Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.

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

Madam Speaker, what happened to George Floyd is atrocious, it is criminal, and the policeman will be held accountable; he has got to be.

But that has nothing to do with eliminating immunity for countless policemen across the country. This bill does not properly address or prevent what happened in poor George Floyd's case.

Why would we have a bill that eliminates immunity for anybody charging the Capitol, breaking in illegally? They would be able to sue the police in the future, tie them up in court. Why would we do that? Because if we do this--follow the money--then the unions will be selling a lot of liability insurance; it will be the biggest fundraiser they have ever had.

Let's get together and come together on a bill that will not just raise money, not just hire more lawyers, but will solve the problem of the death, as criminal as it was, of George Floyd.

Madam Speaker, there needs to be comment about the way the schedule was totally transformed, once again.

What drove this change?

We were supposed to be debating the George Floyd bill tomorrow. George Floyd deserves a better bill than he got, a bipartisan bill that we would certainly be willing to work with the Democrats on, but they didn't want our help. We rushed through and did it tonight.

We asked: What was the reason for the dramatic change? Is somebody ashamed of what we are bringing and they want to do it late at night?

We were told: No. There is concern from somebody that the QAnon- announced inauguration will be tomorrow, so we need to get out of town.

Apparently, there is somebody that believes it. I don't know anybody on our side, but perhaps the Speaker and the majority leader are the believers in QAnon. Nobody else here that I know of.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. This bill that is supposed to be for the people, one of the things it is really supposed to do, we have been told, you know, this is going to eliminate foreign interference with our bill. They have been preaching on it for years. There was the whole Russia hoax, all these other things. It turns out there hasn't been foreign interference, but the friends across the aisle were not serious, and are not serious with this bill about eliminating all foreign interference.

In fact, that is why I filed an amendment that would have addressed that. They got loopholes big enough to drive several trucks through. So we took care of it in my amendment. My amendment says, ``Each State shall ensure that no foreign entity carries out any role in the administration of elections for Federal office in the State, including providing, maintaining, programming, operating, storing, or compiling any of the equipment, software, supplies, or information used in the administration of the election.

``A nonprofit organization may not carry out any activities related to voting or elections for public office in a State if the organization accepts any funds from a foreign entity.''

And then it defines foreign entity, where it covers everybody and everything that is not American.

So we have got this amendment that would completely plug the loopholes that the Democrats have so that foreigners can't continue to influence the election.

And what do they do?

They say:

Your amendment, we don't want it. It is not in order. We are not even going to give you a vote on it.

They are not serious about eliminating foreign interference, and that is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, for years we have been hearing what we are hearing today: Look, we just want the same rights everybody else has. But we also heard for years: We just want to live and let live.

I have got news for all of my friends across the aisle that don't know. There is a right to the marriage you are claiming you need this bill for that the Supreme Court has already said you have. It is there.

So what this bill, the so-called Equality Act, is really about, it is not about giving rights. This is about taking away rights. You have the rights. But this is saying that part of the First Amendment, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' that has to go.

And just like my friend read from page 25, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, that has got to go. You can no longer--after this bill, you can no longer use that as a defense when we sue your church, we sue your preacher. Male or female, it doesn't matter. We are coming after you. If we sue a Rabbi, you can't hide behind the First Amendment or this Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It won't help you because we are saying you don't have those rights the Constitution gave you. That is all RFRA was to begin with. It was just codifying what was in the Constitution.

I thought so much about my dear friend, the late Bishop Harry Jackson. He and I had stood inside this Capitol together for years trying to protect Christian rights. I miss Harry and I think about him a lot.

And let me say, not as articulately, but for heaven's sake, you have got these rights. Allow people who believe what Moses said when he said: A man shall leave his father and mother, a woman leave her home, the two will become one flesh.

Let them be able to practice the teaching of Moses. When Jesus was asked about marriage, he said--he quoted Moses verbatim. Please allow Christians who believe what Jesus said to practice that.

Allow preachers who took oaths to practice it. Allow them to do that. Don't take away the rights the Constitution gave, and don't take away decades of rights that women have worked for and earned and just give it away to men.

Mr. Speaker, this package is a massive land-removal bill. It basically takes 2.7 million acres away from meaningful production.

The one good thing I can say is, it is consistent with this majority and this administration's actions that make us more reliant on China and will enrich China. That is the one good thing; it is at least consistent.

Now, the majority feels that people in this town know better than the people who are losing this land for the different uses for which they could have it. I know we are hearing today on the floor: Oh, we have all these people who want this bill passed.

It should have gone through committee so we could do the motions, we could have witnesses, and we could find out for ourselves. After 3 years of the Russia hoax, we really need to hear from the sources.

Mr. Speaker, interesting days in the Capitol.

I keep being asked about the metal detector. I was not happy about metal detectors. But for some weeks now, I have been complying, taking my stuff out, putting it on the table, going through the metal detector.

I did that yesterday and came in here, and I was going to be recognized to speak. Since the restroom is just right there through that door, you see it as you are standing there at the door, I did what I have done for a number of weeks now. I went to the restroom and came back. Since the officers see you, and there was nobody else in the area, as there usually isn't these days, I went in, came out.

So people know, it isn't like ``The Godfather.'' There are no tanks on the toilets, no place to hide a gun, that I see.

Anyway, the officers see you, and no one has ever said a word about needing to be reexamined when you are just right there.

Anyway, apparently, rules have changed over the last few weeks, and all of a sudden yesterday I was told, well, you need to be wanded. I said, no, I have been through the metal detector, and this has never been required before.

So, I came in today. I get a notice that I am supposed to be fined $5,000. So, we will be appealing.

One of the things that is not supposed to happen is arbitrary and capriciousness--and to go for a number of weeks and nobody ever say a word because you are just going right there and back, never having to be reexamined, and then all of a sudden yesterday, and today, be hit with a $5,000 fine.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure our colleagues know that the metal detectors are not the issue entirely. You may want to use facilities at your office or around your office because now, despite the admonition in the Constitution itself about not stopping or detaining a Member of Congress on his way into a session--it is in the Constitution--this Speaker has seen fit to defy that, to create metal detectors.

And now that is not enough. You can't even go to the restroom in full view of the officers without being hit upon and unconstitutionally treated again. I have been going along with the unconstitutional action anyway.

But it seems that it is one of those things, Mr. Speaker, no matter how much you finally are desensitized to the Constitution enough to comply with unconstitutional actions, there just keeps being another requirement, another requirement, and another requirement. So we will see how it all comes out, but hopefully other Members will learn from the arbitrariness of my treatment to avoid that for themselves.

On FOX News my friend, Tucker Carlson, touched on this yesterday. And this article is by Tucker:

There has been an enormous amount of talk--not just this

week, but over the last month--about violent extremism and

the people who embrace it. Those people, we are told, are

domestic terrorists who must be put down by force. The war on

terror has moved Stateside. Extremists are inside our

country, and we must hunt them down.

We are hearing those words nonstop, not just on cable news,

but from elected officials, including some Republicans. We

are hearing it from the leaders of Federal law enforcement

agencies and the intelligence agencies. We are hearing it

from the Pentagon. Just this week, Secretary of Defense Lloyd

Austin ordered the entire U.S. military to ``stand down''

while investigators cleanse the ranks of political

extremists.

And, of course, we are hearing it from the business

establishment, from Wall Street and tech monopolies, from the

massive multinational corporations that increasingly control

the contours of American life. All of them are now on the

hunt for political extremists.

By the way, with regard to the effort to purge the military of anybody with a political position that does not support socialism, my 4 years at Fort Benning, Georgia--about half of that under Commander in Chief Carter and the other, about half, under Commander in Chief Reagan--there were a lot of people at Fort Benning who didn't care for what was happening to the military under President Carter. But we knew you could not say anything derogatory about the Commander in Chief without being either punished with an article 15 nonjudicial punishment or being prosecuted because he was the Commander in Chief. But everybody, Democrat, Republican--and now lots of Socialists--as long as you did your job in the military and you followed orders, you didn't have any problem. But we were not heard to talk about the terrible morale under President Carter, the way we were no longer respected, the way internationally--especially after the failed hostage rescue attempt that I believe had more to do with civilian oversight restrictions than it was anything else. I was told by people at Fort Benning that the President, the White House was warned, If you make us go in with so few helicopters, there is a good chance we won't have the six needed in order to go rescue the hostages--we knew where they were--and that they were made to scale to eight. So when they lost three on the way to the staging area, then it was an automatic abort, according to one of my friends who was part of it.

Anyway, we ended up losing a chopper with military on board, a C-130, with military onboard. But, still, we didn't go out. You didn't hear us trashing the Carter White House because we were in the military. Our political opinions didn't matter. Even if people had contempt for the poor leadership in the White House, you didn't say it because it was not allowed.

People, despite their political positions, were ready to lay down their lives for their country if that was necessary, and some did. Even though that was a time of peace those 4 years I was in, we were never in a declared police action or war. Still, we did our jobs no matter what it was, and nobody was run out of the military for their political positions. But now under this administration, things have changed.

As Tucker Carlson goes on, he says:

You have to be more precise than that. In order to root out

a problem, you have to know what the problem is. You need a

sense of what you are looking for, a clear picture. You have

to define the terms. The remarkable thing about this

conversation we are having is that no one is doing that.

Have you noticed that none of these newly energized and

highly empowered extremist hunters have told us exactly what

an ``extremist'' is?

We are left to guess, to look around nervously to see if we

can spot one.

They are not talking about us, are they?

And if they are, what exactly are they doing?

How are they hunting these ``extremists'' they keep telling

us about, but will not describe?

We now know part of the answer to that question.

He points out:

Tucker Carson Tonight has exclusive obtained evidence that

Bank of America, the second-largest bank in the country with

more than 60 million customers, is actively but secretly

engaged in the hunt for extremists in cooperation with the

government. Bank of America is, without the knowledge or the

consent of it customers, sharing private information with

Federal law enforcement agencies. Bank of America effectively

is acting as an intelligence agency, but they are not telling

you about it.

In the days after the January 6 riot at the Capitol, Bank

of America went through its own customers' financial and

transaction records. These were the private records of

Americans who had committed no crime; people who, as far as

we know, had absolutely nothing to do with what happened at

the Capitol. But at the request of Federal investigators,

Bank of America searched its

databases looking for people who fit a specific profile.

Here is what that profile was: Number one, customers

confirmed as transacting, either through bank account debit

card or credit card purchases in Washington, D.C., between

January 5 and January 6. Number two, purchases made for a

hotel or Airbnb in D.C., Virginia, and Maryland after January

6; any purchase of weapons or at a weapons-related merchant

between January 7 and their upcoming suspected stay in the

D.C. area around Inauguration Day. And also airline-related

purchases since January 6.

The first thing you should notice about that profile is

that it is remarkably broad. Any purchases of anything in

Washington, D.C.; any overnight stay anywhere in an area

spanning three jurisdictions and hundreds of miles; any

purchase not just of legal firearms, but anything bought from

a ``weapons-related merchant,'' T-shirts included; and any

airline-related purchases--not just flights to Washington,

D.C., but flights to anywhere, from Omaha to Thailand. That

is an absurdly wide net.

Bank of America identified a total of 211 customers who met

these ``thresholds of interest.'' At that point, ``Tucker

Carlson Tonight'' has learned, Bank of America has turned

over the results of its internal scan to Federal authorities,

apparently without notifying the customers who were being

spied upon. Federal investigators then interviewed at least

one of these unsuspecting people. That person, we have

learned, hadn't done anything wrong and was cleared.

Imagine if you were that person. The FBI hauls you in for

questioning in a terror investigation, not because you have

done anything wrong or suspicious, but because you bought

plane tickets and visited your country's capital. Now they

are sweating you because your bank, which you trust with your

most private information, has ratted you out without your

knowledge. Because Bank of America did that, you are being

treated like a member of al-Qaida.

It doesn't matter how much you despise Donald Trump or how

much you believe that hatred of Trump justifies suspending

this country's ancient civil liberties, going through that

experience would scare the hell out of you.

Does anyone else know about this?

Is there a record of this interview?

Will I lose my job because of it?

That actually happened to someone.

Anyway, he goes on and points out this issue of banks toting over information, and it took me back in time to the George W. Bush Presidency, when I first got to Congress and I first learned about something called National Security Letters. That was a shock to me to find out about what were called NSLs, National Security Letters, because I have been a litigant, I have been a felony judge and a chief justice, and I was quite familiar with reviewing affidavits in support of requests for warrants. And I have reviewed them at all hours of the day and night most of the time because law enforcement in my jurisdiction was told by the DA they needed to go through the DA's office to make sure that the warrants met the constitutional requirements.

So it was rare, but sometimes I did say: You don't have facts that create probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or probable cause to believe this person committed it. We need some facts here that you can swear to under oath that will allow me to sign a warrant so that places may be searched and specific things described with particularity can be seized.

So having had that history, I was quite surprised to find that under the PATRIOT Act--and, actually, this note is from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I am not familiar with them, but they have a good synopsis on National Security Letters:

NSLs are currently authorized by four Federal statutes: the

Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the National Security

Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act--which is kind of

ironic; they don't need probable cause to get your records

under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, that is amazing--

the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and also the USA PATRIOT Act.

This article described the way they work pretty well:

Although there are procedures for review after they are

issued, National Security Letters can be issued by the FBI

without any judicial oversight.

The FBI must certify that the records sought are ``relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.''

We were assured during the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act that this was only used to go against or to investigate foreigners who were either part of a known terrorist organization or known terrorists themselves or had relations with a known foreign terrorist organization.

I had asked in one of our meetings with Justice Department people: Well, what about the other reason you can send out a National Security Letter and just siphon up all of somebody's records from a third party?

That is called clandestine intelligence activities.

And I was told: Oh, no, we don't really use that.

I said: Well, I would like to know what that means, clandestine intelligence activities. Does that mean if my next-door neighbor is kind of hiding behind the curtain and watching what is going on at my house--that is clandestine, they are seeking intelligence what was happening next door--does that mean you can scoop up all their records?

The answer basically was: No, we don't really use that part.

That was so vague, it bothered me. Our chairman at the time was a great man, Jim Sensenbrenner, but he was not about to allow any changes to that, so it is still there 15, 16 years later.

We kept being assured by everybody that there are never any abuses to the National Security Letters. But it concerned me because if all it took was an FBI agent just signing something saying, ``I need this for an investigation,'' who is to be sure it really was?

I kind of like the warrant system, where you have to go to a judge and establish with particularity the person to be seized or the things to be seized or the place to be searched.

I remember when I was an assistant DA. We had kind of an interesting deputy who people would kind of roll their eyes about. He was constantly coming in, asking for a warrant. As assistant DA, I got to know him.

He was a nice guy, but he came in once and said: I know I have been harassing you, trying to get a warrant. I know there are people smoking dope out in this little bitty community. They have a little bitty store there, and I found out the people I think are smoking dope are going to have a party Friday night. I have good authority they are going to have potato chips there. That little store was just recently burglarized late at night, and one of the things they took was potato chips. So, I want to get a warrant to go into these people's home looking for potato chips, and then I will look for the dope while I am there.

I said: Well, is there any way to identify the potato chips that were in this store that were stolen?

No, no. But, see, that is the beauty. While I am looking for potato chips, I will just kind of look around for dope.

I said: That is not adequate to establish probable cause to go busting into somebody's house looking for potato chips if you can't identify they were the ones that were stolen.

Anyway, he was very upset that I wouldn't draft up the application for a warrant, his affidavit, because he thought he had a great way to do it.

Well, what I didn't know back then was that there would be Federal statutes established after 9/11 that you don't need to go get a judge to say, yes, there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and this person did it or probable cause to believe that you could find the fruits of a crime at a particular described location. No, no, you just have an FBI agent send a National Security Letter saying: I am investigating a matter, and I need you to give me all the records you have on a certain individual or a certain business. And by the way, under this NSL law, if you tell anybody that you got this demand for records, then you will have committed a felony, and we will prosecute you.

Now, back then, it didn't say you could even tell your lawyer. But the President George W. Bush administration Justice Department said: But we are interpreting it to mean that somebody who receives a National Security Letter demand for production can talk to their lawyer. We won't prosecute anybody for talking to their own lawyer.

Well, wasn't that generous. But we were assured, both privately in meetings and under testimony, that there were no known violations of the law on National Security Letters. It was always to go after foreign terrorists or people that associated with foreign terrorist groups; that is what we are doing.

It still was a concern. That just seems like so much power. Eventually,

it was included that, gee, you had to get higher up approval before you sent out the National Security Letter.

But the Attorney General at the time--really good, decent guy, Alberto Gonzales--he had indicated that he was not aware of any known violations of the law under the National Security Letter laws. Unfortunately for him, he testified before--and I don't have any of the information; I am just going off my institutional memory from those days. He had testified before a Senate committee that, yeah, there were no known violations of the law on National Security Letters.

Well, unfortunately for him, there was a DOJ inspector general report, as I recall, that had been on his desk for 3 days. The IG said there may be as many as 3,000 violations of the law in gathering information under National Security Letters, where FBI agents just wanted to find out about somebody, some business, so they sent a letter demanding records about the person or the business, saying give me all you have on this person or business, when there was not a case, not probable cause of anything, not a known terrorist involved or known terrorist organization. They just wanted information about somebody, something, and so sent them out.

I had seen that Senator Schumer was really upset. He felt like they had been lied to when he found out there had been an IG report 3 days before, that the Attorney General had, when he said there were no known violations.

I ran into Senator Schumer here on the Hill--I think it was the next day, within a couple of days--and I said: Say, I saw you had our Attorney General, giving him a hard time about the violations of the National Security Letter. That is something I have been upset about, then to find out there may have been more than 3,000 violations, just fishing expeditions.

He said some things that were not complimentary about the head of the Justice Department. And he said: I don't know why the President doesn't just let him go and hire somebody else.

I said: Well, I can tell you why he doesn't, and that is because we figure you would not allow a new appointee to get through committee, and we don't need to go--I think it was a year-and-a-half left--without a real Attorney General.

And he said: No, look, there are people I know we could agree on if they would just try.

But he felt like we needed a new Attorney General.

Well, the thing is, the FBI Director at that time was a guy named Mueller, and it was really a problem that should have fallen directly at the feet of Director Mueller. It was his FBI. He could have supervised them more thoroughly, especially when we are talking about thousands of abuses of people's rights and abuses of the National Security Letter use, seizing people's information, personal as it is.

But I thought about all of that when seeing Bank of America had turned over all of this information to the Federal authorities, the FBI, I guess. It made me wonder if maybe they were back to their old ways of abusing the NSLs, no probable cause that a particular person committed a crime at all, just on fishing expeditions. I wondered if maybe they used the NSLs to go on those fishing expeditions and caught lots of honest, innocent Americans in their net.

Now, going back to that, when I first got here, we had a lot of friends on the Democrat side of the aisle who were extremely concerned about civil rights, just like Senator Schumer was extremely upset to find out the FBI had violated potentially thousands of people's basic civil rights, seizing information about them, without having any probable cause, violating the Fourth Amendment and possibly Fifth. But that was a different time.

In fact, I was concerned, and I called the White House, asking for the Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten at the time. I felt like he was a really good, decent guy. He was in a meeting with President Bush at the time, but he called me back.

I told him about the concerns, that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle are upset that our Republican administration was abusing people's rights like that, just using National Security Letters willy- nilly, and that we needed some change. They couldn't do it unless they knew they had an agreement to get through somebody else.

What I should have done--I made a mistake--I should have been demanding that Mueller go, and we get a different FBI Director. But anyway, I suggested somebody that could talk friendly with Senator Schumer, give him a call and see if they could agree on some replacements.

Anyway, we ended up with Attorney General Mukasey. I felt like he was a very honorable man. I had nothing to do with who was picked, but apparently, there was an agreement between the White House and Senator Schumer and others, potentially.

But all of that came back to mind as I saw that a bank--I think the second biggest in the country--was turning over information without apparently getting any warrant. But really, it is a problem of the National Security Letter.

We got into a discussion back at reauthorization. I heard from the Department of Justice, saying: Look, this is such an important tool.

I am going: But it is so easily abused. There have to be more checks and balances here.

Back at the time, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee here in the House were concerned, but there were not enough of us concerned to completely, radically change the National Security Letter laws or to do away with it, so they are still around all these years later.

I am hoping that we can get some people on both sides of the aisle. Democrats are in the majority. I would love to see a hearing where we could get down to it. If it needs to be under classified conditions, closed, whatever, but we really need to take another look at this, because it could just completely depend on the administration.

I would hope that maybe with as much hatred as some people have for former President Trump, maybe they thought, gee, what if he got reelected, then he could put people in place that used those National Security Letters to go after all the people he didn't like.

Maybe that would be enough to encourage people who hate former President Trump to actually take some action to really try to secure people's civil rights that have been violated for years, and all under the guise that we are protecting ourselves from either international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, whatever that is.

So, anyway, that came back to mind. It is still something that should be done. There is a story here my staff was able to find from The New York Times back in 2007, when they were a little more trustworthy, but it is titled ``FBI Head Admits Mistakes in Use of Security Act.''

And that was Mr. Mueller. He embraced the responsibility for the lapses, but he was punished by giving him 2 extra years as Director of the FBI. That allowed him to continue the poor supervision that allowed these kind of what he called lapses.

In this article, it says, `` `How could this happen?' Mr. Mueller asked rhetorically in a briefing at the headquarters of the FBI. `Who is to be held accountable? And the answer to that is, I am to be held accountable.' ''

But the truth is, he was never held accountable. In fact, he was actually rewarded. And Attorney General Gonzales paid the price for his huge failure.

So that is rather tragic. That is something I am hoping that we could work together on, Democrats and Republicans, because civil rights, it appears, are being trampled once again. I don't know if there was a pause in the trampling, but, regardless, we need to be doing some serious oversight.

Now, I have an article here from Yael Halon. It says, ``DeSantis bracing for `big fight' over Big Tech crackdown: `We're buckled up.' ''

And that is another area where it is not the government that is abusing people's rights, but it is the high tech.

I recently reread George Orwell's ``1984,'' and as I understand, I believe it was 1947 that he wrote it. He was dying, as I understand, of cancer. He had gone, I believe it was, to Scotland. He had been through some treatment that was pretty rough. So some think that may have helped him with imagination on how people could be tortured. But incredible.

I mean, in the late 1940s there were very, very few televisions around. And I know where I grew up in east Texas, there were hardly any at all. Even up until 1953, there were very few.

But here it is, right after World War II, and George Orwell is talking about this big brother. Of course, under the rules of the House, we are not supposed to talk about brothers, but this big sibling I believe is the word we are supposed to use. So big sibling watched and listened to everything everybody did, and they would use a telescreen. Which back then, you know, there were no flat screen TVs, but that is what is conjured up when you think about a telescreen.

Televisions were rare, and this guy already is imagining that someday the government will be watching you through this big screen. And nowadays that is your phone, that is your computer. And I know I had heard from an intelligence friend, you know, that they could watch people through their camera on their computer; and so I started putting a little sticky note on my computer.

One day, at the Judiciary Committee, the head of the FBI came in, and I noticed he had a little sticky note over the camera on his computer, and I thought, well, he knows what they can do, and if he is putting a sticky note over his camera, maybe he doesn't want to be watched by big sibling either.

But, anyway, now the big tech industry can watch everything you do, everything you look up. They can listen to you. We had an IT helper come in. And I just don't like the idea that somebody, whether in high tech or government, could be watching or listening when there is no crime that is being committed. I asked the IT guy: ``Can you take Siri off of my stuff?''

I just hate Siri. And Siri's voice came up and said: ``That is not nice.''

Whoa. I would just as soon not have Siri, Alexa, anybody watching and listening to everything that is going on. No crime is being committed.

It is not a crime to go to the bathroom here, even though I am being fined $5,000 for it. Hopefully that will be corrected. But that is just a little unnerving. Yet George Orwell foresaw that this big sibling would be out there someday watching and listening.

So I really appreciate my old friend, Congressman Ron DeSantis as Governor of Florida. This article says he ``took aim Tuesday at the country's largest technology companies, which he characterized as a group of `monopoly communications platforms' based on how they have grown to regulate public discourse . . . DeSantis announced a crackdown on tech companies over content moderation, which he equated to political manipulation, reiterating a belief held by many conservatives that Silicon Valley is biased against right-leaning viewpoints.''

Parenthetically, here is an article in Time magazine by Molly Ball, ``The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the 2020 Election.'' And, of course, she characterizes--well, I say she. I don't know. Molly may be a guy--but characterizes what went on as being justified, but try to save the election for then-Senator Biden. And it is quite interesting, but there is no question there was tremendous manipulation of information by the high-tech industry, even though that person, Molly, has a different perspective.

The article by Yael Halon goes on to say: `` `We think this is something that Floridians want protection from, and I think it will end up being a really good first step,' DeSantis told `Tucker Carlson Tonight' on Tuesday.

``There has always been the question, `What do you do about this?' A lot of us have thought there was something wrong for a long time, but to sit back and hope it gets better, that clearly wasn't going to work. So we're leading and I think it will be good.

``In an effort to keep big tech out of Florida's political sphere, DeSantis proposed a number of measures, including a $100,000 daily fine''--not for going to the restroom right off the floor--``for companies that deplatform political candidates. Additionally, actions taken by companies to effectively promote a candidate will be considered campaign contributions.

``The Governor proposed measures to enhance user rights as well, including allowing individuals and the Florida attorney general to sue companies over violations of individual protections, as well as requiring companies to provide full disclosures of actions taken against individuals for violating policies.

`` `It's not just being banned from Twitter. As we've seen, these companies can collude,' DeSantis told host Tucker Carlson. `They can deny you, if you're a small business . . . payment processing, the ability to use e-mail and text. So you go to a rally that they don't like or you engage in wrongthink, and all of a sudden, your flower business is decapitated for a month because they take action.

``The Republican acknowledged that the initiative will likely cause a `big fight in the legislative session.'

`` `Hopefully, we can get a lot of support,' he said. `Most folks do want protections for their privacy and data. Most folks want protections from being de-platformed. I think it will be very positively received, but we're buckled up. We know there are always fights over these things, so stay tuned.' ''

So we will see what happens. But in the meantime, I am sure some would want to blame it on conservatives or Republicans.

There is a report out from Mar Chastain: ``2020 Homicide Rate So High There is `No Modern Precedent.''

But if you look at what brought about the 2020 homicide rate so high there is no modern precedent, we are talking about the group that had been protesting, looting--even though the lamestream media calls it mostly peaceful--the killing, the brutalizing, the fires, the trying to burn and kill police in their own station, those things have gone on.

And until the Capitol was invaded--which was totally wrong. It doesn't matter, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, whatever, it doesn't matter, it is wrong. And despite my quoting the Speaker, her comment about surprised there are not riots in the street across the country, I do not advocate for violence. Never have. Don't advocate for violence.

As a historian--and I never quit studying history, reading, finding out more--it is very clear that some things do help trigger violence. Just as if you seal a heating pressure cooker, it is going to create a terrible reaction.

And as I pointed out before, you know, we in this country created courts. And in some cases it is the legislative job to resolve disputes civilly, and that normally avoids violence. Now, sometimes we have violence erupt in courtrooms. That happens. But as I have told people in my courtroom, you know, the courts often are the last civil bastion where we work things out. No violence. We punish people for violence. But this is where we come to civilly resolve disputes. And when you have courts repeatedly refuse to even have a hearing, take evidence, and resolve disputes, it does create problems. And I don't want those problems. I don't want violence from anybody. The odds are you increase chances of not having violence when our institutions constitutionally created to resolve disputes civilly do that.

And I hope that is what we will do here and do a better job of it than has been done.

But it used to be during the Revolution, one of the most common expressions often attributed to Voltaire--I have read some places that maybe somebody said it before Voltaire--but the line that Founders often said was: ``I disagree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.''

And now we come to a place in America where people feel like, well, I disagree with what you say, so I hate you. I hate your family. I am going to try to get you fired, and I hope we can get you put in jail. And I hope your children die and never get a job and can't take care of themselves.

I mean, it has gotten really viscous in some places in this country.

And I was raised in a family where meals were pretty lively because everybody was fairly intelligent and we had some very heated discussions. But we still loved each other. And, I mean, there are people in this body that I really love, you know. I think they are wrong about really critical issues, but we could come in here and argue and debate and fuss. Since I have been here, maybe one time it was different. But

when people in here say, we are going to fight this, they are not talking about violence. They are talking about debate.

That is what I am talking about. But we need to get back to the institutions designed under Federal and State constitutions to resolve disputes civilly.

One of the problems with this whole Russia hoax, the guy that was slam-dunk guilty of fraud upon the FISA court of lying under oath was just allowed to plead and get probation. And I said when the article came out--I think it was December of 2019 that Kleinsmith had changed the information to help them in what amounted to be illegally getting a warrant against somebody in the Trump campaign--I said, I hope they are not going to use him as a scapegoat when there are so many in the DOJ or FBI that lied under oath.

They committed what certainly appeared to be crimes. I will say, Durham entirely dropped the ball. The information should have been out long ago so people would know what was true and not have to rely on big tech to lie to them or manipulate them. But he dropped the ball.

And so it appears to many people that there is a double standard when it comes to justice.

If you are a part of the DOJ, FBI, or intelligence and you favor Democrats, it appears you get a better deal, but we will see.

This is Friday and, Mr. Speaker, I know it is Friday and I am told I am the last speaker of the day. You have been immensely gracious, and I hope you have a good weekend.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is personal to me. I have dedicated so much of my adult life to the Constitution of the United States.

If you go back to 1884--it has been cited for about 80 or 100 years even--the Select Committee back in 1884 was taking up the issue of a Member of Congress being expelled. The committee said that because the conduct was committed during an earlier Congress: It must be said that with practical uniformity the precedents in such cases are to the effect that the House will not expel a Member for reprehensible action prior to the election of a Member, not even for conviction of an offense. That has been so frequently decided in the House that it is no longer a matter of dispute.

And, yes, that was expelling from the House, but you are wanting to expel a Member from being a full Member, as she was elected to do.

Now, James Madison--hopefully, that name rings a bell--said if the legislature could regulate those--talking about qualifications--which in this case would mean you have to meet our qualifications for what you say before you are a Member of Congress or you don't come in. He said if you could regulate those qualifications, ``it can by degrees subvert the Constitution. A Republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy as well by limiting the number capable of being elected.'' Qualifications founded on artificial distinctions may be devised by the stronger party in order to keep out partisans of a weaker party.

This is so dangerous. Never in the history of the Congress has a majority party taken such fanatical action to remove somebody from the other party from committees. This is unprecedented.

We had a Senator named Biden who looked at a Ku Klux Klan recruiter as a mentor and friend, and you punished him by inaugurating him as President.

Look, please, I know there are so many good, decent Democrats. We disagree on a lot of things, but as a matter of conscience--you talk about conscience. You have to know if you do this, just like Democrats objecting to electors and then coming around later and saying, oh, you are disenfranchising voters. Look, if you do this, you know the day will come when Republicans will not like something you said and start removing you from committees. This is not a road to go down.

I beg you, please, don't start this precedent. It won't end well for either party. But we will follow your lead if you lead.

I am imploring you, do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, here is a quote: ``I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be.''

Or, ``Sadly, the domestic enemies of our voting system and honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in Congress of the United States.'' We were called enemies of the state.

Those are all quotes from our Speaker.

Now, on our side, we didn't take those to be impeachable because we didn't believe she surely meant that. By the Democrats taking this action, you are telling me, no, when we say those words, we actually mean to incite violence. That is what this action is saying.

Look, I just looked on the History Channel. It says these words: ``If the Judiciary Committee,'' talking about impeachment, ``finds sufficient grounds, its members write and pass Articles of Impeachment, which then go to the full House for a vote.''

Half of all of the impeachments ever conducted, ever voted for, occurred under this Speaker. You are setting a precedent that says very clearly--because this impeachment isn't going to work, but it is setting the precedent.

Unlike a year ago, when we said, look, it shouldn't go through the Intelligence Committee, it should go through the Judiciary Committee, forget that. Now the message is: If you have a whim and you want to just go after a President, just go straight to the floor--no investigation, no Judiciary Committee. Go straight to the floor. Use it as a political weapon as you wish.

This is so dangerous, what you are doing, forgetting all the precedents. Yes, we can argue back and forth, but you are using this as a weapon, and you are destroying this little experiment in self- government in a year's time. It needs to stop.

Mr. President, I object to the electoral votes of the State of Wisconsin because 71 House Members, all of who condemn violence as we witnessed today, are firmly committed to the resolution of disagreements in civil, lawful, peaceful institutions with full and fair debate, free of violence. And though not a single court has allowed an evidentiary hearing to listen to the significant body of evidence of fraud, and though some seize on the court's failure to misrepresent that no court would listen to the evidence as saying evidence did not exist; while Democrat leaders in Milwaukee illegally and unconstitutionally created more than 200 illegal polling places; tens of thousands of votes were changed by workers, despite election workers' objections, plus so many other illegalities to fraudulently create a 20,000-vote lead, we object, along with a Senator who now has withdrawn his objection.

It is in writing. It is signed by a Member, but it is not signed and objected to by a Senator, Mr. President.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting day. It is amazing we voted on a National Defense Authorization Act. That is normally a bipartisan action here in the House. It is normally quite a compromise. But this NDAA didn't end up being that way because it had so many different leftist dreams inserted into it that had nothing to do with the national defense. It is rather a shame. It is something that has to be worked on. We have got to be able to defend ourselves and properly pay those who are doing so, or trying to do so.

It was a sad day that we did not pass that with the same bipartisanship that we have had in the past. I hope that changes for the future. There are only a few areas like that where we have had bipartisanship in the past, and I hope we can get back to it.

One area where there hasn't been a lot of bipartisanship at all has occurred in the area of the great tragedy, crisis, emergency now, that is occurring on our southern border. It is amazing because we have heard for months that there was a manufactured crisis, it wasn't really a crisis on our southern border, that President Trump was just making it up, that Republicans were just making it up. There was no crisis there. Nothing to see. We can just keep moving along because there is no problem on the southern border.

Well, there was a crisis. There wasn't a disaster occurring there. And by virtue of the fact that people in other countries saw that the majority of the House of Representatives was sending them messages about what they were doing and saying here, that there was not going to be any wall, there was not going to be the kind of border security that we should have, and, in fact, more and more people seem to be advocating that we have no border at all.

The fact is that if a nation has no borders, it is no longer a nation. And yet, I know there are those here who think America is horrible, that it is this horrendous, imperialistic hegemony, always trying to take advantage of others. They refuse to face the fact there has never been a more generous nation than the United States. If we were imperialistic, they would not be speaking German in Germany, or French in France, or Japanese in Japan. This is not an imperialist nation. We are not out to colonize the world.

And it is amazing how some who would accuse us of that, they are doing what has become so common here in Washington, and that is projecting. If somebody does something inappropriate, harmful, or hateful, then they accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they did.

We will be getting into some of that type of projecting as we continue in our Judiciary Committee in the next couple of weeks, continuing to take up the Mueller report.

They know now, there is no question, the Clinton campaign paid a foreign agent to gather information, from what he has since admitted, who probably worked for Putin--could have very well worked for Putin, that is--and gave false information that was used and was called a dossier--of course, giving dossiers a bad name--that was used to try to stop a Presidential candidate. And, at the same time, it was used by a newly weaponized Department of Justice, FBI, and intelligence community, in at least part of it, some at the very top, to try to win an election. We hadn't had that before.

Now, we have known for some time now that J. Edgar Hoover was at the FBI so long that he began to use the FBI, not as a political weapon to win for one party or another, but just as his weapon to be able to get what he wanted from presidents, regardless of their party.

I recall seeing the FBI interview, retired, talking about Hoover sending them to watch the apartment of a woman with whom President Kennedy was supposedly having an affair, and they watched it be burglarized. They didn't report it or didn't file charges. In fact, they wanted to find out what exactly was stolen during the burglary.

They never reported it because their job was to gather information for the head of the FBI. The head of the FBI could then use it to prevent a president from doing anything the FBI director didn't want him to do, which, as I understand it, gave rise to the term limits for an FBI director. I think that was a very good thing.

I thought it was a bad thing when President Obama extended Robert Mueller's 10-year term by 2 years. He was a fiasco. He was a disaster. He ran off thousands and thousands of years of experience. And I can't help but think that if Mueller had not instituted a policy, personnel policy, that ran off thousands and thousands of years of experience, some of his best people around the country and the world, that there would not have been the atmosphere that existed with McCabe as acting FBI director. People like Strzok in charge of counterintelligence, Lisa Page, people who used the FBI as just a political tool, a weaponized political tool, and people in the DOJ who we are finding out more about all the time, whether it is Loretta Lynch and, before that, Eric Holder.

But if Mueller had not run off so many of our best long-serving FBI agents, I still continue to believe there would have been people around when Strzok, McCabe, and others were trying to use the FBI as a political weapon. There would have been longer-serving people who would have said: You can't do this. This is not what the FBI is about.

But Mueller wanted nothing but yes people around him: people who would salute him, figuratively speaking, and the flag and do exactly what he said without reservations. So he got much younger agents in charge all around the country and the world, people that would not be able to say: Sir, I know that seems like a good idea, but I was here 20 years ago when we tried that, and it was a disaster. I would recommend looking back at the failure before, before you push us into this new type of activity.

And, of course, he wouldn't listen to anybody when he wasted millions of dollars on computer and software programs. But that, to me, was not near the biggest problem as the damage he had done with the FBI.

He came out with a report that is just abysmal. I mean, when I was an assistant district attorney, fresh out of law school, and I was asked to put something together about this case or that case, what I put together was a lot better than anything Mueller put together. That was a political document.

And I know I have some Republican friends, media friends, who think the new Horowitz IG report is going to be just breathtaking. But the trouble is, he already had one report. As I told him in our hearing, he spent about 500 pages documenting the most outrageous and unbelievable bias and prejudice against a candidate, Donald Trump, and in favor of a candidate, Hillary Clinton. He documents just outrageous, blatant bigotry against a party, a candidate. And, as I told him at the hearing: I think you realize, as you gathered all of that devastating evidence of outrageous prejudice in the FBI and the DOJ, and you realize, whoops, Democrats got me here. This is not going the way my friends would want it to go, so perhaps I better throw them a bone, which he didn't just throw them a bone, he threw them the whole rib-eye and said: Even though we got 500 pages documented of the most ridiculous, outrageous prejudice and bias, and even though every investigation ended up with a conclusion that was totally consistent with all the bigotry and bias and prejudice, I find that there was no relationship between the outrageous prejudice and the conclusion to the cases coming out exactly consistent with the bias.

It was ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

So he showed us that he was not capable of giving us a proper conclusion in the first Horowitz inspector general report. So I would just encourage people, don't get your hopes up that he is going to man up and do the right thing, or woman up, whichever you prefer, in the next Horowitz IG report. I hope he does. I pray he does do the right thing. But that remains to be seen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I met Ross Perot while I was a student at Texas A&M. He was very much involved in activities at the Memorial Student Center, and he came more than once.

I owed the Army 4 years for the scholarship I was using at the time, and I got to meet this guy that had gone to the Naval Academy, served his country, and loved this country. Nobody could rival the love he had for the United States of America.

He was willing to lay down his life, if called upon to do it, for his country. But then, again, Ross Perot was willing to give everything he had for anything that he felt should be done.

Having grown up in the town of Mount Pleasant just down the road from Texarkana and New Boston, I heard about him for years before I met him in college. He was a legend even then, even though EDS had not grown to nearly the heights that it would under his leadership.

But everything that he was involved in, whether it was charitable, whether it was business, he demanded truth. He demanded the best that anyone could give, and hearing from so many people who worked for him, he rewarded truth, he rewarded hard work, and he has a lot to show for it.

They say, we are told in scripture that where your heart is, there your treasure will be. It is really uplifting to see a man who has been able to store up treasure without a dollar value, and, yet, has done so well in business. His son, Ross Jr., has been a friend, has been helpful, and I know we all grieve for the family.

But as a family of believers, I know that we will all get to see him some day. The question to me is: In heaven, will we all have the same accent? It would be a shame to lose his. I hope we still get to hear that same sound.

But some were--and I was one of them in 1992--wondering about him running for President. But you ultimately realize, this man has never changed. Truth means everything to him. Not harming the country that he loved, and he served was uppermost in his mind. It never went away. That is why he did so much for soldiers, sailors, marines, and the Coast Guard. He would do anything for those serving our country, including invest massive amounts to try to free POWs.

He was an extraordinary man, and if he saw somebod was not being as truthful as he thought they should be, then he was going to get involved.

He was a man that will be sorely missed, but what a legacy, what a history, and what a love for God and this country that we miss already.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, July 15, 2019, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Chairman, I know my friend from Maryland to be a very smart person.

But I also know, I was around when--and I had a 4-year Army commitment--when we went from draft to having all-volunteer. And I said back at the time, well, this means we are going to have to spend a lot of money recruiting, encouraging people, advertising to get people to join the military.

In recent years, there has been so much anti-American sentiment, and polls are showing that it has been rising, that that does have an effect on recruiting.

I was out there, it was a fantastic--it rained. That brought the temperature down, but it was fantastic. And I have already heard about two young people who said, I saw that on television. I was thinking about the military. I am now not thinking about it; I am joining.

Now, just so you know--let's see, we spend, between the Army Active Duty and the Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Air Force Active Duty, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, Navy Active Duty, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Active Duty and Marine Corps Reserve, actually $662 million in 2015, but only $574 million in 2017. So it had been down from where it was in 2015. But this costs the military, it is projected around $1.2 million.

I cannot imagine a more effective use of that money for showing people what they can be a part of if they join in the defense of this country.

And, heck, when I was in the Army for 4 years, we had displays, Congressmen, Senators, they would show up, and we would have a parade for them.

It seems kind of ridiculous to say we hate this President so badly, any Member of Congress, any Senator, you can go have a parade for you, but not the President. The President can't call up and say I am coming down; how about a parade; because under the language the gentleman has read, he can't ask for anything like that.

He is the Commander in Chief of all of the military; and even in Washington's day, it was a good thing for the President to have a parade, to encourage people to build up American, pro-American sentiment.

So it is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. This was money well- spent. I can't imagine a better use of military funding. And the Park Services Director said, it was a boon for them. So it was a good use, and I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment.