounds in the shooter. That is incredible. But it sure did end the horror at the mall.

If other shooters find out that they could have 8 out of 10 rounds put into them if they walk out and try to do that at malls, it would help stop a lot of people from being tempted to do something that criminally evil in other shopping malls. It is just incredible.

We had this issue come up. I have page after page, over 50 pages, of recent history where people with right to carry have stepped up and saved so many lives because they were a law-abiding person, a selfless, law-abiding person willing to put their life at risk to save others. There is case after case, more than 50 in these documents.

It starts with information from criminal research, July 11, 2022, and it goes on and on. Like I say, I know there are more than 50 pages. These are heroes stepping up and putting their lives at risk knowing at Uvalde they had hundreds of law enforcement there.

I still don't understand that. They could hear the guy shooting children. You had a police chief while he is shooting children just asking him sweetly to put the gun down. The door wasn't locked. They could have gone in and taken him out at any moment.

I know hundreds of law enforcement as a former judge and former assistant district attorney, and I don't know any who would have stood by while children were being killed. It turns out there were people in Uvalde who were stopped--some law enforcement--who couldn't go in and do anything.

If a concealed carry, somebody with a constitutional carry, had been allowed to risk their life and go in, they would have. But people were being stopped and kept from going in. I recall an incident at our courthouse in Tyler and seeing the film when shots started being fired and the law enforcement starts running to the sound of the guns.

I had one incident at the courthouse. As is often the case, it was a domestic situation, and a shooter started shooting. We had a concealed carry permit holder who took his gun. The active shooter would have killed a lot more people, but the concealed carry permit holder started shooting at him. He got shot and died from his wounds. The guy had to take off. There is no telling how many lives were saved by that sacrificial person being willing to put himself out there in harm's way, become a target himself, and stop the shooter.

Law-abiding people have made a difference that way.

We had a lady who took her gun out years ago and went into a cafeteria to eat in central Texas. A gunman ended up shooting her parents, among others. If she had been allowed to have her gun, she would have stopped him. Then, she led the charge in the State legislature to get concealed carry permits, and that was the basis of the start there.

Mr. Speaker, you have to have people who have been taught that there are some absolute rights and some absolute wrongs. C.S. Lewis became a Christian from being, he would say, agnostic--seemed like sometimes atheist. But he liked to cajole Christians: Yes, yes, isn't easier just to admit there can't be a just God with so much injustice?

It finally dawned on him, the brilliant Oxford professor that he was, how could he say that there was injustice if there were not some absolute, universal standard somewhere of right and wrong? If that existed, then there must be something like a God who put that in place.

The more he wrestled with that, the more he came to understand that we all have innate in us this feeling of fairness and of justice. As he pointed out, it would be like someone born blind at birth trying to describe sight. How would you know that there is light or no light, Mr. Speaker, if there weren't something universal in it?

It is the same with injustice. He realized that when there is injustice, we would know it, and we couldn't know it if there wasn't an absolute, universal justice and injustice. Then that eventually led him to further inquiries and further research, and he became a Christian.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is justice; there is injustice; and there are gray areas we argue about. But as John Adams said--and I will say it often because it was such a brilliant quote from one of the Founders who was there for the constitutional debate. He said: ``Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''

If we are not going to teach children that thou shalt not murder, then we can't have a Second Amendment right. We must teach children that these things, these commandments, are universal, that you are not to lie and you are not to envy other people, and that there are things that are just not healthy for you and not healthy for society and for the culture, and they are universal. They are not healthy, and they are not good.

Honor your father and mother. Of course, fathers and mothers are supposed to be fair with their children. But if we are not going to teach that, if we are just going to teach that everything is relative, that it depends on your circumstances, that it may be right for you and wrong for somebody else, right for them and wrong for you, no, it is all relative.

If we are not going to teach that some things are absolute, then we cannot have the rights that are provided that our Founders said were provided by our creator. We will have to get rid of them. We will have to go to being what some already want, and that is a totalitarian government. It is where it always goes. We are already breaking records every day that we continue to live under our Constitution, but we are no longer a religious, moral people.

People thought, historically, when we got rid of slavery, we were so on the right track, and when Dr. King did so much to allow somebody, a little boy like me, to be able to treat like brothers and sisters my brothers and sisters, he did so much. Then somehow now we are regressing where we want to have segregated dorms and segregated this and that. I can't believe that people are wanting to regress.

But, Mr. Speaker, if you are not going to teach some of these absolute moral truths, then we are going to have to give up our rights that our Founders--so many of them and so many over the last 240 years--have died to make sure we had. I don't want to do that. I don't want to give them up.

But Congress has to start using better judgment. Otherwise, it is very clear, historically, we are moving--we have people who are wanting us to move to that point where the rich ride private jets. In the old days, they rode horses and carriages. In the modern day, they will have their private jets. They will jet back and forth around the world, telling everybody how they can't even have a wood-burning stove anymore and that you can't fertilize your fields, so people are starving to death.

Well, those are the peasants because the elite little ruling class has all the food they need. They have the guns they need. The peasants out there, for the good of the climate and for the good of the planet, you are going to live in your refuse, and you are not going to have the benefits that our wonderful ruling elites have.

That is where it is going. That is what progressivism is. That is where it always goes, a totalitarian government, a little elite group. They get to ride, and they have all the food.

Mr. Speaker, look at Sri Lanka. They have an over 90 percent grade in ESG, and now people are starving and the government has been overthrown.

This is where it is going. I don't want to go there. We don't have to go there. Let's keep our rights under the Constitution.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honored to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), former chair of the Appropriations Committee.

Honoring Fallen Heroes in Floyd County, Kentucky

Madam Speaker, what a very fitting and appropriate tribute to such selfless servants.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Remembering R.D. Kinsey

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for the message from my friend from Arkansas, words of wisdom that are greatly appreciated.

One of the things we took up this afternoon on a vote here--and if I recall correctly, there were two of us voting no--but I know the people voting for the bill wanted to try to help with the issue of baby formula. But the bill was thrown upon Republicans last night, not exactly the best way to handle legislation with far-reaching effects, and then voted on today. Well, let's look at some of the facts.

Here is an article: ``Global infant formula products market: estimations and forecasts for production and consumption.'' This points out that in 2017, the EU was the biggest supplier of infant formula, with one-third of global volumes, with China and southeast Asia in second and third places respectively.

Chinese companies have invested in ingredient and infant formula production capacity in France and in the Netherlands and have strategic alliances in Denmark and Ireland. So that way, when they produce it, they don't have to say, ``made in China,'' which causes some people concern, especially when you have stories that exist, reports where Chinese formula has done great damage.

Here is a story from September of '08: ``China: Fourth baby dies from tainted formula.'' So Americans have reason to be concerned when we go buying baby formula that is manufactured by Chinese companies, no matter where it is actually produced.

Going back to this article, it says: ``China is the second largest infant formula producer'' and points out they do export some of their formula.

But with this report about opening plants in other countries, it may give the impression and the appearance that these are not like the formulas that were created in China.

So here is another line that says: ``A lot of the global growth in infant formula production will come from Chinese companies investing in production capacity outside China.''

So it is not enough to ask where was this produced; it is also important to ask: Who actually produced it; who is behind it?

It is also surprising that we would get that bill late at night before people are expected to vote on it the next day when--here is an article from the BBC in May of 2022, and it indicates that the FDA said sales of infant formula rose 13 percent in April compared to January before the recall, and some indicators suggested that the out-of-stock rates had been overstated. It says: ``Increased sales are a good indicator of formula available to the general population.''

Now, if you are in a place where you can't find formula, then it is not much of a comfort that people are finding more in other places in the United States. But here it is: This should have gone through a committee. This should have had an opportunity not just for debate but for more research. It should be under what we normally try to do. Leadership from the parties tries to give 72 hours' notice, but this bears looking at.

I understand that the vote is only going to go until the end of the year, but as Ronald Regan said, the closest thing to eternal life here on Earth is a Federal Government program. I have seen in my years in Congress things that are only going to be a matter of months, just 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, but they are still going on. It happens over and over.

We have been told, oh, this is going to sunset, and that will be the end of it. Then, we get pressure brought to bear on enough Members that those sunsets are reset to further years down the road.

When it comes to baby formula, American babies should have enough American formula produced to take care of them where we have--and obviously, the FDA has shown in the last few years that they can be totally incompetent in so many areas. They can have decisions appear to be totally based on money rather than the best interests of Americans. The FDA has shown that they don't care about it being your body, your choice. They would rather force you to have injected into your body what they tell you to inject, especially when it makes billions of dollars for pharmaceutical companies that are under an emergency use authorization so the companies have no liability for the death and injuries that they cause.

In the case of baby formula, we find out in an article that indicates that already the Abbott facility is at 95 percent of what it was before the FDA shut them down and created problems in doing that without proper regard.

It seems like this bill was a rush to get done without properly considering what this would mean. Whether it is intentional or not, what we keep seeing here are bills that pass through this House that end up making profits for Russia, China, Iran, OPEC, countries that hate us.

As I have said from years ago when I started pointing this out, whether it is paying countries that vote against us more than half the time in the U.N. or bills quickly passed like this that are going to provide profits to other countries, we don't have to pay people to hate us. They will do it for free.

Shouldn't we use profits strategically and quit helping those that want to destroy America for all time? If you just look at the Ukraine invasion by Russia, the policies, decisions, executive orders, things that have been pushed through by this White House, pushed through Congress by this White House, the Biden administration, Russia has made so much profit because of what this White House has done that they have been able to fund the war and the invasion in Ukraine.

On the other hand, we have had the same administration rush in and get Democrat leaders in the House and Senate to pass bills that would-- well, we had $13 billion, $40 billion, we have had other bills that we have to pass this to help Ukraine. Well, I voted against the last one because there were simply not--I want to help Ukraine.

I have a special place in my heart for Ukraine, having been an exchange student in Ukraine back in the seventies. I grew to love so many of the people there. It is a good place. They are good people. Of course, they were corrupted by a Marxist system, as every country that attempts Marxist systems is. But as a farmer on a massive collective farm explained to me when I asked, in the best Russian I could muster, ``When do you work out in the field?'' because they were sitting there in the shade in the middle of the morning, he said, in Russian, ``I make the same number of rubles if I am out there in the sun as I make in the shade, so I stay in the shade.''

Well, the Soviet system was able to crush the amount of produce that could be generated in Ukraine and have done much better without the Marxist-Soviet system as far as production.

But I would like to be assured by the bills we pass that money is going to be utilized for what is intended. When you are giving tens of billions of dollars to an administration that just carelessly and callously leaves $85 billion of equipment in the hands of our enemies that killed 3,000 people on 9/11 and would like to kill all the Americans they can, then we need to be more careful in what we pass in this Chamber because this administration cannot be trusted.

I have never indicated that I believe the administration wanted American soldiers killed in Afghanistan because I don't believe that. I just believe their incompetence is at such a level, their lack of judgment is at such a level, that they made it possible that 13 soldiers could be killed on what should have been a peaceful exit if it had been properly done and if we had properly utilized the assistance of our allies, the former Northern Alliance that fought and originally defeated the Taliban with about 300 special operators from the U.S. There shouldn't have been any Americans who were killed in leaving Afghanistan. But then to leave that much equipment, that just cries out that this administration is incompetent, that the leaders in the Pentagon are incompetent.

They continue to say climate change is the biggest threat, but let me tell you, there was not a single military servicemember who was killed in Afghanistan by climate change. Those 13 who were killed, it wasn't climate change. It was incompetence by this administration, the poor judgment by this administration, that got our people killed.

There will be more Americans killed, as our former allies that initially defeated the Taliban by early 2002 told me in multiple visits. For years, they were saying: You can't stay here forever. You end up like occupiers. It is not good for you, and it is not good for us. But for heaven's sake, don't leave the country so that the Taliban is going to take over and kill off all of us who helped America. Don't do that because they will kill us off, and the Taliban will still want to destroy America. But next time they hit you and kill thousands of people and you want to come to take on the Taliban in Afghanistan, we will all be dead. Everybody that helped you will be dead. There will be nobody to help you here.

They were trying to warn us not to negotiate with the Taliban, just defeat the Taliban and leave, and leave them in a position in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban when they tried to rise again.

This administration did exactly the opposite. They negotiated with the Taliban. They left them $85 billion of equipment to help kill Americans in the future and our allies in the future. It sent a message to China and Russia that if you want to invade another country, if you want to take over an area where the U.S. was once the prominent force to be reckoned with, do it now because the administration in charge of America is too incompetent to do anything about whatever imperialistic moves you want to make. That was the message this administration sent.

We need more safeguards. I think about a predecessor of mine, Charlie Wilson. As some constituents have said over the years, Charlie had a lot of personal issues, problems, but he was always honest about them. Charlie was on appropriations, and he knew how to leverage appropriations, as the Founders knew. They gave us the power of the purse, yet this Chamber doesn't use our leverage to get good governance out of a faulty administration. We just rush to give them sacks and sacks of tens and hundreds of billions of dollars so they can throw it around wherever they want it.

I was shocked to see that this administration, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, is promoting atheism and humanism. They are providing grants, as I understand it, through the State Department to groups in other countries that will encourage atheism in those countries. They will provide grants to other groups. To be providing funds, grants, to export atheism makes it clear that this administration is going to create chaos around the world.

As John Adams said, and it can't be said too often, this Constitution was intended for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other. Unless we are going to get back to teaching moral absolutes, some things are just wrong, and some things are right. If you are not going to teach those moral imperatives that we have had throughout our country--the Supreme Court said, no, you have to stop with those. The Ten Commandments, no, don't be teaching that. Somebody might think it is improper to murder. You don't want to let that be taught in schools or brought up in public areas. Get rid of those.

John Adams knew. George Washington knew. He talked about the imperative nature of teaching morality and religion. Atheism is the absence of religion. It is not a religion. Yet, this administration, heavily funded by this body, is going around the world saying, yes, we want to give you money if you are going to spread atheism and humanism where we teach people to be as selfish as they possibly can be.

This country won't continue to go on as an experiment in self- government because you are going to have to get rid of the Second Amendment. You are going to have to get rid of the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. You are going to have to get rid of the freedom of assembly. You will have to get rid of freedom of speech. You can't have freedom of religion. We are going to have to basically get rid of the Constitution.

I would prefer to do what the Founders talked about--sure, there has never been one perfect human being in all of history--none were perfect. The amazing thing about the Founders is they recognized their imperfection. They even put it in writing because they understood the importance of all people being equal and that all people were endowed with rights not from mankind, but from God.

When you fail to recognize that, then it is very easy to take away people's rights because, you know, who are they?

If you believe what the Bible taught and teaches, we are created in God's image--and I don't think it was in a physical image--but if created in the creator's image then people, every single person, is worthy of being free and worthy of having rights as pronounced in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

We are at a very precarious situation in our history. We have had those before. The Founders, like Thomas Jefferson--yeah, he had slaves, but go look at his original copy of the Declaration of Independence. He made clear that slavery was a scourge, it was an abomination, it was a harmful thing, it was a grievance that the Founders had against King George III because he should never have allowed slavery to get a foothold at all, and that it was going to help destroy the country.

He recognized this was a problem. It got taken out of the final draft. But you had Founders that recognized, yeah, they knew it was hypocritical to have slaves and talk about how wrong slavery was. They were trying to put together a government, a country, with freedoms that would last, but they understood how precarious that was. They understood that no government ever lasts forever. They tried to give us the best instruments they could.

I read, of course, that Jefferson was not there for the Constitutional Convention but sent a letter after he read it saying that if I could change one thing, I would make it a requirement that any bill had to be on file for a year before it could be voted on. Well, that would have kept us from voting on this bill that rushes in as formula production is getting back close to where it was in January. We rush in at the last minute, and say: No, no, we are going to allow people to buy more Chinese milk wherever they choose to make it.

Isn't it interesting, we keep doing things that end up profiting countries that hate us.

That brings me to the topic of fuel. It is rather ironic--there is an article from the Gateway Pundit. There is a Houston television station doing a story on the wind turbines in Texas as ERCOT was created to create policies and oversee our energy production in Texas.

We haven't really had problems with energy production until we got ERCOT. Of course, they were putting so much emphasis in green energy that we had a terrible power outage in winter. They were taking care of spending more and more on windmills and solar, but they didn't follow the advice of a study that said you need to winterize the natural gas connections--so they weren't winterized, and we had a failure.

In this story: ``Texas grid operator ERCOT was forced to take unprecedented emergency measures on Wednesday to avoid rolling blackouts amid a heat wave as wind turbines failed to produce energy due to low winds.''

Amazing. Those of us who have lived in Texas all our lives--well, I had 4 years in Fort Benning, Georgia--but otherwise, we know that often in the hottest part of the summer the wind doesn't blow and the turbines won't turn. We need air conditioning more than ever.

Yet, in my district and adjoining areas, they closed a couple of coal power plants. They had plenty of scrubbers on them to help have clean air. Cleaner production of power than any coal plant in other countries of the world. China is going to add another hundred to the hundred they just opened. They are not going to be near as clean as we had in east Texas. There are a couple more in my district that are scheduled to be closed.

We are creating a situation where people will die because that always happens when we don't have sufficient power, people don't have air conditioning, and the heat gets them.

The article says: ``ERCOT manages electric power to more than 26 million Texas customers and represents 90 percent of the State's electric load. . . .

``On Monday ERCOT asked customers to voluntarily raise thermostats a degree or two, turn off lights, avoid using ovens, washing machines and dryers. . . . `'

This is Texas. We create ERCOT and what happens?

They go nuts on green energy. Now we are going to have what Gray Davis used to have, called Gray-outs, in Texas. We got plenty of fuel. We have lost our minds. Maybe we would be better off without ERCOT.

Here is an article from Tucker Carlson. This is from July 12. I am going to read some of it.

He said: ``Voters, it turns out, are not into any of those things and so nothing that resembles the Green New Deal is going to pass the United States Congress in our lifetimes''--I am hoping not--``provided this remains an actual democracy, which is to say, provided the public has anything to say about how they're governed.

``That's a nonstarter here. It's never going to happen by democratic means, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. It doesn't mean that ideologues can't impose the Green New Deal on weaker countries that are too poor to refuse it, and over the past several years, that's exactly what they've done. So the Green New Deal is actually taking effect around the world. So, we don't have to guess what would happen if it took effect here. We can know. That's the science.

``Let's start with Ghana. Ghana's a pretty little country, peaceful place, actually, on the west coast of Africa. Three years ago, Ghana was in great shape. It had one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. In fact, it had so much energy over most of the last decade, it was exporting it to its neighbors in West Africa.

``Now, those energy exports from Ghana peaked in 2014. Why that year? Well, because the next year, the World Bank published this headline on its website, `World Bank approves largest-ever guarantees for Ghana's Energy Transformation.' Oh, when they promise to transform your energy, slow down.

``But Ghana didn't slow down. They just kept going. The World Bank promised to provide, and we're quoting,

`technical assistance for energy sector reforms and the drafting of a new renewable energy law.' So, in return for all this help, Ghana agreed to limit its carbon emissions, and then they entered the Paris climate agreement. Oh, how virtuous.

``What happened next? This is the part you don't read that much about. Last year, Ghana experienced a complete shutdown of its national power supply. No more electricity, no emissions because we have no electricity, and blackouts have continued since then. Just yesterday, a news source in Ghana reported that, `Residents in parts of the Ashanti region who have been hit with power cuts are without water as well,' because it turns out you need electricity to provide water also to grow food. Now, this is not a small thing. The Ashanti region has millions of people living in it. They're all now living in the Stone Age and it's not just the energy grid that's now compromised in Ghana.

``International observers say the country is now facing severe food shortages and hunger, starvation within a matter of months. Why is that? It's a fertile country, hardworking people. Now they're running out of fertilizer. Why? Well, because for years, Sandy Cortez's friends in the NGO community pushed Ghana toward less efficient, more expensive organic fertilizers and the government of Ghana, because it's not a rich government, caved. Last year, according to Ghana's news service, Ghana's agricultural minister `urged local farmers to adopt an organic agriculture system to reduce the impact of climate change.'

``Oh, what happened then? Well, the good people of Ghana, while they feel good about their fight against climate change, are now starving and in June, last month, police in Ghana used water and tear gas to attack hundreds of demonstrators in Accra, which is the capital of Ghana.

``It's not just Ghana. The same thing just happened in Sri Lanka. In 2016, the World Economic Forum published an article by a Columbia professor called Joseph Stiglitz, one of the dumbest people on planet Earth, urging Ghana to transition to `high productivity organic farming.' Now, what does Stiglitz know about farming? Ever farmed? No, but he felt strongly that Sri Lanka should try a new kind of farming and of course sold it to Sri Lankans as a pathway to prosperity.''

Again, this is Tucker Carlson.

``In 2015, the World Economic Forum published an article on its website entitled, and we are quoting, `This is how we will make Sri Lanka rich by 2025.' You can search for that article, but it's gone now along with the government of Sri Lanka. So, they had an actual insurrection, not January 6, not a guy in horns, in a bearskin, running around on mushrooms, making weird noises. No, an actual insurrection where they like, come to your house and swim in your swimming pool, root through your sock drawer and make you leave. That's what they did to the people who run Sri Lanka. They, being the public.

``The turning point came in 2021 when the president of Sri Lanka, acting on advice from the World Economic Forum, banned the use and importation of chemical fertilizers. Now, the problem was virtually every farm in Sri Lanka uses those fertilizers to produce food, which it turns out people need every day in order to survive. As a result of that move, food prices in Sri Lanka nearly doubled. Millions more Sri Lankans now live in poverty, which is not a joke and because the economy has collapsed, Sri Lanka now cannot afford fuel imports. So, Sri Lankans are now waiting days for gasoline. Watch.''

Then he has the story there from Sri Lanka:

``What's so interesting is millions of people are now really suffering. The government just fell in Sri Lanka. Now, no one in Sri Lanka is White. They are what our Democratic Party would call people of color and yet the American intellectuals who pushed that disaster in Sri Lanka, who are responsible for the suffering there, have all escaped culpability. No one is saying a word about it.''

``The Netherlands, for example, which is a very rich country, the second-biggest food exporter in the world, tried to do, for reasons that are not clear but may have to do with Western guilt, the same thing that leaders in Sri Lanka tried to do. They just ordered farmers to cut virtually all of their nitrogen oxide emissions to `save the environment.' Now, doing that would shutter most farms in the Netherlands and destroy the country's food supply and once again, that led to riots. So, everything that's happened in Sri Lanka and Ghana and the Netherlands is happening at the behest not simply of ideologues, but of some of the largest financial institutions in the world.

``They want more of this. It's why Ghana has achieved a near-perfect ESG environmental impact score of 97.7. According to World Economic Research, Sri Lanka has an ESG score of 98.1, the Netherlands 90.7. So, the poorer you get, the more human suffering there is, the higher your ESG score, and that is important because companies will not invest unless you have a high ESG score. Interesting. So, these countries have no choice and that's why South Africa, for example, works so hard to get an ESG score that now totals 91.

``Now, that effort began in 2015 when South Africa switched to renewables. Now, how did that work? Well, like everything in South Africa, no one in America really wants to know. It's their favorite country. It's a huge success. What's life like in South Africa for people of all colors?'' ``Well, the Guardian, of all places reported at the time, and we are quoting `solar, biomass and wind energy systems are popping up all over the country and feeding the clean energy into this strained electrical grid.'

``So their grids have been falling apart since 1994, but no problem. The green energy geniuses are going to save South Africa. How did that work?

``Well, 7 years later, The Washington Post reports that South Africa regularly experiences `rolling blackouts that last 8 hours or more, crippling economic activity and disrupting life in this nation of 60 million people,' . . .'' ``Ask anybody who lives there. It is falling apart. Doesn't work.

``Also join France. France is committed to renewable energy. How is that working? Well, France currently has an ESG environmental score of 92.6. Why? Because 10 years ago France pledged to drive a quarter of all of its energy from renewables in 2018. These policies led to riots.''

He goes on to talk about how much chaos it created for France.

In everyplace that it has been tried with this green energy, it has fallen apart--every single one--with no exceptions: Albania, Kenya, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, Panama, Libya, and so on.

But it is not just a problem there, it is becoming a problem here.

United States' ESG scoring on environmental issues currently stands at 58. But Joe Biden--who buys into every stupid trend--wants to change that. It is very important to get our ESG score up.

Madam Speaker, you see in history, and you see around the world that when Marxists want to take over, they take advantage of weaknesses, and they exploit them. What they have seen America, exploit this green energy deal in the name of saving the world, and, yes, there will be riots.

For the morons that say I promote violence, I have never promoted violence. I have promoted using our institutions that were created to peacefully resolve them. As a historian, it is clear that Dr. King's peaceful methods worked best toward bringing about needed change. But as a historian, Madam Speaker, you have to note that when our institutions don't do their jobs, then you end up with violence. I don't want violence, but that is what happens.

It is happening in these countries that have gotten their ESG score up and people start starving and they see their families suffering. We can avoid all that. But we have got to stop the insanity.

What does it really come back to?

This: I saw it in the Soviet Union as a college student, and I am seeing it happening now. I thought socialism, Communism, and progressivism, whatever you want to call it, I thought it was dead because it fails every time it is tried.

There is a tiny, elite ruling class when you have Marxism, socialism, and progressivism--a tiny, little, elite ruling class. They will have power. They

will have electricity. They will have what they need. They will have food to eat. You might hear some of them behind closed doors say: Let them eat cake or bugs.

We are being told: Eat bugs. Because your countries are going broke because they are trying to get up their ESG scores. It is unnecessary.

We have people saying: You have to get rid of your car. You can't have a car. That gives you too much freedom. You are a peasant. We want to get back to the Middle Ages, these people say, who want to be part of the elite ruling class. Yes. Let's get back to Middle Age mentality where we have peasants, and they walk everywhere, and the elite ruling class gets to ride in style.

No. We had the greatest, freest, and most wonderful country. Sure, it had problems. Every country has problems. But it was the best that has ever been. Now we are destroying it, and we are going back to a time when elitists will fly around in their private jets and everybody else will have to walk.

Now, let's get back to freedom across the board. We cannot do it if we do not take notice and usage of the things with which this country has been blessed more than any other.

We had another bill to put off limits more uranium. Well, don't worry. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State we sold, I think, about 20 percent of our uranium available to Russia. Of course, she made a lot of money for the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton got paid a lot of money. They were able to get that sale through.

Wasn't that great?

Continuing to put uranium off limits, we should have had rare-earth metals that we were able to get from Afghanistan, but this administration's incompetence left that in the hands of China that has most now of the rare-earth minerals. Every week it seems like--at least every month--we are putting more of our own blessed rare-earth metals and minerals of all kinds off limits because we are going to drive this country back to the Middle Ages, and people will be eating bugs as they are being encouraged to do around the world.

We need to have freedom and not have Congress push us back to the Middle Ages and push us back to the age of elitism or like it was in the Soviet Union.

We were told before the eight of us went over there that only the elite have cars in the Soviet Union. To them it is a game. Don't think for a minute pedestrians have the right-of-way because they looked at them as peasants, and they tried to hit them. Boy, did I see that. I couldn't believe it. So you had to be careful because somebody is in a car, and they are going to try to hit you. They did, a number of times.

That is where we are going back to. We are going to have Marxist peasants and Marxist elitists if we don't stop the insanity. It needs to stop now.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what Tucker Carlson put together so we can share here, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for having and hosting this time.

During biblical times, we read about sacrifices of babies to Moloch and to Baal.

How could that happen? How could you allow a child--a tiny baby--to suffer like that? It goes on.

I know there is so much said, but let's simplify it. If you think that it is not a child, see a preemie. It doesn't have to be your own premature child like ours was. Let that little child grab your finger and hold on for dear life. Understand what we have heard about here-- what a late-term abortion is that so many in this body embrace.

That little hand is attached to an arm that is attached to a body, and it is a beautiful child. The late-term abortionist, as he has explained, will rip off--he reaches in with a clamp, clamps on to the arm, linear things, and rips off four linear things from the body and then reaches in and crushes the skull and rips the skull off of the child.

That is not progress for civilization. That is horrendous.

Let a premature child hold your finger, Mr. Speaker, and see what the monitors do--as I have--and you will never ever want to know of a child like that being broken, pulled, and torn apart. Let's progress beyond the brutality.